* The director general of OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, is the appointee of Turkey, a country which actively supports the Syrian opposition and has pushed for a No Fly Zone. Given that Uzumcu is a political appointee of a state directly involved in the conflict, he has a potential conflict of interest: he might advance his own career and please the Turkish government by making the Syrian government look bad.
Those calling for transparency from the OPCW are not attempting to destroy the OPCW, on the contrary they have all expressed a desire to restore credibility to the organisation. The OPCW is a global security agency, it has now been afforded the mandate to attribute blame, a move supported primarily by the FUKUS alliance. Effectively this means the OPCW might be responsible for military intervention against another nation deemed to have used chemical weapons. How will the world be reassured that the report is not doctored as the OPCW has clearly falsified the Douma report according to its own senior inspectors? The future of global security hangs in the balance and airing concerns and respecting the opinions of experts in their field is the only way forward.
The OPCW’s joining the poison cocktail party this week is just another blow to that organisation’s credibility. The 193-nation body has since its inception in 1997 devolved into serving as a propaganda tool for the United States and its NATO allies. Remember its first director José Bustani – a man of principle – was ousted in 2002 under pressure from the US because he would not go along with false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ever since, the OCPW has become a shameless conduit for Western powers.
n an extraordinary effort by the UK, US, and their allies to censor the former OPCW director general, José Bustani was not allowed to brief the UN Security Council on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, in 2018. Bustani had been invited by Moscow to give his opinion on the “Syrian chemical dossier”…
The evidence of fraud in the published report of the Douma investigation means that all other published reports from FFM Team Alpha, including the FFM reports on the alleged chlorine attacks in 2015 and the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun in 2017, must also be disregarded as unreliable and possibly fraudulent.
The UK, France and the US have stone-walled the emerging engineering and scientific reports produced by serious experts in their field, members of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) team. Instead, NATO-aligned & sponsored blogs like Bellingcat have been instructed to counter the mounting evidence of the OPCW dereliction of duty while compromised media ensure the public is kept in the dark about the shifting narrative landscape.
The reason for the meeting was that western states in the Security Council refused to hold a formal meeting to hear very important views and recent developments in the so-called chemical dossier in the light of the statements of international expert Ian Henderson of Australian nationality, a member of the Fact-finding Commission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who went to Douma to investigate the false allegation regarding the use of chemical weapons in Douma.
The Douma alleged “chemical weapon” furore has thrown the Syria narrative managers in Western corporate media into disarray. Their default defence mechanism has been to circle their wagons around the Syria “WMD” propaganda which has been instrumental in vilifying the Syrian government and allies.
Last month, two conferences were scheduled in Montreal as part of Vanessa Beeley’s Canadian tour. As soon as they were announced, the speaker was subjected to volleys of invective, insults and slander from the proponents of the official narrative on Syria.
The thought has occurred to me that since my views on Syria and the White Helmets are identical to those of Beeley, suppose I proposed to give a talk at a Canadian university or public library. Would I, as a retired professor and senior scholar, be blocked in the way that Beeley was? Given the precedent of what happened to her, why should I be treated any differently?