Niemandsbucht (talk | contribs) Link to the assessment by the WGSPM |
92.3.3.67 (talk) |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
: Here is the [http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/assessment-by-the-engineering-sub-team-of-the-opcw-fact-finding-mission-investigating-the-alleged-chemical-attack-in-douma-in-april-2018 assessment of the sub-team's report], which was leaked by a whistleblower to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media. [[User:Niemandsbucht|Niemandsbucht]] ([[User talk:Niemandsbucht|talk]]) 09:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC) |
: Here is the [http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/assessment-by-the-engineering-sub-team-of-the-opcw-fact-finding-mission-investigating-the-alleged-chemical-attack-in-douma-in-april-2018 assessment of the sub-team's report], which was leaked by a whistleblower to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media. [[User:Niemandsbucht|Niemandsbucht]] ([[User talk:Niemandsbucht|talk]]) 09:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
:: And, again, here is the responsePer standard practice, |
|||
'the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. '''All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.''' |
|||
'''On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.''' |
|||
Unless RS , sources other than the 'propaganda group for absolving Russia and Syria of all responsibility for CW attacks on Syria and in Salisbury' report this , and unless and until the OPCW decide to overturn the conclusions of their final report, this seems not to have been regarded as a significant development in RS [[Special:Contributions/92.3.3.67|92.3.3.67]] ([[User talk:92.3.3.67|talk]]) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:34, 18 May 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OPCW power to assign blame
'In June 2018 82 states voted in favour of a resolution giving the OPCW the mandate to place blame, 24 states voted against. This is a list of OPCW member states which voted against giving OPCW mandate to assign blame to the party responsible for using chemical warfare: Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam.'
Russian officials said the change will undermine the organization and threaten its future [1]
In February 2019 Russia stated it is not willing to fund the establishment of OPCW attribution mechanism. Russia stated it is not willing to fund the establishment of OPCW attribution mechanism
Following the Decision on “Addressing the threat from chemical weapons use”, adopted by the Conference of the States Parties at its Special Session in June 2018, the Technical Secretariat is putting in place arrangements to identify the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic. opcw march 2019 issues report 78.144.92.69 (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
External links above References?
Is there some good reason this article isn't following the standard MOS ordering for appendices? -- Kendrick7talk 14:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Ian Henderson / OPCW report
In case Ian Hendersons opinion is presented as an OPCW finding, leaked document revives controversy 'The experts’ analysis — indicating that the cylinders could have been dropped from the air — was eventually presented in the FFM’s final report, published on 1 March. On 27 February — just two days before the final FFM report was published — Henderson handed in his own report offering contrary conclusions. Exactly how the FFM reacted on receiving it at such a late stage is still to be revealed, but they clearly didn’t see fit to hold back the report in order to incorporate Henderson’s findings. (Brian Whitaker)
'On 16 May, in response to media enquiries the OPCW issued the following statement:
'The OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which was set up in 2014. The OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its findings. The FFM takes into account all available, relevant, and reliable information and analysis within the scope of its mandate to determine its findings. Per standard practice, the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.
On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.
Per OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety, and security of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat Pursuant to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in question. At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.
And...here we go russia presents un measure rein chemical weapons watchdog92.3.3.67 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here is the assessment of the sub-team's report, which was leaked by a whistleblower to the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda, and Media. Niemandsbucht (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- And, again, here is the responsePer standard practice,
'the FFM draws expertise from different divisions across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.
On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident, signed by the Director-General.
Unless RS , sources other than the 'propaganda group for absolving Russia and Syria of all responsibility for CW attacks on Syria and in Salisbury' report this , and unless and until the OPCW decide to overturn the conclusions of their final report, this seems not to have been regarded as a significant development in RS 92.3.3.67 (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)