UN weapons inspectors arrive at the headquarters of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, The Netherlands, yesterday.
AMSTERDAM: Fully assessing the evidence collected by weapons inspectors investigating last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria could take up to three weeks, the organisation in charge of the investigation said yesterday.
The team, which included nine experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and three from the World Health Organisation, arrived at the OPCW’s Hague headquarters yesterday evening after leaving Syria early in the morning.
“The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognised procedures and standards,” the OPCW said in a statement. “These procedures may take up to three weeks.”
The 20-member team, including experts from OPCW, have been into the rebel-held areas in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus three times, taking blood and tissue samples from victims. They also took samples of soil, clothing and rocket fragments. They will be sent to laboratories in Europe, most likely Sweden or Finland, for analysis. The experts have already been testing for sarin, mustard gas and other toxic agents.
The United Nations vowed to give an “impartial and credible” assessment on whether chemical arms were used in Syria. But UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said no conclusion can be given on whether banned poison gas had been unleashed in Syria until laboratory tests are completed.
Nesirky also said it was “grotesque” to believe that the departure of UN weapons experts from Syria had opened up a possible window for a missile strike against President Bashar Al Assad’s forces. UN disarmament envoy Angela Kane briefed UN leader Ban Ki-moon on the mission in New York yesterday.
The UN inspectors have a mandate to report on whether banned chemical weapons have been used in the 29-month-old war in Syria — particularly during an August 21 attack on an opposition area near Damascus — but not to say who carried it out.
Following criticism of the UN investigation mission, Nesirky said: “The United Nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible manner the facts of any use of chemical weapons.”
Kane told Ban that the UN inspectors were “able to conduct a wide range of fact finding activities,” Nesirky told reporters. The inspectors have taken the samples to The Hague and they will be moved to two laboratories in Europe, Nesirky said.
Ban will speak to the chief inspector, Ake Sellstrom, by telephone today. But Nesirky said “before the mission can draw any conclusions on this incident the laboratory process must be completed.” Ban said “whatever can be done to speed up the process is being done,” according to Nesirky.
According to diplomats, Ban told ambassadors from Britain, France, the United States, China and Russia on Friday that the team would need two weeks to complete a first analysis.
The United Nations still has more than 1,000 international and national staff in Syria and Nesirky said the world body was looking at which staff need to stay there.
But he said it was “grotesque” how some analysts had declared that the departure of the UN inspectors had opened up the possibility of a US military strike. “It’s also an affront to the more 1,000 UN staff who are on the ground in Syria delivering humanitarian aid and who will continue to deliver critical aid,” he said.
He also responded to US Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks on Friday that the UN chemical weapons experts cannot provide any information that the United States does not already have. “The United Nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible manner the facts of any use of chemical weapons based directly on evidence collected on the ground,” he said.
UN officials say the world body’s findings will be important because they will be widely seen as irrefutable, in contrast to doubts that arise with intelligence in light of the erroneous information on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs that was used to justify the 2003 invasion.
Nesirky was asked why the United Nations does not expand the mandate to include naming those responsible for any chemical attacks. “The mandate is the mandate. The team and the secretary-general will abide by that mandate,” he said.
“The mandate is robust and provides for the United Nations to be able to provide for, in an impartial and credible manner, a picture of what happened.”
He added that the mandate was derived from a UN General Assembly resolution. “Let’s not forget that these are scientists, technical and medical experts who braved sniper fire to go to collect samples and to interview witnesses and survivors,” he said.
Agencies
