CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON THE MISSILE STRIKES ON SYRIA ON 14 APRIL

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard statements on the missile strikes by the United States, the United Kingdom and France on Syria on 14 April.

Syria said hoped that its upcoming presidency of the Conference on Disarmament would contribute to this body’s success. The tripartite aggression against Syria had confirmed that the States that had carried it out did not take into account international law, although they were members of the Security Council. The pretext of the use of chemical weapons by Syria was used as a pretext for the attack on Syria. These were allegations and lies.

The United States said it would not go into details about Syria and chemical weapons as they had done so last week. The regime’s use of chemical weapons against its people was not in dispute. The United States had tried using economic and political tools to stop the regime’s attacks against its own people, because that was an attack on international security. Because chemical attacks by the regime were a repeated manner, Syria did not have the legitimacy or the moral or political authority to preside over this august body.

France firmly refuted all of the comments just delivered by Syria. In order to verify the facts, France urged delegations to refer to the statements made last week. France regretted that this quasi presidential platform was used to make statements of this nature and to accuse France of various accusations, including that it was weakening international law and threatening global peace and security. As the United States said, Syria did not have the moral or political authority to preside over the Conference.

The United Kingdom refuted all the comments made by Syria. Last week, the United Kingdom had set out the logical basis and rationale for the strikes on Syria. It was not the United Kingdom, the United States and France that were in breach of international law, it was the Syrian regime which had attacked its own people with chemical weapons. Syria did not have the moral or political authority to make this statement from the presidential podium.

The Russian Federation recalled the rocket attacks by the United States following events in Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017, the attacks by the United States, the United Kingdom and France following events in Douma on 14 April 2018, and the accusations made by the United Kingdom claiming Russia was responsible for the nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter, all actions and accusations made in the absence of comprehensive investigations. It said no actions or suspicion of actions could justify unlawful responses.

At the end of the meeting, Sabrina Dallafior, Permanent Representative of Switzerland and President of the Conference, said that the Swiss presidency of the Conference would come to a close at the end of the week. She noted that the establishment of the subsidiary bodies had only been an initial step and constituted a pragmatic way forward. Drawing up the programme of work remained the permanent task of any Conference on Disarmament presidency. In the current fluid situation, it was her assessment that conditions had not changed and were not met for a programme of work to be adopted by the Conference at this stage. She said the next plenary of the Conference would be held on Tuesday, 29 May at 10 a.m. under the presidency of Syria.

Statements

Syria said it hoped that Syria’s upcoming presidency of the Conference on Disarmament would contribute to this body’s success. Last week, two members of the Conference had made statements on the tripartite attack targeting some sites in Damascus and other areas. Syria wished to clarify some points. This tripartite aggression had confirmed that the States that had carried it out did not take into account international law, although they were members of the Security Council. This flagrant aggression was a threat to international peace and security and led to increasing tensions in the region and concern about the use of force in international relations. It undermined international law and the United Nations Charter.

Syria was disappointed that the British and French delegations had used the Conference to justify the aggression. The pretext of the use of chemical weapons by Syria was used as a pretext for the attack on Syria. These were allegations and lies as the Syrian armed forces were fighting terrorist groups. Last week, the two delegations had made statements that were far from evidence, referring to videos by the White Helmets which had published fallacious reports on the incidents. These States were complicit and had orchestrated the event as they had attacked before the investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had been held.

The use of force against a sovereign State was a violation of international law. Syria had reaffirmed many times that it condemned the use of chemical weapons at any time or any place. Syria had stated that it did not possess chemical weapons. The Syrian chemical arsenal had been dismantled in 2013 and this had been verified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Syria refuted what was alleged that the positions targeted and destroyed were part of its chemical weapons programme. One of the positions which was destroyed was a scientific and teaching facility which had been checked twice by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons last year. Achieving the objectives of the Convention on Chemical Weapons could not be done through attempts to exploit if for false objectives to serve the limited interests of a handful of States, and seeking to promote political considerations was to refuse to take into account the dangers that arose from the position of terrorists. Some countries used double standards, without taking into account the real dangers threatening the world. It was important to uphold true dialogue. The Conference on Disarmament must not be used to manipulate the facts in order to hide the failure of some.

United States, responding to the remarks by the Assad regime, said he would not go into details about Syria and chemical weapons as they had done so last week. The regime’s use of chemical weapons against its people was not in dispute. The United States had tried using economic and political tools to stop the regime’s attacks against its own people, because that was an attack on international security. But they all knew the truth. Because chemical attacks by the regime were a repeated manner, Syria did not have the legitimacy or the moral or political authority to preside over this august body.

France, in a right of reply in response to the delegate from Syria, firmly refuted all of the comments just delivered by Syria. In order to verify the facts, France urged delegations to refer to the statements made last week. France regretted that this quasi presidential platform was used to make statements of this nature and to accuse France of various accusations, including that it was weakening international law and threatening global peace and security. France contributed to international peace and security. It was not undermining international law but contributed to strengthen it. Where international law was violated, the perpetrators must be prosecuted. As the United States said, Syria did not have the moral or political authority to preside over the Conference. Since the start of the conflict in Syria, more than 400,000 had been killed and millions had been displaced. Syria was not well placed to give any lessons.

United Kingdom, responding to the remarks by Syria, refuted all the comments made by Syria. Last week, the United Kingdom had set out the logical basis and rationale for the strikes on Syria. It was not the United Kingdom, the United States and France that were in breach of international law, it was the Syrian regime which had attacked its own people with chemical weapons. Syria did not have the moral or political authority to make this statement from the presidential podium.

Syria said it wished to clarify that it did not intend to use the presidential podium to launch any political campaign. Syria was engaging in its sovereign right to refute allegations launched repeatedly against it in the Council Chamber. To allow such lies to continue to spread simply prepared the ground for further attacks on Syria, attacks which broke international lawfulness. Syria was aware of its responsibilities as it approached the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and it would not make use of this platform. It hoped others would equally respect this forum and abstain from introducing politicized issues into its discussions.

Colleagues from the United Kingdom believed that “the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons is incontrovertible”. This was not true as shown by the deliberations in The Hague and the Security Council. Who had given these countries a mandate to act unilaterally without a Security Council mandate. Who allowed them to implement their decisions in such a way. What they had done was an aggression in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. These States were not well placed to give lessons on objectivity and to speak about objective investigations. Why had they launched their military attack against Syria at the moment when the members of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team were on their way to Damascus to establish the facts? Why didn’t they wait for the investigation? This had happened last year as well. Syria was committed to abide by all its contractual obligations under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Chemical Weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons must be allowed to do its work without any political interference.

Russian Federation recalled the events in Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017, which had been followed by rocket attacks on 7 April by the United States on the base where it was claimed that the plane that had dropped the bombs had left from. The preliminary conclusions of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had only been made on 20 April, two weeks after the attack, and had only identified the type of toxin. The final conclusions had been delivered only on 26 October. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite being offered security guarantees by Syria, had refused to go to the air base where the plane had supposedly left from, and when they did finally go, they had refused to take samples. How then could they talk of comprehensive investigations. Following Douma this year, right away the United States, Britain and France had blamed the Syrian Government and on 14 April certain facilities were attacked in Syria after it was claimed that they had been used in relation to chemical weapons, a day before the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons started. These were facts that could not be challenged. These incidents had been announced by the White Helmets, and there was no need to explain whose logic that group followed. Nobody had waited for the conclusion of the investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, either concerning Khan Sheikhoun or Douma.

Russia pointed out that in Douma, there were warnings on 6 April that members of terrorist groups were preparing attacks using chemical weapons on the regions under their control. He was mentioning this because each time, they were seeing exactly the same pattern, this was not a one-off.

Another example was the case of Mr. Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. On 12 May Theresa May had said that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were attacked and the Russian Ambassador was given an ultimatum. On 14 March, Theresa May had accused Russia of trying to kill them and had expelled 23 Russian diplomats. The United Kingdom had accused Russia in the Security Council of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention, but this was done without proof. The same claims were made by the European Union. The mechanisms of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had not been used and it had been brought in only to confirm the conclusions reached by a laboratory in the United Kingdom. The only conclusion made by the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was the type of substance used, but the possible origin of the substance was not shown. These were the facts. Russia had sought objective investigations from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons several times. No actions or suspicion of actions could justify unlawful responses. It was not possible to follow the international legal system if you violated it yourself.

United States, responding to his colleague from Russia, said that Russian allegations against the White Helmets were shameful. Russia stood against every effort by the United States and its partners to ensure accountability. The United States urged Russia to end its blind support of the Syrian regime. The Syrian presidency of the Conference would demean this body and it should not happen.

France said that Russia wanted to sow the seeds of doubt and to distort the reality. France did not wish to go into the details. Missions to establish the facts and events had been carried out. France had published evaluations concerning the Khan Sheikhoun attack last year and the east Ghouta attack on 6 April, and they left no doubt at all. France rejected the distortion of facts and counter truths used by the Russian Federation. Syria should not use this podium as a platform or a tool to accuse the three countries of violating international law in order to shrug off its own responsibility.

United Kingdom said that Russia had said it was talking about facts. A Russian military grade nerve agent, used in the attack, which could only have been made in Russia, made the United Kingdom believe that it was Russia, and Russia was trying to muddy the waters. The United Kingdom refuted what Russia had said and asked it to use the facts.

Syria refuted attempts to manipulate the issue of Syria’s presidency of the Conference. The Conference would not be politicized by the Syrian presidency but by mechanisms adopted in other fora for many years which undermined the Conference. Those who sought to justify the aggression in Syria were trying to muddy the waters. The intelligence agencies of certain countries had come to conclusions based on investigations that were not honest. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had refused to go to Khan Sheikhoun because it was under the control of a terrorist group. How then did the French intelligence get into an area under the control of terrorists? These allegations did not stand up in the face of mere common sense. What interest could Syria have in carrying out those attacks?

Russian Federation said it was not accusing anyone nor justifying anyone but was only listing the facts. Another fact was that the experts from the United States and France had had the possibility of investigating in Douma and had not taken it up, preferring to use rocket diplomacy. Also, the United States Government financed the White Helmets and it had good reasons for that. The Russian Federation did not support discussions in the Conference on Disarmament that did not fall under its remit. As for the Salisbury attack, Western media had begun to publish information that was contrary to the position of the British Government. Also, there was a laboratory in the United States that regularly published information on toxins and some 20 years ago had published information on the formula of the nerve agent used.

United States wished to make it clear again to Russia that gross violations by countries which were parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention were relevant to the Conference, which had negotiated the Convention.

France said from what he understood from Syria, it had mentioned the French intelligence service and collusion between terrorist organizations and France. He hoped he had misunderstood. France rejected such suggestions. France did not support terrorism, it combatted it.

SABRINA DALLAFIOR, Permanent Representative of Switzerland and President of the Conference, said that the Swiss presidency of the Conference would come to a close at the end of the week and today’s plenary was the last meeting under her direction. She noted that the establishment of the subsidiary bodies had only been an initial step. This decision had drawn the attention of the wider disarmament community and raised expectations. The subsidiary bodies would not enable the Conference to overcome instantly or rapidly its long-standing stalemate. However, the mandate that the Conference had adopted to identify commonalities, take forward technical discussions and consider measures not limited to legally binding instruments constituted a pragmatic way forward. It provided the possibility for the Conference on Disarmament to take steps forward, even if of a limited nature. It opened also the possibility for the Conference to explore potential new avenues in order to revitalize its work. Accordingly, subsidiary bodies should be an important if not the key focus of their collective attention going forward and until they concluded their work in August.

Ms. Dallafior welcomed that the exchanges in the subsidiary bodies had been substantial and interactive. For these bodies to succeed, it would be important that they were able to come to some conclusions. This remained an important challenge that they had to meet collectively. Drawing up the programme of work remained the permanent task of any Conference on Disarmament presidency. In the current fluid situation, it was her assessment that conditions had not changed and were not met for a programme of work to be adopted by the Conference at this stage. She had also come to the conclusion that presenting a programme of work that would not be met by consensus would not contribute to taking the Conference forward. She hoped that the subsidiary bodies would contribute to facilitating the adoption of a programme of work.


The next plenary of the Conference would be held on Tuesday 29 May at 10 a.m. under the presidency of Syria.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC18/026E