American hegemony logic:”There is evidence to fight. If there is no evidence, then create evidence!”
Foreign Ministry spokesperson responded to the news on the 13th:The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons recently passed a draft decision on Syria’s chemical weapons issue, saying that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in northern Syria in March 2017, demanding that Syria The government resolved the relevant issues within 90 days.
For this, spokesperson Hua Chunying said that China voted against the draft decision. China has serious concerns about the content of the draft decision and the practice of some countries forcibly promoting voting without full consultation.
△Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying
The above draft decision is based on the report submitted by the OPCW’s “investigation and identification team” in April this year. The report said that the Syrian Air Force carried out terrorist attacks on Hama province using chlorine gas bombs and sarin gas bombs. At that time, the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the information about the report was forged. The Russian Foreign Ministry also pointed out that the report was manipulated by Western countries and written under its political pressure.
So, how do some countries allow the OPCW to make some non-independent, even false reports? Let me talk to you about the previous event.
△U.S. warship launches missiles from the Mediterranean to Syria
On April 7, 2018, the Syrian capital Damascus The town of Duma in the East Guta area reportedly suffered a”chemical attack” again. Western countries such as the United States and Britain immediately determined that they were”performed by the Syrian government forces” and began air strikes on Syrian targets without any evidence.
On April 21 and 25 of the same year, the OPCW investigation team entered the Duma twice to investigate. The report released afterwards believed that there are “reasonable reasons to believe that an attack using toxic chemicals as weapons occurred on April 7, 2018”.
But what is the truth of this investigation? In 2019, the”WikiLeaks” website successively disclosed some internal documents of the OPCW and the testimony of several members of the organization, showing that there was a large amount of”exclusion and falsification of evidence” in the”Duma Town Chemical Attack Investigation”.
Reuters reported that some exposed internal emails revealed that investigators reported that the OPCW’s investigation result report was “edited” at that time, making the report look more than the actual investigation.”conclusive”.
△Ian Henderson, the former head of the OPCW’s investigation team, was unable to obtain a US visa and testified in the Security Council via video.
Ian Henderson, the former head of the OPCW’s investigation team, also testified in the UN Security Council in January that their investigation in the Duma in Syria showed that no chemical weapons attacks occurred there, but The OPCW’s management rejected the team’s scientific investigation, disbanded the team, and published another report that contradicted their initial findings.
Ian Henderson said that the two cylinders found at the scene were more likely to be placed there than they were (from the Syrian Air Force, as the West identified them) dropped from the air. He conducted a six-month engineering and ballistic study on the relevant gas cylinders, further supporting the view that it was not a chemical attack.
The “gray zone” of the US investigative reporting website in January this year directly pointed out the pressure of the US on the investigation of the OPCW. The website reported that in November 2019, the OPCW’s whistleblower came forward and accused the organization’s leadership of suppressing some of the Duma town’s chemical attack investigations under pressure from three U.S. government officials. Evidence of unfavorable conclusion of”chemical weapons attack”.
△Report from the “gray zone” of the U.S. investigative reporting site
Speaking of the U.S. “pressure” on the OPCW to carry out military strikes on Middle Eastern countries, Syria is not First.
On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush Bush government threatened the first director-general of the OPCW Jose Bustani.
The New York Times reported that in 2002, just before the US government prepared to launch a war against Iraq, Bustani and the Iraqi government reached an agreement to allow OPCW inspectors to enter the country. Weapon verification. But this move angered the US government because conducting chemical weapons inspections in Iraq would conflict with the reason for the US invasion of Iraq-“The Iraqi government has weapons of mass destruction”.
In order to keep the United States falsely accused of Iraq’s false invasion, then-Secretary of State John Bolton threatened Bustani:”You have 24 hours to leave the organization if you do not comply with the United States Decision, we can take revenge… We know where your child lives.”
Bustany did not resign because of threats from US officials, but in the end the US called its allies and voted to vote Bustani recalled.
So you see, the U.S. government treats the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, with”no investigation allowed” to invade Iraq in the front, and”investigation by script” followed by air strikes in Syria. All the pressure has only one purpose:the country that the United States wants to fight,”There is evidence to fight. If there is no evidence, then create evidence!”
Written by Global Information Wang Kunpeng
Editor丨Li Lincheng Cheng
signature review丨Liu Yiyao