World's toxic arms watchdog on Monday warned that the threat stemming from weapons of mass destruction, including chemical ammunition has increased, thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Fernando Arias, chief of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that his organisation has been closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine and that the ongoing conflict "exacerbated existing tensions" and that it has "increased the real threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons".

Watch |&nbsp;Zelensky warns Ukraine of more Russian strikes as fighting rages in Donetsk region

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/zelensky-warns-ukraine-of-more-russian-strikes-as-fighting-rages-in-donetsk-region-538209/embed" width="560"></iframe>

Speaking at the regulator's annual meeting in Hague, he said, "the situation in Ukraine has again increased the real threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons".

"It has exacerbated existing tensions to a point where the unity of the international community on common global challenges related to international security and peace cannot be presumed," he said.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/meta-fined-276-million-by-irelands-privacy-watchdog-over-leaked-user-data-538272">Ukraine provides proof to back its claims of fresh Russian attacks on its energy infrastructure</a>

He remarked that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning international bodies of disarmament like OPCW have now "become places for confrontation and disagreement".

Since the start of this conflict, the two warring nations have frequently traded barbs and accusations over the alleged use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.&nbsp;

While there has been no evidence to prove that biological or chemical weapons have been used Arias reminded Kyiv and Moscow that they were among 193 nations which have "solemnly and voluntarily committed never under any circumstances to... use chemical weapons".

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-production-of-drones-capable-of-dispersing-protesters-to-start-in-2023-538215">Russia: Production of drones capable of dispersing protesters to start in 2023</a>

He disclosed that at Ukraine's request his organisation has provided the nation training for first responders in case of a chemical attack and for the detection of chemical leaks.

Arias also called out Russian ally Syria over its "serious failure to comply" with the watchdog. The OPCW chief revealed that Damascus has denied the regulator's inspectors visa.

Russia has previously faced allegations of the use of chemical weapons. In 2018 Moscow was accused of using its infamous Novichok nerve agent on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the English city of Salisbury and in 2020 it faced allegations of the use of the same agent on Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

World's toxic arms watchdog on Monday warned that the threat stemming from weapons of mass destruction, including chemical ammunition has increased, thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

World's toxic arms watchdog on Monday warned that the threat stemming from weapons of mass destruction, including chemical ammunition has increased, thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Fernando Arias, chief of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that his organisation has been closely monitoring the situation in Ukraine and that the ongoing conflict "exacerbated existing tensions" and that it has "increased the real threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons". Watch | Zelensky warns Ukraine of more Russian strikes as fighting rages in Donetsk region Speaking at the regulator's annual meeting in Hague, he said, "the situation in Ukraine has again increased the real threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons". "It has exacerbated existing tensions to a point where the unity of the international community on common global challenges related to international security and peace cannot be presumed," he said. Also read | Ukraine provides proof to back its claims of fresh Russian attacks on its energy infrastructure He remarked that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning international bodies of disarmament like OPCW have now "become places for confrontation and disagreement". Since the start of this conflict, the two warring nations have frequently traded barbs and accusations over the alleged use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. While there has been no evidence to prove that biological or chemical weapons have been used Arias reminded Kyiv and Moscow that they were among 193 nations which have "solemnly and voluntarily committed never under any circumstances to... use chemical weapons". Also read | Russia: Production of drones capable of dispersing protesters to start in 2023 He disclosed that at Ukraine's request his organisation has provided the nation training for first responders in case of a chemical attack and for the detection of chemical leaks. Arias also called out Russian ally Syria over its "serious failure to comply" with the watchdog. The OPCW chief revealed that Damascus has denied the regulator's inspectors visa. Russia has previously faced allegations of the use of chemical weapons. In 2018 Moscow was accused of using its infamous Novichok nerve agent on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in the English city of Salisbury and in 2020 it faced allegations of the use of the same agent on Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Ukraine-Russia war escalated the real threat of chemical weapons, warns global toxic arms watchdog

New allegations the Syrian government is using chemical weapons must be looked into, the French foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

The US State Department on Tuesday said it saw signs that the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack on Sunday in northwest Syria.

"We have noted with a degree of alarm these allegations, which need to be looked into," the foreign ministry said in an online press briefing.

"We have full confidence in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," it added.

New allegations the Syrian government is using chemical weapons must be looked into, the French foreign ministry said on Wednesday. The US State Department on Tuesday said it saw signs that the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack on Sunday in northwest Syria.

New allegations the Syrian government is using chemical weapons must be looked into, the French foreign ministry said on Wednesday. The US State Department on Tuesday said it saw signs that the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons, including an alleged chlorine attack on Sunday in northwest Syria. "We have noted with a degree of alarm these allegations, which need to be looked into," the foreign ministry said in an online press briefing. "We have full confidence in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," it added.

Allegations of chemical weapon use in Syria must be examined: France

France said on Saturday that it would not hesitate to strike Syrian government targets again if the chemical red line was crossed, but that no new strikes were planned at this stage, adding that it would renew a push for peace through dialogue with Russia.

President Emmanuel Macron ordered the military intervention in Syria alongside the United States and Britain in response to a poison gas attack that killed dozens of people last week.

"Our objectives were met," Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told BFM TV.

If the red line banning the use of chemical weapons was crossed again, there would be another intervention, he said, while adding: "I think the lesson will have been learnt."

The French strikes, involving 12 cruise missiles, fighter jets and warships, were Macron's first major military decision since taking office a year ago and was all but inevitable after the young president repeatedly said France would strike if a fatal chemical attack took place in Syria.

"This action was proportionate and targeted, it was not aimed at (Syrian President Bashar al) Assad's allies nor at the civilian population," Le Drian said in a televised statement.

Le Drian said France, which has backed opponents of Assad throughout the civil war, would swiftly take new political initiatives to find a solution to the crisis.

He added that Paris would work with all countries and that there were no changes to Macron's planned trip to Russia next month.

While there had been general public warnings broadcast by U.S. President Donald Trump, Macron himself and other Western leaders, a French presidency source said Macron did not tell Russian President Vladimir Putin the allies would strike overnight when they talked over the phone on Friday.

However, regular "deconfliction" contacts were made with the Russian military once the operation had been kicked off to make sure that they would not be accidentally hit, the source said.

Defence Minister Florence Parly said this meant Russia had been "warned beforehand" to avoid any confrontation or escalation.

The French presidency issued a video on Twitter showing what it said were war planes taking off as part of the intervention.

Macron said in a written statement that the attack had been limited to Syria's chemical weapons facilities and said the facts and the responsibility of the Syrian regime were beyond doubt.

Backing up its reasons for the air strikes, the foreign ministry released an intelligence report based largely on open sources which concluded that there was no other plausible explanation than a chemical attacked coordinated by the Syrian military.

The report said that for now France did not have chemical samples from the attack site analysed by its own laboratories yet.

Macron, who tweeted a picture of himself in a meeting room with military and diplomatic advisers, has not made any address to the nation. He is due to be interviewed by three French media on Sunday night.

The French air force has been active in Syria since 2015 to fight Islamic State, but had not targeted government targets until now.

The British say

Britain had no alternative but to take military action to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capability, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Saturday after ordering <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-uk-and-france-hit-syria-with-airstrikes-target-military-chemical-weapons-sites-130352">air-launched cruise missile strikes</a> along with the United States and France.

Four Royal Air Force Tornado jets from the Akrotiri base in Cyprus fired Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility near Homs where it was assessed that Syria had stockpiled chemicals, Britain's Ministry of Defence said.

May cast the strike as "limited and targeted" and came after intelligence indicated Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government was responsible for an attack using chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Douma a week ago.&nbsp;

May said the missile strike, designed to minimise civilian casualties, was aimed at deterring further use of chemical weapons and was not an attempt to topple the Syrian government.

"This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change," May said in statement made from her country residence at Chequers just minutes after US President Donald Trump announced the strikes from the White House.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said the mission had been highly successful and implied that no further action was imminent.

"We don't expect that we'll be a position where we're having to make further strikes," he told LBC radio. "We believe that the strikes we have taken last night had a significant impact in terms of what the Syrian regime can do in the future."

By launching strikes without prior approval from parliament, May dispensed with a non-binding constitutional convention dating back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She said speed was essential and that military action was in the national interest.

May, whose government is propped up by a small Northern Irish party, said Britain and the West had an obligation to deter both Assad and others from using chemical weapons after the poison gas attack in Douma near Damascus killed up to 75 people, including children, last Saturday.

However, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a fervent anti-war campaigner, called the strikes "legally questionable" and said May should have recalled parliament from a holiday and "not trailed after Donald Trump".

"Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace," he said in a statement. "Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm's way."

Britain has accused Russia of being behind last month's nerve agent attack on former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, southern England - a charge Moscow has denied.

"While this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity," May said.

"We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – within Syria, on the streets of the UK, or anywhere else in our world."

May said Britain and its allies had sought to use every diplomatic means to stop the use of chemical weapons, but had been repeatedly thwarted, citing a Russian veto of an independent investigation into the Douma attack at the U.N. Security Council this week.

"So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime," she said.

The Western missile strikes demonstrate the volatile nature of the Syrian civil war, which started in March 2011 as an anti-Assad uprising but is now a proxy conflict involving a number of world and regional powers and a myriad of insurgent groups.

Trump said he was prepared to sustain the response until the Assad government stopped its use of chemical weapons.

Russia, which intervened in the war in 2015 to back Assad, has denied there was a chemical attack and has accused Britain of helping to stage the Douma incident to stoke anti-Russian hysteria.

'Targeted strikes'

Britain's defence ministry said "very careful scientific analysis" had been applied to maximise the destruction of stockpiled chemicals while minimising any risk of contamination to surrounding areas.

Many politicians in Britain, including some in May's own Conservative Party, had called for parliament to be recalled to give authority to any military strike.

Former Prime Minister David Cameron lost a parliamentary vote on air strikes against Assad's forces in 2013 when 30 Conservative lawmakers voted against action, with many Britons wary of entering another conflict after intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya failed to bring stability to the region.

A YouGov poll for The Times newspaper this week indicated that only a fifth of voters believed that Britain should launch attacks on Syrian military targets and more than two-fifths opposed action.

Williamson said Britain had had to act swiftly and added May would update parliament when lawmakers returned on Monday.

Prime Minister Theresa May said Britain had no alternative but to take military action to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capability

France said on Saturday that it would not hesitate to strike Syrian government targets again if the chemical red line was crossed, but that no new strikes were planned at this stage, adding that it would renew a push for peace through dialogue with Russia. President Emmanuel Macron ordered the military intervention in Syria alongside the United States and Britain in response to a poison gas attack that killed dozens of people last week. "Our objectives were met," Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told BFM TV. If the red line banning the use of chemical weapons was crossed again, there would be another intervention, he said, while adding: "I think the lesson will have been learnt." The French strikes, involving 12 cruise missiles, fighter jets and warships, were Macron's first major military decision since taking office a year ago and was all but inevitable after the young president repeatedly said France would strike if a fatal chemical attack took place in Syria. "This action was proportionate and targeted, it was not aimed at (Syrian President Bashar al) Assad's allies nor at the civilian population," Le Drian said in a televised statement. Le Drian said France, which has backed opponents of Assad throughout the civil war, would swiftly take new political initiatives to find a solution to the crisis. He added that Paris would work with all countries and that there were no changes to Macron's planned trip to Russia next month. While there had been general public warnings broadcast by U.S. President Donald Trump, Macron himself and other Western leaders, a French presidency source said Macron did not tell Russian President Vladimir Putin the allies would strike overnight when they talked over the phone on Friday. However, regular "deconfliction" contacts were made with the Russian military once the operation had been kicked off to make sure that they would not be accidentally hit, the source said. Defence Minister Florence Parly said this meant Russia had been "warned beforehand" to avoid any confrontation or escalation. The French presidency issued a video on Twitter showing what it said were war planes taking off as part of the intervention. Macron said in a written statement that the attack had been limited to Syria's chemical weapons facilities and said the facts and the responsibility of the Syrian regime were beyond doubt. Backing up its reasons for the air strikes, the foreign ministry released an intelligence report based largely on open sources which concluded that there was no other plausible explanation than a chemical attacked coordinated by the Syrian military. The report said that for now France did not have chemical samples from the attack site analysed by its own laboratories yet. Macron, who tweeted a picture of himself in a meeting room with military and diplomatic advisers, has not made any address to the nation. He is due to be interviewed by three French media on Sunday night. The French air force has been active in Syria since 2015 to fight Islamic State, but had not targeted government targets until now. The British say Britain had no alternative but to take military action to degrade Syria's chemical weapons capability, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Saturday after ordering air-launched cruise missile strikes along with the United States and France. Four Royal Air Force Tornado jets from the Akrotiri base in Cyprus fired Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility near Homs where it was assessed that Syria had stockpiled chemicals, Britain's Ministry of Defence said. May cast the strike as "limited and targeted" and came after intelligence indicated Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government was responsible for an attack using chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb of Douma a week ago. May said the missile strike, designed to minimise civilian casualties, was aimed at deterring further use of chemical weapons and was not an attempt to topple the Syrian government. "This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change," May said in statement made from her country residence at Chequers just minutes after US President Donald Trump announced the strikes from the White House. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said the mission had been highly successful and implied that no further action was imminent. "We don't expect that we'll be a position where we're having to make further strikes," he told LBC radio. "We believe that the strikes we have taken last night had a significant impact in terms of what the Syrian regime can do in the future." By launching strikes without prior approval from parliament, May dispensed with a non-binding constitutional convention dating back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She said speed was essential and that military action was in the national interest. May, whose government is propped up by a small Northern Irish party, said Britain and the West had an obligation to deter both Assad and others from using chemical weapons after the poison gas attack in Douma near Damascus killed up to 75 people, including children, last Saturday. However, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a fervent anti-war campaigner, called the strikes "legally questionable" and said May should have recalled parliament from a holiday and "not trailed after Donald Trump". "Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace," he said in a statement. "Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm's way." Britain has accused Russia of being behind last month's nerve agent attack on former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, southern England - a charge Moscow has denied. "While this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity," May said. "We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – within Syria, on the streets of the UK, or anywhere else in our world." May said Britain and its allies had sought to use every diplomatic means to stop the use of chemical weapons, but had been repeatedly thwarted, citing a Russian veto of an independent investigation into the Douma attack at the U.N. Security Council this week. "So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime," she said. The Western missile strikes demonstrate the volatile nature of the Syrian civil war, which started in March 2011 as an anti-Assad uprising but is now a proxy conflict involving a number of world and regional powers and a myriad of insurgent groups. Trump said he was prepared to sustain the response until the Assad government stopped its use of chemical weapons. Russia, which intervened in the war in 2015 to back Assad, has denied there was a chemical attack and has accused Britain of helping to stage the Douma incident to stoke anti-Russian hysteria. 'Targeted strikes' Britain's defence ministry said "very careful scientific analysis" had been applied to maximise the destruction of stockpiled chemicals while minimising any risk of contamination to surrounding areas. Many politicians in Britain, including some in May's own Conservative Party, had called for parliament to be recalled to give authority to any military strike. Former Prime Minister David Cameron lost a parliamentary vote on air strikes against Assad's forces in 2013 when 30 Conservative lawmakers voted against action, with many Britons wary of entering another conflict after intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya failed to bring stability to the region. A YouGov poll for The Times newspaper this week indicated that only a fifth of voters believed that Britain should launch attacks on Syrian military targets and more than two-fifths opposed action. Williamson said Britain had had to act swiftly and added May would update parliament when lawmakers returned on Monday.

Strikes on Syria 'highly successful', says Britain; France says more possible if red line crossed

Russia and the United States have reportedly agreed to disagree over a probe into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

According to several media reports, representatives of both nations in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) blocked each other over a move to allow international investigations into chemical attacks in Syria, where a civil war has been on since 2011.

The media reports said that three draft resolutions on the chemical weapons attacks in Syria failed to get passed in a UNSC meeting.

Russia vetoed a US&nbsptext, while two Russian-drafted resolutions failed to get the minimum nine votes required for approval.

Moscow opposes any Western strike on Syria.

It vetoed UNSC action on Syria on twelve previous occasions.

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the UNSC that adopting her country's resolution was the least member nations could do.

"History will record that, on this day, Russia chose protecting a monster over the lives of the Syrian people," Haley was quoted, as saying, while referring to Syrian President Assad.

Russia's UN&nbspAmbassador Vassily Nebenzia said Washington's decision to put forward its resolution could be a prelude to a Western strike on Syria.

Meanwhile, international chemical weapons experts are expected to go to Douma to investigate a suspected poison gas attack.

The Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said Syria had been asked to make the necessary arrangements for the deployment of an investigation team.

"The team is preparing to deploy to Syria shortly," it said in a statement.

The mission will aim to determine whether banned munitions were used but will not assign blame.

European governments said they will wait for the results of the OPCW investigation and for more solid forensic evidence before taking the next step on the matter.&nbsp

Representatives of both nations in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) blocked each other over a move to allow international investigations into chemical attacks in Syria, where a civil war has been on since 2011

Russia and the United States have reportedly agreed to disagree over a probe into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. According to several media reports, representatives of both nations in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) blocked each other over a move to allow international investigations into chemical attacks in Syria, where a civil war has been on since 2011. The media reports said that three draft resolutions on the chemical weapons attacks in Syria failed to get passed in a UNSC meeting. Russia vetoed a US&nbsptext, while two Russian-drafted resolutions failed to get the minimum nine votes required for approval. Moscow opposes any Western strike on Syria. It vetoed UNSC action on Syria on twelve previous occasions. United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the UNSC that adopting her country's resolution was the least member nations could do. "History will record that, on this day, Russia chose protecting a monster over the lives of the Syrian people," Haley was quoted, as saying, while referring to Syrian President Assad. Russia's UN&nbspAmbassador Vassily Nebenzia said Washington's decision to put forward its resolution could be a prelude to a Western strike on Syria. Meanwhile, international chemical weapons experts are expected to go to Douma to investigate a suspected poison gas attack. The Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said Syria had been asked to make the necessary arrangements for the deployment of an investigation team. "The team is preparing to deploy to Syria shortly," it said in a statement. The mission will aim to determine whether banned munitions were used but will not assign blame. European governments said they will wait for the results of the OPCW investigation and for more solid forensic evidence before taking the next step on the matter.

US, Russia clash at UNSC over probing chemical attacks in Syria

Russia rejected Tuesday fresh US accusations that it bears responsibility for recent chemical attacks by the Syrian government, calling instead for a new &quot;truly impartial&quot; international investigation.

During a last-minute United Nations Security Council meeting he called, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia lashed out at American Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for having &quot;hastily accused the Syrian -- as they call it -- &#39;regime&#39;&quot; of the reported attack in Eastern Ghouta that left its victims struggling to breathe.

&quot;Now they are trying to drag Russia into this as well,&quot; Nebenzia added.

His comments came as diplomats from 29 countries met in Paris to push for sanctions and criminal charges against the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria.

Russia and China have blocked Western-backed efforts at the UN to impose sanctions on Damascus over their use.

&quot;Does it not seem strange to anybody that this episode, which has yet to be confirmed, somehow coincided with the meeting in Paris and the forthcoming conference in Sochi? This is a strange coincidence,&quot; Nebenzia added.

During the Security Council meeting, Nebenzia called again for establishing a &quot;new international investigative body which, on the basis of irrefutable information, would be able to establish evidence to identify perpetrators in the use of chemical weapons.&quot;

His plan would replace a chemical weapons panel known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism, whose mandate could not be renewed due to Russian vetoes.

Moscow is also circulating a draft resolution that would establish the new investigative body that would be &quot;truly impartial, independent, professional and credible.&quot; Russia has repeatedly contested the JIM&#39;s legitimacy.

US envoy Nikki Haley quickly indicated the Russian proposal had no chance of being adopted. The United States also holds veto power at the Security Council.

&quot;We&#39;re not going to accept any Russian proposal that undermines our ability to get to the truth or that politicizes what must be an independent and impartial investigation,&quot; she said.

&quot;If they want to work in good faith toward that goal, we are ready to re-establish the JIM, with its original independent and impartial mandate, right now. But anything less is unacceptable.&quot;

She argued that Moscow had supported the JIM as long as its investigators pointed the finger at the so-called Islamic State group, but challenged their conclusions when they blamed the Syrian regime.

&quot;That is not how independent investigations work. You don&#39;t get to question the findings when they don&rsquo;t go your way,&quot; Haley said.

Damascus has been repeatedly accused of using chemical weapons, with the United Nations among those blaming government forces for an April 2017 sarin gas attack on the opposition-held village of Khan Sheikhun that left scores dead.

There have been at least 130 separate chemical weapons attacks in Syria since 2012, according to French estimates, with the Islamic State group also accused of using mustard gas in Syria and Iraq.

A new round of peace talks is due to take place in Vienna on Thursday and Friday, while Moscow has organized negotiations in the Russian city of Sochi next week aimed at ending Syria&#39;s civil war.

Russia has called for for a new 'truly impartial' international investigation

Russia rejected Tuesday fresh US accusations that it bears responsibility for recent chemical attacks by the Syrian government, calling instead for a new "truly impartial" international investigation. During a last-minute United Nations Security Council meeting he called, Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia lashed out at American Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for having "hastily accused the Syrian -- as they call it -- 'regime'" of the reported attack in Eastern Ghouta that left its victims struggling to breathe. "Now they are trying to drag Russia into this as well," Nebenzia added. His comments came as diplomats from 29 countries met in Paris to push for sanctions and criminal charges against the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria. Russia and China have blocked Western-backed efforts at the UN to impose sanctions on Damascus over their use. "Does it not seem strange to anybody that this episode, which has yet to be confirmed, somehow coincided with the meeting in Paris and the forthcoming conference in Sochi? This is a strange coincidence," Nebenzia added. During the Security Council meeting, Nebenzia called again for establishing a "new international investigative body which, on the basis of irrefutable information, would be able to establish evidence to identify perpetrators in the use of chemical weapons." His plan would replace a chemical weapons panel known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism, whose mandate could not be renewed due to Russian vetoes. Moscow is also circulating a draft resolution that would establish the new investigative body that would be "truly impartial, independent, professional and credible." Russia has repeatedly contested the JIM's legitimacy. US envoy Nikki Haley quickly indicated the Russian proposal had no chance of being adopted. The United States also holds veto power at the Security Council. "We're not going to accept any Russian proposal that undermines our ability to get to the truth or that politicizes what must be an independent and impartial investigation," she said. "If they want to work in good faith toward that goal, we are ready to re-establish the JIM, with its original independent and impartial mandate, right now. But anything less is unacceptable." She argued that Moscow had supported the JIM as long as its investigators pointed the finger at the so-called Islamic State group, but challenged their conclusions when they blamed the Syrian regime. "That is not how independent investigations work. You don't get to question the findings when they don’t go your way," Haley said. Damascus has been repeatedly accused of using chemical weapons, with the United Nations among those blaming government forces for an April 2017 sarin gas attack on the opposition-held village of Khan Sheikhun that left scores dead. There have been at least 130 separate chemical weapons attacks in Syria since 2012, according to French estimates, with the Islamic State group also accused of using mustard gas in Syria and Iraq. A new round of peace talks is due to take place in Vienna on Thursday and Friday, while Moscow has organized negotiations in the Russian city of Sochi next week aimed at ending Syria's civil war.

Russia says it's not behind Syria chemical attacks

While his supporters love Donald Trump for his allegedly blunt and&nbsp;no-nonsense speech, President Trump&nbsp;changes&nbsp;his public positions a lot. This is&nbsp;true about US&nbsp;military intervention&nbsp;in Syria.&nbsp;As a result, it&#39;s impossible to know what the US is poised to do in response to the horrific news that Assad has again attacked his people with chemical gas.

Today, Trump blames President Obama for not enforcing his own &quot;red line&quot;.&nbsp;In 2013--Obama had said that the county would intervene militarily in Syria in the event of a chemical attack against the civilian population. Then, when there was just such an attack, Obama balked. Instead, Obama&nbsp;made a <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/05/obama-was-right-to-abandon-red-line-on-syria-s-chemical-weapons.html" target="_blank">deal </a>between he and Putin, to have Assad admit he did in fact have&nbsp;chemical weapons, and to have them inspected and seized.&nbsp;But there was no military intervention in August and September 2013.&nbsp;

Whether you think the US should or should not have intervened in August 2013, it&#39;s reasonable to think Obama&nbsp;looked weak for backing down against Assad from his own ultimatum.&nbsp;

But in 2013, Trump also made at least 10 statements via Twitter between June 15 and September 9<a href="https://www.axios.com/trumps-2013-tweets-on-syria-tell-a-different-story-2344840197.html" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a>clearly and uniformly opposing any US&nbsp;military intervention in Syria. Here is a sample:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/375577511473983488">September 5, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

While this Tweet&nbsp;carries some hostility towards Obama (Trump never misses an opportunity to blame Obama),&nbsp;both men&nbsp;agreed&nbsp;that the US Army should not have entered Syria.

Yet here is the&nbsp;White House statement in response to the latest chemical attack in Syria:

Today&#39;s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration&#39;s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a &quot;red line&quot; against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack.

What does this mean? Criticising Obama for issuing an&nbsp;ultimatum he didn&#39;t live up to is fair, but Trump appears to be&nbsp;blaming Obama&nbsp;for &quot;then d[oing] nothing&quot;. This suggests that Trump believes now that Obama should have intervened then in Syria.

If so, this is Trump reversing his prior position. Now he is the president, not a guy on Twitter, and his precise position matters.&nbsp;

In trying to glean what his position is, the statement says the attack &quot;cannot be ignored&quot;, but does not say what the response will be.&nbsp;So what will the US do now under&nbsp;Trump?

On one hand, Trump&#39;s &quot;America First&quot; policy clearly opposes&nbsp;US&nbsp;militarily intervention. Either they will anyway, in opposition to both President Trump&#39;s previous stance and his current foreign policy. Or, like Obama, he will not.

There is one major&nbsp;difference between Trump and Obama though: Recently, both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made statements saying they could imagine a Syria&nbsp;with&nbsp;Bashar al-Assad in power after the war. This is in stark contrast to Obama, and pretty much every other country.

Except Russia, who has &quot;provided the military might behind Assad&#39;s grip on the country, which plunged into civil war six years ago,&quot; as&nbsp;<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/middleeast/syria-idlib-chemical-attack/" target="_blank">CNN </a>has it.&nbsp;

Yesterday Russia <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-trump-russia-blames-obama-red-line-for-syria-chemical-attack-at-un-security-council-meeting-14218" target="_blank">mirrored </a>Trump,&nbsp;saying that&nbsp;former US President Barack Obama&#39;s threat of military action if a &quot;red line&quot; was crossed and chemical weapons were used in Syria had provoked such attacks. This overlap in policy and in speech between the two countries should strike all as jarring and demanding explanation. After all, Trump is&nbsp;currently under FBI investigation for his and his administration&#39;s links to Russia.

But ignoring the Trump-Russia angle for now,&nbsp;it&#39;s not clear why Trump&#39;s White House&nbsp;could envision a Syria led by Assad after the latter killed hundreds, if not thousands, with&nbsp;Sarin gas in 2013, but is in another league of outrage after Assad&#39;s most recent chemical attack.

Trump has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-gas-attack-donald-trump-nikki-haley-assad" target="_blank">said</a>, &quot;My attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much...You&#39;re now talking about a whole different level.&quot; Why is it on a &quot;whole different level&quot;, when Assad has done the exact same thing in 2013, but killing even more people? Why did this chemical attack cross &quot;many, many lines&quot;, but not the first?

Ultimately, those trying to judge Trump by his words will run into the infuriating fact&nbsp;that&nbsp;they&nbsp;cannot--his words change too much and too often.&nbsp;Even Trump&#39;s own administration&nbsp;advises people not&nbsp;to take the words of the president literally, but, instead, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-symbolically-anthony-scaramucci-232848" target="_blank">symbolically</a>. As if&nbsp;the president is not a man, but a poem.

Those inclined to take Trump&nbsp;at his word, who believe him when he says&nbsp;the US is genuinely opposed to military intervention the way &quot;America First&quot; suggests, must explain Trump&#39;s&nbsp;call to increase US military spending by $50 billion and&nbsp;the US ramping up its&nbsp;attacks in Yemen.

It&#39;s early in his presidency, but given his reversals on Syria, and the outlandish and baseless accusations and statements he has made elsewhere, the only way to learn what Donald Trump&nbsp;will actually do next is to wait.

But he cannot keep blaming Barack Obama forever.&nbsp;

(WION)

In 2013 Trump opposed Syrian intervention. Then he ran a campaign opposing military intervention. Today he blames Obama for not doing enough

While his supporters love Donald Trump for his allegedly blunt and no-nonsense speech, President Trump changes his public positions a lot. This is true about US military intervention in Syria. As a result, it's impossible to know what the US is poised to do in response to the horrific news that Assad has again attacked his people with chemical gas. Today, Trump blames President Obama for not enforcing his own "red line". In 2013--Obama had said that the county would intervene militarily in Syria in the event of a chemical attack against the civilian population. Then, when there was just such an attack, Obama balked. Instead, Obama made a deal between he and Putin, to have Assad admit he did in fact have chemical weapons, and to have them inspected and seized. But there was no military intervention in August and September 2013. Whether you think the US should or should not have intervened in August 2013, it's reasonable to think Obama looked weak for backing down against Assad from his own ultimatum. But in 2013, Trump also made at least 10 statements via Twitter between June 15 and September 9 clearly and uniformly opposing any US military intervention in Syria. Here is a sample: The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013 × While this Tweet carries some hostility towards Obama (Trump never misses an opportunity to blame Obama), both men agreed that the US Army should not have entered Syria. Yet here is the White House statement in response to the latest chemical attack in Syria: Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a "red line" against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack. What does this mean? Criticising Obama for issuing an ultimatum he didn't live up to is fair, but Trump appears to be blaming Obama for "then d[oing] nothing". This suggests that Trump believes now that Obama should have intervened then in Syria. If so, this is Trump reversing his prior position. Now he is the president, not a guy on Twitter, and his precise position matters. In trying to glean what his position is, the statement says the attack "cannot be ignored", but does not say what the response will be. So what will the US do now under Trump? On one hand, Trump's "America First" policy clearly opposes US militarily intervention. Either they will anyway, in opposition to both President Trump's previous stance and his current foreign policy. Or, like Obama, he will not. There is one major difference between Trump and Obama though: Recently, both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson have made statements saying they could imagine a Syria with Bashar al-Assad in power after the war. This is in stark contrast to Obama, and pretty much every other country. Except Russia, who has "provided the military might behind Assad's grip on the country, which plunged into civil war six years ago," as CNN has it. Yesterday Russia mirrored Trump, saying that former US President Barack Obama's threat of military action if a "red line" was crossed and chemical weapons were used in Syria had provoked such attacks. This overlap in policy and in speech between the two countries should strike all as jarring and demanding explanation. After all, Trump is currently under FBI investigation for his and his administration's links to Russia. But ignoring the Trump-Russia angle for now, it's not clear why Trump's White House could envision a Syria led by Assad after the latter killed hundreds, if not thousands, with Sarin gas in 2013, but is in another league of outrage after Assad's most recent chemical attack. Trump has said, "My attitude towards Syria and Assad has changed very much...You're now talking about a whole different level." Why is it on a "whole different level", when Assad has done the exact same thing in 2013, but killing even more people? Why did this chemical attack cross "many, many lines", but not the first? Ultimately, those trying to judge Trump by his words will run into the infuriating fact that they cannot--his words change too much and too often. Even Trump's own administration advises people not to take the words of the president literally, but, instead, symbolically. As if the president is not a man, but a poem. Those inclined to take Trump at his word, who believe him when he says the US is genuinely opposed to military intervention the way "America First" suggests, must explain Trump's call to increase US military spending by $50 billion and the US ramping up its attacks in Yemen. It's early in his presidency, but given his reversals on Syria, and the outlandish and baseless accusations and statements he has made elsewhere, the only way to learn what Donald Trump will actually do next is to wait. But he cannot keep blaming Barack Obama forever. (WION)

Trump's flip-flop on Syria

chemical-attacks

Chemical Attacks, News on Chemical Attacks, stories on Chemical Attacks, articles on Chemical Attacks, Chemical Attacks stories at Wion, Chemical Attacks news, Chemical Attacks latest news