Image copyright AFP Image caption An infant is treated after an alleged gas attack in the Eastern Ghouta in January

The world's foremost chemical weapons watchdog has granted itself new powers to assign blame for attacks, despite protests by Russia.

Until now, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) could only say whether chemical weapons were used - but not who had used them.

Britain successfully argued that new powers were needed to deal with repeated chemical attacks in Syria.

Russia said the move went "beyond the mandate" of the watchdog.

It also said the organisation was facing an "artificially created crisis".

The members of the OPCW, however, voted in large numbers for the measure, winning the vote by 82 to 24 - exceeding the two-thirds majority needed.

Britain proposed the measure, and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it would "strengthen the ban on chemical weapons and prevent impunity for their use".

An important step forward

Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent

This is an important step forward for arms control. It strengthens the unravelling consensus against the use of chemical weapons. It marks a victory for the rules-based international order, which itself is under increasing strain given the rise of populists and nationalism in many countries. But inevitably it will prove to be a new source of tension between Russia and the West.

Until now, chemical weapons inspectors working under the auspices of the OPCW were in a curious position. They could send teams to an alleged chemical weapons attack. They could take samples and draw their conclusions. They could determine whether indeed a chemical weapons incident had occurred. But whatever evidence they turned up, they could not point the finger at a particular country or non-state actor as the perpetrator.

That was, of course, a nonsense. It is like having a detective investigate a killing, only to conclude that yes indeed, murder most foul has been committed, but then being unable to identify the likely culprit.

Repeated allegations of chemical weapon use by Syria's government against rebels and civilians brought the issue into the international spotlight in recent months.

In April, the United States, UK, and France jointly bombed three Syrian government sites in response to the alleged chemical attacks.

The Syrian government, which is backed militarily by Russia, has repeatedly denied ever using chemical weapons.

International relations also frayed after the poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter on British soil.

UK investigators concluded that a Russian-developed military-grade nerve agent called Novichok was used in the attack in the city of Salisbury.

British authorities accused Russia of direct involvement; Russia is also the Syrian government's main ally.

Russian Industry Minister Georgy Kalamonov told Reuters news agency the OPCW was like a sinking ship.

"A lot of the countries that voted against the measure are starting to think about how the organisation will exist and function in the future," he said.</s>Chemical weapons watchdog OPCW wins right to assign blame for attacks

The world's chemical weapons watchdog has won new powers to assign blame for attacks with banned toxic munitions, a diplomatic victory for Britain just months after a former Russian spy was poisoned on its territory.

In a special session, member states of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) voted in favour of a British-led proposal by a 82-24 margin, easily reaching the two-thirds majority needed for it to succeed.

The motion was supported by the United States and European Union, but opposed by Russia, Iran, Syria and their allies.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said the vote would empower the OPCW "not just to identify the use of chemical weapons but also to point the finger at the organisation, the state that they think is responsible".

But Russia said the vote called the future of the organisation itself into question.

"A lot of the countries that voted against the measure are starting to think about how the organisation will exist and function in the future."

Though the use of chemical weapons is illegal under international law, the taboo on deploying them has been eroding after their repeated use in the Syrian civil war, but also in Iraq, Malaysia and Britain since 2012.

The poisoning of the Russian former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England in March led to tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats by Moscow and the West and was one reason for Britain's push to strengthen the OPCW.

Russia has denied any involvement in their poisoning.

From 2015 to 2017 a joint United Nations-OPCW team had been appointed to assign blame for chemical attacks in Syria.

It found that Syrian government troops used the nerve agent sarin and chorine barrel bombs on several occasions, while Islamic State militants were found to have used sulphur mustard.

But at a deadlocked UN Security Council, the joint team was disbanded last year after Moscow used its veto to block several resolutions seeking to renew its mandate.

The British proposal declares the OPCW will be empowered to attribute blame for attacks, though details of how it will do so will still need to be further defined by the organisations' members.</s>The finger of blame for chemical weapons use can now be pointed at individual nations by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) after members voted to give it the power to attribute responsibility.

At a special session in The Hague member states decided to increase the powers of the OPCW when they investigate the use of chemical weapons.

Previously the OPCW had only been able to identify the chemicals used and not who was responsible for their use.

This means that although Russia has been widely blamed by the UK and many other nations for the attack in Salisbury the OPCW was unable to offer an opinion on where the weapons came from and who was behind it.

While the change in the rules under which the OPCW operates will be welcome, it is expected that achieving the level required to attribute blame will be exceptionally high and not always possible.</s>The UK has been successful with its bid for the international chemical weapons watchdog to be able to apportion blame for attacks.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) voted on Wednesday to support a British-led motion for the body to have the power to attribute responsibility for attacks using banned weapons in Syria.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had been at the OPCW's headquarters in The Hague to push for the proposal on Tuesday.

Welcoming the decision, Mr Johnson said in a statement: "Chemical weapons are an affront to human dignity and have no place in the 21st century.

"The international community has quite rightly come together today to strengthen the ban on chemical weapons and prevent impunity for their use.

"The UK has led the diplomatic efforts to secure this action.

"We look forward to working with all countries who are members of the Chemical Weapons Convention to implement the decisions taken today, and we will continue to push back on any efforts to undermine the ban on these vile weapons."

The UK's permanent representative to the OPCW, Peter Wilson, revealed 82 states voted in favour of the UK-led motion while 24 opposed the move.

A two-thirds majority was needed for it to pass.

Mr Wilson, who is also the UK's ambassador to the Netherlands, tweeted there was an "overwhelming majority to restore the taboo" against chemical weapons.

Russia was one of the countries to vote against.

After the result, its industry minister Georgy Kalamonov compared the OPCW to a sinking ship.

"A lot of the countries that voted against the measure are starting to think about how the organisation will exist and function in the future," he said.

Britain's proposal came after recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria, widely blamed on the country's ruler Bashar al-Assad.

The UK government has also held Moscow responsible for the attempted murder of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia using a nerve agent in Salisbury on 4 March.</s>The international chemical weapons watchdog has voted in favour of a motion that will see it begin to apportion blame for attacks it is investigating.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was previously restricted to saying whether chemical weapons were used – not who had used them.

However, a motion was brought forward by the UK and supported by 30 countries argued that new powers weer needed to deal with repeated attacks in Syria and elsewhere.

This evening the motion was carried by what the UK's permanent representative to the OPCW, Peter Wilson, described as an “overwhelming majority” of 82 to 24.

A two-thirds majority was needed for it to pass.

It means that, moving forward, whenever chemical weapons use occurs within a member state, “those who were the perpetrators, organisers, sponsors or otherwise involved should be identified.”

The motion also calls for new arrangements to identify the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria by investigating “all information potentially relevant to the origin of those chemical weapons” wherever the OPCW “determines or has determined that use or likely use occurred.”

At the outset of the conference, OPCW Director-General, Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü warned that there is currently no mechanism to hold states that use chemical weapons fully accountable.

“Chemical weapons use, wherever it occurs, is a serious offence requiring resolute action,” he said.

“If accountability is avoided, the potential re-emergence and acceptance of chemicals as weapons of war and terror will not be deterred.”

The Director-General of the OPCW, Ahmet Üzümcü, gives his opening statement in The Hague, the Netherlands, 27-06-2018. Image: OPCW

The alleged chemical attacks in the Syrian city of Douma in April led the US, UK and France to launch over 100 missiles at the war-torn country in a coordinated operation targeting the Syrian Government’s chemical weapons capabilities.

Russia is an ally of the Syrian Government and Russian president Vladimir Putin said the attack was “in violation of the UN charter and the norms and the principals of international law.”

The UK Government also holds the Russian State responsible for the chemical attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March.

Russia was one of the countries to vote against the motion.

Russian Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Georgy Vladimirovich Kalamanov addresses the OPCW Conference at the World Forum in The Hague, the Netherlands, 27-06-2018. Image: OPCW

After the result, the country’s industry minister Georgy Kalamonov compared the OPCW to a sinking ship.

"A lot of the countries that voted against the measure are starting to think about how the organisation will exist and function in the future," he said.

Earlier this month, the OPCW said it is "very likely" that gas was used on civilians in Syria during attacks last year.</s>Politicians shake hands and smile. Cameras click. Papers are signed and stamped. The world’s press reports the signing of another international agreement. International summits, conventions and treaties may seem far removed from the lives of everyday people; photo opportunities rather than milestones.

But these are how we agree on the type of world we want to live in. They are the promises we keep to each other. Our commitments and their implementation underpin the international system and keep us safe. When agreements are broken, or allowed to fall into irrelevance, the consequences become very real for everyone.

The Chemical Weapons Convention is one of these, but there are worrying signs we have forgotten why we worked so hard to achieve this vital agreement.

Chemical weapons asphyxiate, choke, blister and poison. Where not lethal, their effects can last a lifetime. During the 20th century they were used on and off the battlefield with horrific consequence. During the First World War, more than 90,000 soldiers suffered painful deaths following the use of chlorine, mustard and other chemical agents. Almost a million more were blinded, disfigured or received debilitating injuries.

Chemical weapons were also used with devastating consequences in Morocco, Yemen, China and Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). The aftermath of their deployment in the 1980s Iran-Iraq War continues to be felt today, with 30,000 Iranians still suffering and dying from the effects of the agents used in the conflict.

The Chemical Weapons Convention came into force in 1997, and brought the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) into existence. For the first time, the world had an independent, non-political body to investigate chemical weapons use; 192 countries, including Canada, have now ratified the Convention and are States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention. The international community has agreed that the development, production, stockpiling and deployment of these instruments of death should be confined to the past. There can be no impunity for anyone who uses chemical weapons.

Just over 20 years on from this watershed moment, and five years after the OPCW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its extraordinary achievements, this agreement and these norms are under threat. Since the start of 2017 alone, chemical weapons have been used against civilians in Syria, Iraq, Malaysia and the United Kingdom. The repeated use of chemical weapons represents a grave threat to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the rules-based international order that keeps us all safe. It must now be protected and strengthened.

Answering the call of the U.K., Canada, and nine other states, last week the OPCW announced that the signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention will come together in late June. We are calling on states around the world to join together to find ways to strengthen and protect this cornerstone of the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime.

We are grateful for Canada’s continued leadership and support on this important international issue. Beyond being a State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention since its entry into force in 1997, Canada is among the largest voluntary contributors to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and recently firmly restated its support for the OPCW’s tireless work to rid the world of chemical weapons. And as a founder of the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, Canada has condemned repeatedly the use of chemical weapons around the world.

Some have tried to cast this meeting as an arena for some kind of global confrontation where states will be forced to take sides, or a position on this or that attack. Rather, this is a choice between the rule of law and an international-rules based system versus anarchy and the sickening prospect that we and our children might see chemical weapons become normalized.

Twenty years ago, the creation of the Chemical Weapons Convention marked a turning point in global politics. The world drew a line in the sand, and agreed that any use of chemical weapons is unjustified and abhorrent. We must now act to defend it.

Susan le Jeune d’Allegeershecque is the British High Commissioner to Canada.
• Terry Glavin: Syria’s children die choking. The West tut-tuts, briefly, and moves on. This is now normal</s>Details of which countries are behind chemical weapons attacks will be released after a landmark decision by the international community.

Britain urged the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to attribute blame for attacks in Syria so that the world's leaders can act in defence of innocent civilians.

The move was today widely backed by the rest of the world.

The UK's ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Wilson, who is also Britain's permanent representative to the OPCW, said the measure was passed by an 'overwhelming' majority of 82 to 24.

Mr Wilson tweeted: 'The @OPCW voted through the UK Decision co-sponsored by 30 States that will now allow it not just to say when chemical weapons are used but by whom. An overwhelming majority to restore the taboo against CW 82 voted for 24 against.'

One of the nations which opposed the move was Russia.

President Putin's nation went on the record as saying that attribution 'goes beyond the mandate of the OPCW' and claimed the organisation was now facing an 'artificially created crisis'.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said: 'Chemical weapons are an affront to human dignity and have no place in the 21st century.

'The international community has quite rightly come together today to strengthen the ban on chemical weapons and prevent impunity for their use.

'The UK has led the diplomatic efforts to secure this action. We look forward to working with all countries who are members of the Chemical Weapons Convention to implement the decisions taken today, and we will continue to push back on any efforts to undermine the ban on these vile weapons.'

Anna Neistat, Amnesty International's senior director of research, said: 'Amnesty International welcomes the decision allowing the OPCW to attribute responsibility for chemical weapons attacks as a crucial step towards bringing perpetrators of war crimes to account.

'Today's decision signals to victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria and elsewhere that the international community has not abandoned them, and to perpetrators that they will be brought to justice.

'It is absolutely vital that the OPCW's findings and evidence can now be used in international, or national, investigations and prosecutions.'</s>Britain’s bid for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to attribute blame for attacks in Syria has been backed by the international community. The UK’s ambassador to the Netherlands, Peter Wilson, who is also Britain’s permanent representative to the OPCW, said the measure was passed by an “overwhelming” majority of 82 to 24.

Mr Wilson tweeted: “The @OPCW voted through the UK Decision co-sponsored by 30 States that will now allow it not just to say when chemical weapons are used but by whom. An overwhelming majority to restore the taboo against CW 82 voted for 24 against.” Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said: “Chemical weapons are an affront to human dignity and have no place in the 21st century. “The international community has quite rightly come together today to strengthen the ban on chemical weapons and prevent impunity for their use.

“The UK has led the diplomatic efforts to secure this action. We look forward to working with all countries who are members of the Chemical Weapons Convention to implement the decisions taken today, and we will continue to push back on any efforts to undermine the ban on these vile weapons.” Russia opposed the move, saying that attribution “goes beyond the mandate of the OPCW” and claimed the organisation was now facing an “artificially created crisis”.</s>Member countries of the global chemical weapons monitoring group voted in the Hague Wednesday to give the organization expanded authority to assign blame for toxic weapons attacks.

 

 Members of the Organization for the Prohibition for Chemical Weapons voted 82 to 24, easily exceeding the two-thirds majority need for approval.

 

 The proposal was presented by Britain and was supported by the United States and the European Union. It was opposed, however, by 24 countries including Russia, Syria and their allies.

 

 British representative Peter Wilson said passage will allow the OPCW "not to just say when chemical weapons are used, but by whom."

 

 Before the vote, OPCW lacked the ability to say who was responsible for chemical attacks that had occurred in Syria and elsewhere.

 

 The vote followed a diplomatic stalemate at the two-day meeting between Western allies and Russia and Syria.</s>Britain, which has condemned Russia over the nerve agent poisoning of an ex-spy, is pushing to give more teeth to the global chemical weapons watchdog so that it can identify those responsible for attacks with banned toxic substances.

The 20-year-old Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which oversees a 1997 treaty banning the use of toxins as weapons, is a technical, scientific body which determines whether chemical weapons were used. But it does not have the authority to identify perpetrators.

A British-led proposal, which is backed by Western powers including France, Germany and the United States, but opposed by Russia, Iran and Syria, was to be debated at a special session of the OPCW starting on Tuesday. The proposal would give the world body greater powers to assign responsibility for violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“Attribution goes beyond the mandate of the OPCW,” the Russian delegation said on Twitter. “The decision to create such a mechanism within the OPCW cannot be made at the special session” being held in The Hague.

The meeting was stalled for nearly three hours by procedural bickering, with Russia and its allies questioning the rules on voting rights until the United States forced a vote to have the agenda adopted. It passed by a wide majority.

The draft proposal circulated by Britain, a copy of which has been seen by Reuters, would thrust the OPCW to the forefront of the diplomatic confrontation between the West and Moscow which has seen relations deteriorate to their lowest point since the Cold War.

Russia and Indonesia submitted rival proposals, but Western diplomats said they were not believed to have strong political backing.

It comes as OPCW inspectors prepare a report on an alleged poison attack in the Douma enclave near Damascus, Syria, in April that killed dozens and triggered air strikes by the United States, France and Britain.

Western governments have also blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russia, which backs him, for using chemical weapons in the protracted Syrian conflict. Both deny using chemical weapons.

Up to now it has fallen to the United Nations, where a joint OPCW-U.N. team known as the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) was created in 2015, to identify individuals or institutions behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

The JIM confirmed that Syrian government troops used the nerve agent sarin and chorine barrel bombs on several occasions, while Islamic State militants were found to have used sulphur mustard.

But at a deadlocked U.N. Security Council, the JIM was disbanded last year after Moscow used its veto to block several resolutions seeking to renew its mandate beyond November 2017.

The new British-led proposal, which so far has the support of 21 other states, comes after a steady increase since 2012 of the use of chemical weapons, mainly in the Syrian civil war, but also in Iraq, Malaysia and England.

“The widespread use of chemical weapons by Syria in particular threatens to undermine the treaty and the OPCW,” said Gregory Koblentz, a non-proliferation expert at George Mason University, in the U.S. state of Virginia.

“Empowering the OPCW to identify perpetrators of chemical attacks is necessary to restoring the taboo against chemical weapons and the integrity of the chemical weapons disarmament regime.”

The proposal is expected to be submitted by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson on Tuesday in The Hague and voted on by OPCW members on Wednesday, sources told Reuters.

Decisions must win two-thirds of votes cast to be passed.

The British proposal condemns the use of nerve agent Novichok in the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal, the assassination with VX nerve agent in February 2017 of the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Malaysia and the use of sulphur mustard gas by Islamic State fighters in 2015 and 2016 in Syria and Iraq.

Under the British proposal, the text of which could change before it is voted on, the head of the OPCW would establish a body “with a view to facilitating universal attribution” for attacks globally.

About 140 out of the 193 OPCW members had registered to participate in the conference, which could run until Thursday.

For all the latest World News, download Indian Express App
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is granted the power to assign blame for chemical attacks by its constituent countries. The move, proposed by the United Kingdom, received wide support, but was condemned by Russia.