By June 30, much of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile had been moved to US vessels in the high seas where they will destroyed over the next 72 days. However, the war-torn country’s production facilities are yet to be disabled
The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and the blame game that has followed, highlights the fragile state of international peace and security. It coincides with the ongoing crisis in Gaza where the Palestinian death toll has crossed 500 and is rising, including many women and children. The crisis in West Asia with a new group of jihadis declaring an Islamic Caliphate, which would embrace, inter-alia, Iraq and Greater Syria, seems to herald the terminal decline of what were once strong nation States — Iraq and Syria — as well as the decline of a great Arab civilisation. More scary is the prospect of the use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons in this part of the world, in case they fall into jihadi hands.
When the Chemical Weapon Convention banning the use of chemical weapons was ratified, the key players in that region, Egypt, Israel and Syria, refused to ratify it. Egypt and Syria said that both had earlier ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on the understanding that Israel would do so too. This did not happen and, therefore, Egypt and Syria kept out of the CWC along with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Angola and South Sudan. Egypt and Israel remain outside the Convention, while Syria perforce had to ratify it.
Allegation of use of chemical weapons in Syria first emerged near Aleppo in northern Syria in March 2013. There was, however, no agreement within the Security Council for many months on the deployment of a team from the UN Organisation of Prevention of Chemical Weapons — which emanates from the Convention and is the recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize — in Syria to investigate. It was a new Russian proposal, aimed at Syria ratifying the Convention so that the OPCW could then oversee and verify the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles, which finally broke the deadlock. The merit of the Russian proposal was that it also averted a possible humiliating defeat for US President Barack Obama’s proposal to Congress for an American military attack on Syria, which did not have majority support. At that time, the American was reportedly very grateful for President Vladimir Putin’s face-saver.
Following the America-Russian Accord, Syria did ratify the CWC. The OPCW Executive Council decided to apply membership provisionally to Syria on September 27, 2013, based on a US-Russian Framework Agreement. Syria declared its stockpiles and submitted a destruction plan to the Executive Council for approval. It cooperated with the OPCW to verify destruction of its chemical weapons stockpiles. Although the situation was complicated by allegations that Syria had used chemical weapons on its civilians, nevertheless, because the mandate of UN team was to establish use of chemical weapons and not who had used chemical weapons, even this issue did not hold up verified destruction of stockpiles. It remained however an unresolved issue with many troubling implications.
Verification of destruction by the OPCW Secretariat also posed a financial challenge since the cost estimate amounted to more than 50 million euros as well as assistance in kind. The situation was further complicated by the refusal of any state party to host a destruction facility for Syria. The Convention did not have a standard mechanism to address this issue. On October 22, 2013, Syria became a full member of the CWC. Thanks to generous funding by state parties, stockpiles in 25 of Syria’s 27 declared sites were verified by the OPCW Secretariat. The remaining two which could not be accessed, since they were in combat zones which posed a serious security threat to UN and OPCW Inspectors, were verified through the Global Positioning System.
In the absence of a destruction facility offered by any neighbouring country of Syria, the Americans suggested an innovative mechanism of destruction on a ship at sea. Following agreement within the EC, the destruction equipment and the ship was provided by the Americans. Despite the dangers posed of transporting the chemicals and chemical waste materials by land through combat zones to be transferred to vessels in the territorial waters of Syria and to be taken to the American ship on the high seas, this too was largely accomplished this year before the deadline of June 30. Ninety-two per cent of the chemical weapons stockpiles were destroyed on time. Eight per cent was delayed. All the chemical weapons have now reportedly been off-loaded to US vessels. It is hoped that within 75 days i.e. before end September, destruction will have been completed. It is important to note that destruction of chemical waste also posed a challenge, since the chemical waste is reportedly seven times more than the chemicals themselves.
The fate of Syria’s chemical weapon production facilities is also caught up in the complex web of US-Russian tensions worldwide. Although the Verification Annexe to the CWC does provide for conversion of such facilities, in the case of Syria there was no agreement in the Council on the conversion. It was clear that the US and European Union wished to permanently disable Syria’s chemical industry. While 12 of Syria’s facilities have been destroyed, there is no agreement on the destruction of the remaining facilities. Negotiations remain inconclusive.
A word on the libya issue. libya, unlike Syria, was a state party to the Convention and had, in the earlier regime under Muammar Gaddafi, declared its stockpiles under the Convention. The issue arose when new stockpiles, not included in libya’s initial declaration, were discovered by the Allies and communicated to the new libyan regime. This became a challenge, since, initially, the new libyan authorities did not wish to accept either responsibility for the stockpiles or the responsibility of inherited ownership. The situation in libya was also volatile. It was not safe for the inspectors to travel to the site or to verify the destruction of the existing and new stockpiles. There was always the potential threat that remnants of the Gaddafi regime or rebel forces could use chemical weapons.
Unanswered ambiguities thus remain troubling and need to be addressed. The Syrian Government had consistently stated that the rebels had used chemical weapons on the civilians in Aleppo and that these weapons had not come from Syrian Government stockpiles, since Syria’s production facilities were not in rebel-controlled territories. If Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is to be given the benefit of doubt, the issue is: Who supplied these chemical weapons to the rebelsIJ It may be noted that such questions have been quietly but persistently raised, including privately in New York, whether Gaddafi’s chemical weapons stockpiles, which had fallen into rebel hands during the libyan crisis, are actually circulating among select jihadi groups and could make their way in crisis spots all over the world.
Though the new libyan regime subsequently declared these stockpiles as “new discoveries”, they have not yet been destroyed completely. Even physical verification is not complete. Even if complete destructions take place, in the absence of information regarding the original stockpiles, one will never be sure whether some fell into wrong hands. This is one future challenge which one hopes the international community or India never has to address.
(The writer served as India’s Permanent Representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Chairperson of its Executive Council)