Shannon Peace Activists Face court action:

       Margaretta d'Arcy and Niall Farrell, Galway Alliance Against War,

     outside Ennis Courthouse on Tuesday, December 3, 2013.

SHANNON PEACE
ACTIVISTS AGAIN
IN COURT:

Two peace activists protesting at the use of Shannon Airport by the US military “endangered the lives of passengers on board two aircraft last year”, Ennis District Court was told  Tuesday, December 3, 2013. Airport police officer Richard Moloney said authorities had to act quickly after learning that two people were lying and sitting down on the main runway at Shannon as two aircraft were due to land on Oct 7, 2012.

Mr Moloney told Margaretta D’Arcy and Niall Farrell, Galway Alliance Against War, both dressed in orange jump suits: "You were on the runway. There were two aircraft holding overhead while you were on the runway. It was dangerous and you were in a very dangerous position."

In response to the incursion, Mr Moloney stated, authorities blocked an Aer Lingus flight from Heathrow and a Ryanair flight from Stansted from landing and put them into a holding pattern. Mr Moloney produced no documents or reports of Air Traffic Control to validate his evidence.

An author and playwright, Ms d'Arcy, aged 79, of St Bridget’s Place, Woodquay, Galway, said they were on the runway 20 minutes before airport authorities arrived to remove them. She said the authorities only arrived after the peace activists phoned them to alert them that they were there.
Judge Patrick Durcan remarked: "Ms dArcy, when I listen to all that took place, it is lucky that your mobile phone was working, otherwise you may not be here today."

Airport police officer Joe Noonan said he found Ms d'Arcy lying on the runway and Mr Farrell sitting down, with each holding placards reading "Stop Killer Drones via Shannon". Mr Farrell, aged 60, of Ballynacloghy, Maree, Oranmore, Co Galway, told the court: "We went on the runway assuming that there was proper security at the airport." The two deny the charge of the illegal incursion onto the airfield. Ms d'Arcy called a number of witnesses in her defence including TDs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly.

Mick Wallace, TD, said what is going on at Shannon, allowing US military planes use the airport, is unconstitutional. Clare Daly,TD, said the two activists were performing the role of whistleblowers by going onto the runway.

Judge Durcan reserved judgment and adjourned the matter to Wednesday, December 4 at Ennis District Court to fix a date on which he will deliver his judgment.

 

 

JUDGE’S COMPETENCE QUESTIONED:

A spokesperson for the Galway peace group, Galway Alliance Against War, Breege Burke, has queried the suitability of Judge Durcan to hear the case:

"In the group's opinion Judge Durcan comes to this case with far too much political baggage. Two years ago, he was appointed to the post by his former running-mate Enda Kenny and at the last election he was Michael Ring's election agent, so he is unashamedly Fine Gael. Indeed, the local media in Mayo was reporting claims of "cronyism and political favouritism" at the time of his elevation. In these circumstances, to prevent accusations of political bias, he should have stood aside from this highly political case or sent it to the Circuit Court where it could have been heard before a jury.

"Fine Gael is virulently opposed to Irish neutrality. Margaretta and Niall's actions were to re-affirm our neutrality and oppose the US Military's use of Shannon airport to wage war.

A US Airforce Hercules C130 landing at Shannon, 02.12.13

 

"Their first action was part of an international week of protest against US killer drones. The GAAW believes these weapons are transported via Shannon in Hercules planes. Drones have become President Obama's weapon of choice in the ever-expanding 'War on Terror'. Flown by pilots sitting safely in Nevada, these remotely-piloted aircraft have the ability to hover over communities twenty-four hours a day and to target those below at the mere push of a button. Thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have been executed without trial by these drones and thousands more have been injured and badly mutilated.

"On September 1, this year, it looked very likely that Washington was about to declare war on Syria. Throughout the world there was considerable fear that there would be an even more dangerous escalation of the conflict. While Pope Francis was leading the faithful in prayer for an end to war in Syria in the Vatican's St Peter's Square, Margaretta D'Arcy and Niall Farrell were making their way down to Shannon to express their opposition to a US war against Syria. Their actions may have been somewhat different, but their goal was the same."

Further charges have been brought against Ms d'Arcy and Mr Farrell for separate incidents which will involve further court appearances early next year. Margaretta d'Arcy and Niall Farrell deserve
support for their continuing efforts to highlight the illegalities at Shannon Airport with the collusion and assistance of the Irish Government and Irish police for over 12 years now contrary to international law, human rights conventions and their own declared policy of Neutrality.

HYPOCRISY WRIT LARGE

Government hypocrisy was on show again today when both the Minister for Justice & Defence, Alan Shatter, and the Commissioner of Police, Martin Callinan, were hogging the TV screens to express their condemnation of the murder, in 1989, of two senior Royal Ulster Constabulary officers by the IRA during the brutal conflict in Northern Ireland at that time and the finding of a Judicial Inquiry released this week that the murders were assisted by information from a police source in Dundalk, a town close to the Northern Ireland border which the officers had been visiting on cross-border police business. Mr Callinan, in particular, stated that he was "horrified" that "members of my force" had been involved with the IRA at any level. Now, these murders were despicable and deserving of condemnation but, Mr Callinan has never expressed any "horror" at members of "his force" aiding and abetting horrific war crimes by offering protection and assistance to the transit of illegal drones used to murder THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN in a horrific manner in the various countries mentioned above where the US Military engages in such criminal warfare against civilian populations on a daily basis, not just one murderous act 24 years ago.

Thus, the slaughter of thousands of human beings is ignored, made invisible to public scrutiny, no judicial inquiries, no apologies, no condolences to their grieving families, all for the sleazy political expediency of a Government and police force which prefers toadying to the interests of a foreign military power than the upholding of human rights and international law which they are all sworn to do. Hypocrites, the lot.



See also:

http://blagaroon2.blogspot.ie/2013/12/ireland-nato-and-crimes-against_4.html#comment-form

 

 

 

 



 



Shatter claims "immunity" for US Military at Shannon!

SHATTER CLAIMS
"SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY"
FOR US MILITARY
AIRCRAFT:

 

Under pressure of opposition questions in Dáil Éireann last week, Defence and Justice Minister, Alan Shatter, introduced a new concept of “sovereign immunity” for US Military aircraft using Shannon airport to tranship troops and their equipment and whatever else they might be carrying, to justify the failure of Irish governments to carry out their obligations under international human rights laws and neutrality laws in respect of misuse of the Airport by the US Military in the past 12 years since the illegal invasion of Afghanistan.

John Lannon of Shannonwatch, the locally based group of peace activists who monitor US activities at the Airport commented:

 

"The Minister for Justice and Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter has claimed that An Garda Síochána (Irish Police) has no role in relation to the inspection of foreign State or military aircraft at Shannon or other airports because they enjoy "sovereign immunity". In effect this means that the government allows the US military to take whatever or whoever they want through Ireland, regardless of the human rights, security and other consequences.

His statement was made in response to Clare Daly, TD, who asked the Minister whether or not the Government or the Garda Commissioner has instructed Gardaí at Shannon not to search US military aircraft, or chartered aircraft transporting US troops, or aircraft associated with the CIA.

According to Minister Shatter, An Garda Síochána has statutory powers of search and entry available to it under various legislative provisions, and these apply to aircraft as much as to any other type of private property.  He was talking here about civilian as opposed to military aircraft.

The Minister said that these powers may only be exercised in circumstances where a member of An Garda Síochána reasonably suspects that an offence has been or is being committed. But, there have been plenty of incidents in which there were reasonable
grounds to suspect involvement in torture-related offences and these have not been investigated.

The Minister also said that An Garda Síochána has fully investigated a number of allegations of unlawful activity at Irish airports and files have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in some of these cases. This is a claim that was also made by the government in their report to the fourth periodic review under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

At that time they noted that 17 complaints were received by An Garda Síochána regarding alleged rendition flights to/from Shannon Airport. "However they could only confirm that 7 of these were investigated"

Shannonwatch calls on the Department of Justice to make the outcomes of the investigations of all the complaints known, or if no investigations took place to explain why".

-----------------------

 

This new and outrageous attempt by Shatter to avoid legal responsibility for crimes at Shannon Airport is typical of his contemptuous attitude to any reporting of international law and human rights violations by the US Military or Israel and to the opposition who draw attention to these events on a regular basis, the monthly demonstration organised there by Shannonwatch being the most hated by this imperialist toady who, unfortunately for the Irish people, was put in charge of the Irish departments of Defence and Justice by the current Fine Gael/Labour coalition government.

There is no such thing as “sovereign immunity” for military transports in Irish or International Law; it is a spurious and malignant invention by Shatter to bolster his own pro-imperialist, pro-NATO and pro-zionist views expressed publicly at every opportunity along with vituperative and vicious comments on any opposition to his war-mongering and genocidal cronies in the Pentagon and Tel-Aviv.

 

The Hague Conventions, 1907:

The Second Hague Convention of October 1907, (Treaty V, Convention relative to the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land), specifically states:

“Art. 2.

Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power”.

 

Although this Hague Convention of 1907(V) has not specifically been incorporated in modern  Irish Law by Dáil Éireann, the foundation of the Irish Free State/Saorstát Éireann in 1922, under the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922, affirmed all laws previously in force under the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland remained in force unless amended or repealed by Dáil Éireann and a similar provision in the 1937 Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) regarding the laws of Saorstát Éireann, allows the 1907 Hague Convention, to which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was a signatory, to be validly considered as Irish Law since no amendment or repeal of this convention has been enacted by Dáil Éireann.

Further, after World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at the Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Conventions in order to be bound by them.

 

This leaves no grounds whatsoever for Shatter’s spurious legalisms and such malignant inventions designed to give a fig-leaf of spurious legality for war-crimes and human rights violations by the world’s most aggressive imperialist power, the USA, must be vigorously opposed and rebuffed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US breaches Irish Neutrality:

                                                   US Hercules at Shannon Airport


GOVT. ADMITS  US LANDED 
ARMED AIRCRAFT AT SHANNON:

In a statement to Dail Eireann on October 15, Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eamon Gilmore admitted a breach of Irish Neutrality by the United States on September 5, 2013, when an externally armed US Hercules C130 aircraft was landed at Shannon Airprort contrary to Irish and International Law and assurances given to Ireland previously by the US Government:

“An armed US military aircraft stopped at Shannon airport early last month in breach of Government rules prohibiting planes carrying weapons from landing in Ireland or flying through Irish airspace." Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore revealed concerning details of an aircraft “armed with a fixed weapon” landing at Shannon, in a reply to a parliamentary question this week.

The aircraft landed on September 5th after clearance paperwork submitted by the US supposedly "mislabeled" the type of aircraft requesting landing rights at the airport, which has been frequently used by American military personnel travelling between the United States and war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When contacted by officials of DFA the US embassy said that it regretted the incident and said that new procedures had been “put in place to ensure such errors do not take place in the future”.

The US Embassy declined to answer questions about the type of aircraft or weapon on the plane or where the aircraft had flown from or its destination.The aircraft landed at Shannon at a time when the US was pressing foreign leaders to support military action against Syria over the use of chemical weapons.

Mr Gilmore said that the Garda and Defence Forces providing security at the airport reported that a US military aircraft, which had landed, was “visibly armed”. Following an investigation, a senior department official expressed “strong concern” with the US embassy’s chargé d’affaires, the temporary stand-in for the vacant Ambassador’s role, at a meeting. The official made clear to the US representative that “the Irish Government views breaches such as the one that occurred as a matter of the utmost seriousness”, Mr Gilmore said. “It would appear that this was an isolated incident which took place as a result of an administrative error and I have noted the steps taken by the US authorities to ensure that there is no recurrence.”

The Tánaiste said that the system for dealing with requests for landing by US aircraft in Shannon was being fully implemented and “kept under regular review” to ensure it complies with Irish law. “The US authorities have no difficulties with this approach and indeed have expressed their concern to ensure that they are acting in full accordance with our requirements,” he said.
  
CHALLENGED:

Gilmore's statement was challenged by Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA) International Secretary, Edward Horgan, who issued the following statement:

 "Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore stated in the Dail on 15^th October that a US military aircraft “armed with a fixed weapon” landed at Shannon. This incident is believed to have occurred on 5^th September 2013 and probably involved a Hercules Lockheed C130W combat aircraft. The Minister claimed that “It would appear that this was an isolated incident which took place as a result of an administrative error and I have noted the steps taken by the US authorities to ensure that there is no recurrence.” This statement by Minister Gilmore lacks credibility. 

The only reason that this incident has been made public is that the weapon was externally mounted on the aircraft, and the Gardai and Irish Army who were inappropriately guarding this aircraft could not have avoided seeing this weapon, and the Minister was likely aware that the matter was about be publicised. Minister Gilmore has repeatedly stated that US military aircraft being refuelled at Shannon “are unarmed, carrying no arms, ammunition or explosives, not engaged in intelligence gathering, and not part of any military exercises or operations at Shannon”. 

This is false information on several counts. The vast majority of US soldiers, including military air crews and US military aircraft, traveling through Shannon are either engaged in military exercises or on their way to or from military operations. These personnel virtually never travel abroad on such missions without carrying with them their personal hand-held weapons such as assault rifles and pistols and associated ammunition. These modern assault rifles are personal issue to each soldier and are taken with them to and from each mission. In addition the US military cargo aircraft being refueled almost daily at Shannon airport are not crossing the Atlantic towards the Middle East carrying harmless materials. Their sole purpose is to carry armed soldiers and war materials, including dangerous munitions.

 
All this is in clear breach of Irish neutrality, and of international laws on neutrality, and in addition presents dangers to workers and the public at Shannon airport who are exposed to serious dangers because Shannon airport is not designed for such dangerous explosive air cargoes.
 
The Irish Peace and Neutrality Alliance calls for the long-term prohibition of all foreign military use of Shannon airport and for immediate implementation of a system of random unannounced inspections of US military aircraft at Shannon and of chartered aircraft carrying US troops and US military cargo through Shannon Airport". 

The Tanaiste's admission that an externally armed US military aircraft landed at Shannon Airport in breach of Irish Neutrality and Irish and International Law is seriously disturbing.

The description of this event as an“isolated incident” is contradicted by events at the Airport over this year in particular.  In February this year, members of PANA, and Shannonwatch, who monitor US military activity at the Airport, accompanied by Colonel Ann Wright (US Army retd.) observed a US Hercules C130 aircraft on the tarmac, near the Control Tower, from which aircraft armed and uniformed (camouflage) US military personnel could be seen disembarking and embarking at various times. This breach of Irish Law,  the Defence Act 1954, was pointed out to a Garda Sergeant who was also present but, who failed to take any action when he was requested to search the aircraft.

A number of other such incidents have been observed and reported by Shannonwatch observers and in no case have either Gardai or Defence Force personnel taken any action to enforce Irish Law against these scandalous breaches of our sovereignty indulged in with impunity by the US Military despite what the Tanaiste stated in Dail Eireann. In each case reports were made to Gardai on the spot which were met by silence and inaction.

The Irish Government should withdraw landing and refueling facilities for US Military aircraft at Shannon Airport forthwith, except in cases of emergency, as the assurances on compliance with law and regulations from the US Government and its Embassy in Dublin are worthless and an insult to the sovereign rights of the Irish people.

No need for Security Council resolution on Syria!

SYRIA CHEM-WEAPONS:
NO NEED FOR ANY
SECURITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION:

The disposal of Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons does not need any Security Council resolution as the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)  the implementation body for the Convention can carry out the necessary actions under its own mandate, reasons Dr David Morrison, Queens University Belfast, Northern Ireland, in a commentary on the current situation:

 

 

"Syria is about to become the 190th state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC) [1]. The Convention, which came into force on 29 April 1997, bans the acquisition and use of chemical weapons and requires state parties to destroy existing stocks and production facilities upon joining (Article I).

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the implementation body for the Convention. As its website says: “The OPCW is given the mandate to achieve the object and purpose of the Convention, to ensure the implementation of its provisions – including those for international verification of compliance with it.” [2]

The OPCW is the appropriate international body to supervise the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. No Security Council resolution, Chapter VII or otherwise, is necessary. In extremis, the OPCW can refer incidents of non-compliance to the UN – Article VIII (36) of the Convention says that the OPCW may “in cases of particular gravity and urgency” bring the issue “directly to the attention of the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council”.

The Convention is clear: it is up to the OPCW to determine if Security Council intervention is necessary to deal with non-compliance issues during the process of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons.

How to become a party to the Convention

For a state to become a party after 29 April 1997, when the Convention itself came into force, a state must deposit an “instrument of accession” with the UN Secretary General (Articles XX and XXIII). However, 30 days have to elapse before the process is complete and the Convention “enters into force” for that state (Article XXI(2)). Syria deposited an “instrument of accession” with the UN Secretary General on 14 September 2013 [3] and therefore cannot become a party to the Convention until 14 October. However, Syria has asked the OPCW for “provisional application of the Convention to Syria prior to its formal entry into force” and for “technical assistance” with regard to disarmament [4].

On becoming a party to the Convention, a state also becomes a member of the OPCW(Article VIII(2)). A state party is required to submit a declaration about its chemical weapons to the OPCW within 30 days of the Convention coming into force for that party (Article III), which means by 13 November in the case of Syria. The declaration must provide a detailed inventory of the chemical weapons the state possesses and their locations and the locations of any chemical weapons production facilities.

The “framework” document agreed by John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on 14 September (see below) demanded that Syria submit a declaration within 7 days, that is, more than 50 days earlier than required by the Convention. At the time of writing, Syria appears to have done just that. As of 21 September, the OPCW website [5] confirmed that it has received the Syrian declaration.

Immediately after submitting the declaration, OPCW inspectors must be granted access to the weapons and weapons production sites “for the purpose of systematic verification of the declaration through on-site inspection” (Article IV(4)).

On destroying chemical weapons

The Convention requires state parties to destroy their own weapons upon joining. Most likely given the ongoing warfare in Syria, as far as practicable, its weapons will be taken outside the country for destruction. States that joined prior to the Convention coming into force were allowed 10 years to complete the destruction of their weapons, though a 5 year extension could be applied for (Article IV(6)). Both the US and Russia were given a 5-year extension until 29 April 2012.

However, states joining after 2007 must destroy their weapons “as soon as possible” according to procedures laid down by the OPCW Executive Council (Article IV (8)). The destruction of Syrian weapons will take place under this provision.

No Security Council resolution required:

The OPCW is mandated by the Convention to oversee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons and has the technical capability of doing so. It will interact with the Syrian government to that end. There is no need whatsoever for a Security Council resolution, with or without sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, to get the job done. Indeed, there is no need for Security Council involvement at all, unless the OPCW decides to refer Syrian non-compliance of some description to the Security Council under Article VIII (36) of the Convention.

Non-compliance by Syria is very unlikely. It is in Russia’s interest that Syria cooperate fully, and be seen to co-operate fully, with the OPCW, so that Syria’s chemical weapons are eliminated as quickly as possible. Russia achieved a major diplomatic coup and sidelined the US (and Britain and France) by proposing that Syria get rid of its chemical weapons. It would be less than pleased if Syria obstructed the process of putting its proposal into practice and took the shine of this achievement. Syria is very unlikely to do that since it would damage its relations with Russia, its main political backer.

 

The Kerry/Lavrov “plan”

But didn’t the US and Russia produce a plan for ridding Syria of its chemical weapons at the meeting between John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov in Geneva from 12-14 September 2013? And isn’t the Security Council going to pass a resolution endorsing this plan and supervising its implementation, a resolution including sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to punish Syria if it fails to co-operate fully?

Well, that’s what the US (and Britain and France) want the world to think – because they want to get back in the game having been sidelined by Russia’s proposal. They want to give the impression that, through their permanent membership of the Security Council, they are going to be intimately involved in the implementation of Russia’s proposal.

Russia has gone along with this and co-operated with the production of a plan at the Geneva meeting, called Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons [6]. This includes a timetable laying down that Syria had to submit a declaration about its chemical weapons within a week (obviously agreed with Syria in advance) and to give inspectors immediate access to weapons sites. It also laid down that inspectors must have completed their verification of the accuracy of Syria’s declaration by November and all chemical weapons material and equipment must be eliminated in the first half of 2014.

This timetable was worked out at the Kerry/Lavrov meeting, despite the fact that the participants could not have been aware of the full facts about Syria’s chemical weapons, which will only be known in detail after the OPCW has verified Syria’s declarations by onsite inspections. Nor could the participants know the resources required/available to destroy the weapons in Syria or to remove them for destruction elsewhere, which is essential to laying down a realistic timetable.

Nevertheless. the meeting produced a plan and, as announced to the world by Kerry at the post-meeting press conference [7], it seemed as if the OPCW was being by-passed and the Security Council would supervise the implementation of the plan and apply a big stick to Syria if, as he expected, it failed to co-operate fully.

 

Merely a proposal to the OPCW:

However, if you listened carefully to Sergei Lavrov at the press conference, you got  a different picture. In reality, the Framework document is an input document for the OPCW’s Executive Council’s consideration about how to proceed. According to a translation on the US State Department website, Lavrov said: “And these documents … these are Russian and American proposals, and they should be considered first and first of all in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. After this organization and its executive council adopt corresponding decisions, we will tell you exactly when the first inspection will start, and when these inspections will end.” [7]

The Framework Document itself says: “… the United States and the Russian Federation have committed to prepare and submit in the next few days to the Executive Council of the OPCW a draft decision setting down special procedures for expeditious destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof.”

The OPCW Executive Council has 41 members elected on a regional basis by the state parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention [8]. Both the US and Russia are members of the Council and are entitled to make proposals, but any decision by the Council is bound to take into account the advice of the OPCW’s own technical personnel, who are going to be intimately involved in the process of eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons. It seems unlikely that at this stage a decision will include much detail about how the process will be carried out or anything more than an aspiration about when it will be completed.

What about a Security Council resolution?

On a Security Council resolution, the Framework document states: “The United States and the Russian Federation commit to work together towards prompt adoption of a UN Security Council resolution that reinforces the decision of the OPCW Executive Council.”

According to this, the resolution will merely express support for the OPCW decision (whenever it emerges) and therefore doesn’t require the inclusion of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, the Framework document does allow for the possibility of a Chapter VII Security Council resolution in the event of non-compliance reported to the Security Council by the OPCW under Article VIII of the Convention:

“…in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorised transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The proposed joint US-Russian OPCW draft decision supports the application of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides for the referral of any cases of noncompliance to the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.”

Here’s what Sergei Lavrov had to say about this at the press conference:

“And we also agreed that any violations of procedures that would be approved by the Executive Committee of the OPCW concerning the arsenal of chemical weapons, as well as any facts of applying these chemical weapons, would be looked at in the Security Council. And if they are approved, the Security Council will take the measures – required measures, concrete measures – and we have agreed on that. …
“Of course, it does not mean that every violation that will be reported to the Security Council will be taken by word [sic]. Of course, we will investigate every case, because there are [sic] a lot of false information, pieces of information in the world, and we should be very cautious about every fact. And when we are sure, 100 percent, then we in the Russian Federation will be ready to adopt a new resolution of the Security Council to embed the measures to punish the perpetrators of this violation, and it’s nonsense to continue the speculations on the matter today.”

Is disarmament a practical proposition?

Is the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons a practical proposition, given the ongoing warfare there? According to John Kerry, the answer is YES – because the Assad regime has done a fine job of keeping control of them. Here’s what he said at the press conference in Geneva:

“One of the reasons that we believe this is achievable is because the Assad regime has taken extraordinary pains in order to keep control of these weapons. And they have moved them, and we know they’ve moved them. We’ve seen them move them. We watched this. And so we know they’ve continued to always move them to a place of more control. “Therefore, since these weapons are in areas under regime control predominantly, Sergei raises questions that maybe the opposition has some here or there, and absolutely, fair is fair. Both sides have to be responsible.”

 

Isn’t it fortunate that the US has failed to topple the Assad regime, otherwise Syria’s chemical weapons might have fallen into the hands of God knows who – and rendered their elimination impossible?

 

David Morrison

22 September 2013

 

References:

[1]  www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=6357

[2]  www.opcw.org/about-opcw/

[3]  http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sgsm15279.doc.htm

[4]  www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-to-review-request-from-syria

[5]  www.opcw.org/

[6]  www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/09/214247.htm

[7]  www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/09/214250.htm

[8]  www.opcw.org/about-opcw/executive-council/current-officers-and-members/

 
We are extremely grateful to Dr David Morrison, QUB Belfast, for the submission of this valuable information.

Dr Morrison is the leading expert in Ireland on Middle Eastern affairs.

Also by David Morrison:

 

http://www.pana.ie/download/Iran-Booklet_Re-Print.pdf