RNA - The Syrian Foreign Ministry on Wednesday accused the US and the UK of supplying CS, CN toxic agents to terrorist groups operating in the war-hit country. The Syrian Foreign Ministry said the toxic agents found in Aleppo and Damascus suburb were produced by one British company and two American companies.
This is while the US military confirmed in February that more than 5,000 rounds of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition were used in two attacks in Eastern Syria, despite a pledge that it would not use the controversial ordnance. The acknowledgment by the spokesman for the US Central Command (CENTCOM) came in an interview with Foreign Policy, in which he said that 5,265 armor-piercing DU rounds were used in November 2015, during two air raids against ISIL oil tanker convoys in the Deir Ezzur and Hasaka provinces in Eastern Syria.
A-10 ground attack aircraft fired the projectiles from their 30mm rotating cannons, destroying about 350 tanker trucks, according to CENTCOM spokesman Major Josh Jacques. Former White Helmets associate Walid Hindi admitted in mid-May his involvement in fabricating photo and video material, prepared in cooperation with the Turkish Television, during the time when he was working with the notorious group in Eastern Aleppo.
The group prepared fake videos of alleged atrocities of the Syrian army, during the liberation process of Eastern Aleppo. In his confession, broadcasted on Syrian National Television, Hindi admitted to have worked with White Helmets for three years and received rather huge sums of money, a major portion of which was provided by the Persian Gulf states. He also described how filming of “atrocities” would take place.
This is just half of the desperate gambit. The other half is this:
These revelations should stand as a stark warning to President Trump about the consequences of trying to block an international and impartial investigation headed by the United Nations investigators into the US-UK toxic crimes in Syria. Else, the action will be yet another major indication of Trump’s deep hostility to the UN investigation into his regime-change campaign’s possible collusion with chemical weapons manufacturers and terrorists. It will also show how far he is willing to go to stop the allied forces of Iran, Syria, Russia and Hezbollah from fully dislodging America’s favorite terrorists ISIL and Al-Qaeda from Syria.
Denying that the US and the UK are supplying CS, CN toxic agents to terrorist groups operating in the war-hit country actually could make Trump’s situation worse. It could lead directly to a separate investigation on whether Trump personally is obstructing international justice for the victims of those horrendous chemical attacks.
In these divisive times at home, one of Trump’s objectives in continuing the war on Syria is to avoid the huge political cost of personally being responsible for its defeat. It could trigger his downfall. The ongoing white supremacist outrage could set in motion impeachment proceedings backed by Democrats in Washington that may result in his resignation from office. Trump will never let that happen.
Which brings us to the unavoidable conclusion: Whatever tricks the Trump White House and their British allies may use to keep the unjustified war going, including supplying CS, CN toxic agents to terrorist groups operating in Syria, they will not automatically guarantee them victory; they will not shield the US and British governments from accountability either.
The warmongers are free to try to mobilize their bases against it and interfere with an international investigation in other ways. They can raise flimsy and spurious claims against the Syrian government and its allies in using chemical weapons – which they don’t have – against civilian objects. They can also announce that investigating their tricks – their toxic crimes against humanity - would cross a red line. They can even rant publicly about attacking Syria directly and call the recent revelations a hoax, fake news, and the like. But they cannot deny the acknowledgement made by their own intelligence agencies and military leaders that the US did actually supply its terror proxies with chemical weapons and even used chemical weapons against civilians in eastern Syria.
Despite everything, both the US and the UK still take the opportunity to ping an international investigation. The clash we are witnessing is not just between the US and the UN or the UK and the international community, but between the US and the UK and International Law itself. If they may with impunity stymie an investigation of their toxic crimes in Syria - whether by removing a respected UN investigator, suggesting the possibility of Russian involvement to bolster false testimony, using the power of their Christian-Zionist lobby to attack member states that support such investigation, or attack the integrity of the investigation, then the UN has lost its way and put the rule of law in serious jeopardy.
With that in mind, it’s never too late for UN member states to stand up to counter those who use chemical weapons or supply terror proxies with chemical weapons to attack civilians in Syria. Today many human rights organizations and rights groups have been mostly willing to act as a check on the US and the UK, but what can be said about the UN? Some argue that investigation is impossible as long as the US and the UK control the Security Council and the Human Right Council. It may be hard, but it is not impossible.
These councils have in the past voted against the atrocities committed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Israel in Gaza - despite all the derogatory information and investigator firing that had surfaced about their roles in those humanitarian crises. That is when the international civil society, angry at Israel and Saudi Arabia putting themselves above the law, forced the two councils to act.
As for Syria, UN investigation can and should happen, as there is hard evidence of serious violations and broad global support. If the US and British governments are found guilty, then even a US-UK-controlled Security Council may decide to endorse the conclusion and uphold the rule of law – or be compelled to do so. It will determine that International Law is more important than any member state and demand the UN hold them accountable.
847/940