The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons sent a team of experts to investigate allegations that a chemical attack took place in the Syrian city of Douma on the 7th of April 2018. The aut­hor of the e-mail was a mem­ber of that team and claims the redacted prelimin­ary version of the report, mis­repres­ents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground. The e-mail is dated 22nd of June. It is addressed to Robert Fairweather, Chief of Cabinet, and forwarded to his deputy Aamir Shouket and mem­bers of the fact-find­ing mission to Douma.

He says this misrepresentation was achieved by selective omission, introducing a bias which und­ermines the credibility of the report. Further it is claimed that crucial facts, that have remained in the redacted version: “...have morp­hed into somet­hing quite differ­ent to what was orig­inally drafted.” This is said to have been done at the behest of the Office of the Director General (a post that was held by Turkish diplomat Ahmet Üzümcü at the time, he has since been replaced by Spaniard Fernando Arias).

Fog of war

The attack in question was widely attributed to the Syrian Army, based on reports by rebel forces that were pres­ent in Douma at the time, and this assertion was backed up by the United States, British and French govern­ments. These three countries carried out air stri­kes aga­inst Syrian govern­ment tar­gets in response, on the 14th of April 2018. This was before the fact-find­ing team had gained access to the site in Douma, the mission there was dela­yed for nearly two weeks by entrenched rebel fighters and subsequent clashes between the rebels and govern­ment forces that moved into the area.

Upon arri­val the team found much of the physical evidence, including the bodies of the deceased, was no lon­ger availa­ble. It was alleged that 49 had died and up to 650 had been seriously affected by a weaponized chemical gas rel­e­a­sed in a specific area of rebel-held Douma on that day in April. Rebels claimed the gas came from cylinders dropped from aircraft, clearly implicating Syrian govern­ment forces who had complete air super­iority.

“A major deviation from the orig­inal report”

The redacted interim report seemed to supp­ort these conclusions but the aut­hor of the rel­e­a­sed e-mail outlines some specific aspects of it which he considers: “particularly worrisome.”

Firstly, there is a statem­ent in para­graph 8.3 in the final conclusions of the redacted report. It states that there is sufficient evidence to det­ermine the presence of “chlorine, or another reactive chlorine-containing chemical.”

The e-mail points out that this was: “likely one or more chemicals that contain a reactive chlorine atom. Such chemicals could include… the major ingredi­ent of household chlorine-based bleach. Pur­pos­ely sing­ling out chlorine gas as one of the possi­bilities is disingenuous.”

Inconsistent symptoms

The redacted report also removed context from a claim in the orig­inal draft, which concerned the likelihood of the gas hav­ing emanated from cylinders found at the scene in Douma. The orig­inal text is said to have pur­pos­ely emp­has­ised that there was insufficient evidence to affirm this being the case. This is “a major deviation from the orig­inal report” according to the aut­hor.

He also cites problems with para­graph 8.2 in the redacted version, which states: ”based on the high levels of  various chlorinated organic derivati­ves detected in environ­mental samp­les”. This is said to over­state the case. According to the e-mail: “They were, in most cases, pres­ent only in parts per billion range, as low as 1-2 ppb, which is essenti­ally trace quantities.”

One piece of evidence, which was shown on news networks across the world, was a video said to show victims being treated in a hospi­tal in the aftermath of the attack in Douma. The symptoms shown were, however, not consistent with what witnesses reported seeing that day. A detailed discussion of this was app­arently omitted from the redacted version of the OPCW report.

The e-mail states: “Omitting this secion of the report (including the Epidem­i­ology which has been removed in its entirety) has a serious negative impact on the report as this section is inextricably lin­ked to the chemical agent identified… In this case, the confidence in the identity of chlorine or any other choking agent is drawn into question precisely because of the inconsistency with the reported and obser­ved symptoms. The inconsistency was not only noted by the fact-find­ing mission team, but strongly supp­orted by three toxicologists with expert­ise in expos­ure to chemical warfare agents.” 

Engineering report was removed

Yet another point of contention is the placement and condition of the cylinders reported to have contained the chemical agent. It has been alleged that their condition may not be consistent with hav­ing been dropped from the air, compared to damaged in the immedi­ate surrounding area. This was discussed in an unrel­e­a­sed engineering report from OPCW that Wikileaks publ­is­hed in October 2019 and indicates it is unlikely the cylinders were air-dropped (see previous rel­e­ase: OPCW Whistleblower Panel on the Douma attack of April 2018)

Sections discussing this are largely absent from the redacted report. “This information was import­ant in assess­ing the likelihood of the ‘presence’ of toxic chemicals versus the ‘use’ of toxic chemicals,” states the e-mail.

The aut­hor ends his letter with an app­eal to the mana­gement to allow him to attach his differ­ing observations to the document. He now wants to address the annual OPCW conference, along with other mem­bers of the fact-find­ing team, which beg­ins on the 25th of November to pres­ent the find­ings that were withheld.

Letter from the whistleblowerThe letter describes grave concerns over the imparti­a­lity of the report and the potential impact on the credibility of the OPCW.

Media partners­hip and co-ordination: La Repubblica (Italy), Stundin (Iceland), Der Spiegel (Germany), Mail on Sunday (UK).