As I noted in my Mail on Sunday column on 30th April 2017, I recently sent a series of questions to the Foreign office about their apparent confidence that Syria's government are responsible for the recent alleged poison gas attacks in that country.
The responses I received were, in my view, unresponsive and unsatisfactory. But I cannot publish them because of rules on such matters,which in general I support and to which I had willingly agreed in advance, and because the FO declined to waive those rules when I asked them to do so.
Where and when did they do this?
What assurances did they have of the provenance of the samples?
Who controlled the custody chain, and vouched for it?
How did they know that the samples were at no stage handled by persons with a propaganda interest in a certain outcome?
Were they at any stage under the control of Tahrir al-Sham, formerly Jabhat Fateh Al Sham (previously the Jabhat Al-Nusra), or any other part of that faction?
If not, how did they leave Syria?
Under whose custody were they between Khan Sheikhoun and the Syrian border?
Eyewitness reports (cited in evidence by the Foreign Secretary) speak of ‘clouds of smoke’ (Independent 05/04/2017) and say ‘We could smell it from 500 metres away.’(Guardian 07/04/2017) and ‘The smell reached us here in the centre; it smelled like rotten food.’ (Daily Telegraph 06/04/2017).
Sarin is odourless and invisible. Videos of the attack also show responders without protective clothing, handling victims, which would be highly dangerous in dealing with victims of sarin. Does the Foreign Secretary have any view on the apparent contradiction here?
The UK, the US and all our key allies are of one mind: we believe that this was highly likely to be an attack by Assad, on his own people, using poison gas weapons that were banned almost 100 years ago, under the 1925 Geneva protocol. In view of this horrific evidence, the world last week once again had a choice, just as we did after the gas attack at Ghouta in 2013.
‘Highly likely’ is well short of a declaration that the matter is in fact proven. Yet the United Kingdom has endorsed a missile attack on a sovereign country by the United States, the pretext or reason for which was given as the alleged gas attack, which the Foreign secretary himself categorises not as proven fact but as ‘highly likely’, allegedly by the Assad government on Khan Sheikhoun. What is the status of this attack under international law? Under which part of the UN charter is it lawful? If it *is* lawful in the case of such an action being proven, then is a belief that the alleged action by the Syrian state is ‘highly likely’ sufficient?
Who, if anybody, does the Foreign Secretary say is responsible for the Ghouta attack? On what basis does he say this?
The USA has by now made it pretty obvious, in both words and (illegal) actions, that it intends to forcibly hand all or most of Syria over to al-Nusra (or whatever al-Qaeda forces in Syria happens to be calling themselves this month) and its IS allies.
In other words, a repeat of Libya ... though probably even worse.
Now, since there is a general election, would the present UK Prime Minister care to explain to the British electorate why UK forces, propagandists and suppliers are actively assisting known and murderously sectarian terrorist groups in Syria, as well as the Saudis in their brutal destruction of Yemen?
Or is she afraid that if reasonably well informed, any decent voters would become horrified enough to reject her regime?
Silly British pretending you actually have a foreign policy. Haven't you realized by now you just do what the Americans do however stupid and unsupported by the facts.
***PH asks : Oh, come now. Surely we do what the Saudis tell us to do as well?
Yes, but I don't think the news presenters' wish to tell 'stories' is a good thing. Let them report news, whether they can find their story in it or not.
I was hearing commentators on CNN yesterday saying that Mr Trump's staff must separate him from Twitter so that consistent stories emerge from the White House. I disagree, and hope they don't succeed. I prefer to have the window into his mind which the president has chosen to give us on Twitter. The view into his cranium may be surprising - definitely more than one bat species has found a home there - but I don't want journalists standing in the way.
I think that, if she had been given glimpses of the future, she might have meant our modern preoccupation with histories (or, as many of them are nowadays called "news") and their eventual apotheosis as "History", much as the sciences seem now to have become "Science".
Incidentally, some news media now openly refer to the news which they are offering for our consumption as "stories" - the original meaning, after all, of "histories". A step forward perhaps.
*** According to the Government, both attacks were carried out by Assad's forces.
UN investigation concluded that the 2013 attack could not have been by government forces, and was almost certainly by the terrorist side (the limited-range projectiles had to have been fired from within an area totally controlled by jihadists).
Regarding smell or not of Sarin, it would seem that quality of both mix and storage have to be taken into consideration.
Incidentally, when the State's old chemical stock was removed from Syria by international inspectors, not all depots could be cleared -- only those within government controlled territory. Two were within terrorist-held areas and could not be accessed. So whatever was there is still in the possession of terrorist militias.
The terrorist side has enqaged in chemical and gas warfare; in east Aleppo firing what literally were 'barrel bombs' of the stuff from large-bore mortars into civilian areas of west Aleppo -- but western establishment politicians were as "couldn't care less" about that as they have been about a subsequent massacre by jihadists of children lured from a population-transfer bus convoy.
I have no idea whether the events you.predict will come to pass.
I do know, however, that you have made no attempt to answer the point I made and to provide details of the unidentified foreign TV channel and of the work of fiction which it is purported to be concocting in order to discredit the Syrian government.
I agree with you, Mr Hitchens, that the Government's assertion that it is 'highly likely' that the Syrian regime is responsible for the recent chemical weapons attack is unsatisfactory.
It seems obvious that the Government does not have the degree of proof that would enable it to make a categorical statement that Assad's forces were responsible.
On the matter of the chemicals used in the latest attack apparently being odorous, I would point out that the attack of August 2013 appears to have been carried out using odourless chemicals.
According to the Government, both attacks were carried out by Assad's forces.
If the latest attack really was made by rebel forces, using Sarin mixed with an odorous chemical, then it would seem that rebel forces could not have carried out the attack of August 2013.
*** "Seen reports that one particular foreign TV channel has indeed been concocting just such a work of fiction".
Just wait and see; it probably won't take long. Bear in mind that as things stand there will soon be a decisive battle at Deir Ezzor, against IS and al-Nusra/AQ.
The USA and its UK puppets would ideally prefer to have a new and dramatic propaganda excuse for further invasion of Syria using an army that's been assembled on the Jordanian side of the border; possibly some direct US presence alongside jihadists they've been training there -- or at least initially for air and missile strikes against Syrian government forces thus weakening the anti-terrorist side in the aforementioned battle (even if such strikes are in other areas).
There has been massive investment by the US/UK regimes, in propaganda-generators for deployment against Syria... and that funding certainly wasn't motivated by altruism.
Yes, after posting my comment I tried to read a little more about sarin and found the same thing said (regarding the presence of odor as an indicator of 'cowboy' production methods or a lack of purity) in several places. Probably I should have read more prior to posting my comment. It is also worth noting that aforementioned the English version of book on Aum by Murakami was greatly abridged (something I only learned a few months ago, having first read it ten years prior), so there may well have been an explanation of this in the original Japanese.
I remember, when I was at school, being puzzled that there was a subject called "history" and I couldn't quite see much of a purpose for it, when compared, for example, with obviously useful subjects like mathematics or woodwork. In any case, I thought, it only seemed to be very local history that most people were interested in.
The intervening decades have done little or nothing to alter that initial bewilderment which I felt as a young boy.
Details of things like the French Revolution or the Unification of Italy are more likely, it seems to me, to be interesting to French people and Italians respectively but they - and many other similar events - seemed to be invested by my school with a kind of universal importance, which I couldn't quite fathom.
Not, of course, that I have anything against histories in themselves, especially in the hands of eloquent historians like David Starkey, but they must surely always remain simply "stories", as their name indicates, and most people are entertained by talented story-tellers.
The question of whether they are to be believed true or disbelieved, however, is a different matter and one so confused and complicated - especially in our age of 24/7 electronic gossip - that perhaps the most sensible reaction to 'news' whose authenticity you can't personally warrant might well be simply "Aye, I hear ye, I hear ye!"
"Seen reports that one particular foreign TV channel has indeed been concocting just such a work of fiction".
Further and better particulars, please, Mr Morrison.
Peter, Thank you for publishing your questions to the Foreign Office. I can't think of a good reason why they can't answer straightforward questions. That the FO won't answer your questions properly (with maybe a few details omitted for security reasons) suggests they would prefer you, and your readers, to be kept in the dark as we head for another war in the Middle East.
ps sorry if you've received this comment more than once - internet problems.
***PH writes: Thank you. There were no security issues. All the questiosnw ere based on statements of supposed knowledge already made by the British government, and the main problem with intelligence is that you reveal you know things that you don't want the enemy to know you know. The other main problem is that you accidentally reveal your precise sources, that you have cracked a code or have an agent in place.. The highest security classifications do not give access to more information, but to more information about the *source*. Nothing that I asked threatened any such risk.
The fact, as I knew when I asked my questions, is that the FCO simply doesn not know what it claims to know, and has suppressed quite legitimate doubts about sources, custody chains and evidence to reach a political conclusion. When i first planned to post about this, I thought it only fair to publish, if possible, the actual responses, rather than asking my readers ton trust my conclusion that they were evasive unresponsive and worthless(I told the FCO that this is what i thought of them, and asked them to do better. They declined to alter or supplement them in any way).
And so I sought their permission to do so. I don't find the procedure under which civil servants brief unattributably to be at all sinister or even interesting. Such people, who are the servants of Ministers, feel they can speak more freely if they know the questioner understands that he must not name or otherwise identify them. I have often benefited from this arrangement. On this occasion the FCO's answers are unusually dull and evasive. I could prove this if I published them. Their refusal to let me publish actually made my task easier. I could just say what i liked about what they had said.
But I was immediately confronted with loads of people imagining that these answers, if published, would contain fascinating secrets which were being withheld from them. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Is the british governments aim still the deposing of the Syrian government ? regardless of the collateral damage done to Syria and the region in general .
I confess to my limitations as a strategic thinker .
Syria may not be perfect , it seemed stable up to the start of the uprising , ISIS or Al Queda did not seem to be operating in Syria . They and other extremist groups seem to be operating there now , our governments have used up their credibility in previous actions . Normal people are unwilling to accept their governments decisions . What a mess , Mr Blair should shut up , his responsibility for the current mess us clear . He has queered the pitch , muddied the water . please excuse my ramblings .
Mr Hitchens, I think you're being a little unfair. I certainly grasped your point about the FO replies, I just wondered if FoI was any use at all and you seem to imply it mostly isn't which is no less than I expected.
The question seems to be: 'How do we get any information out of a government department when a decision has already been taken regardless of truth and logic?'.
From what I've read, that could be characteristic of lower quality or adulterated -- consistent with "DIY" preparation efforts rather than the higher quality munitions any State army would be likely to have, if they had them at all. It has already been found that such chemicals as are needed to wage chemical or gas warfare were being supplied (from Turkey) to the jihadists. Mass-media and politicians in Europe or the USA seem strangely un-bothered that terrorist groups (some allegedly "moderate") in Syria have actually been using such weapons.
Seen reports that one particular foreign TV channel has indeed been concocting just such a work of fiction, with location filming done in an area controlled by jihadists. Don't know whether the intention is to transmit it as alleged 'fact' or as a propagandist drama to generate confusion (or worse).
Would the questions have been better asked under the Freedom of Information act? Surely then journalistic understandings would not have applied. Or are such questions exempted from the act?
***PH: Lots of things turn out to be exempt, not least the entire BBC. But in any case FoI takes weeks or months (during which bombing can begin) , and I have never yet received a n answer of any value through this method. Why not just grasp my actual point, that the FO cannot answer these questions and has made it easier for me to say so by refusing to let me publish their wearisome, tedious, unresponsive non-answers. How many times do I have to repeat that , if you could see the answers, you'd be bored and disappointed by them? Please will people stop obsessing over a side issue.
"United Nations investigators received testimonies from Syrian eyewitnesses regarding another attempt by Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists and their “rescue” teams to stage a chlorine attack in the town of Al-Tamanah on the night of April 29–30, 2014, and then spread word of the bogus attack through social media."
So Assad hands over his chemical weapons to the OPCW and allows them to conduct their investigations. The Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels, on the other hand, attack the OPCW, spread lies about gas attacks and loot the homes of civilians. Conclusion: “It was Assad’s gas!” Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
I am afraid, though, that I still do not understand what point you are trying to make. The contemporaneity of the 9/11 arracks and the military exercise known as Vigilant Guardian does not even amount to a coincidence, as this describes a remarkable concurrence of events. There is simply nothing remarkable about the synchronism of these two occurrences.
I may, of course, be missing something here and if you can explain how the one event could have affected the other, I shall happily consider your explanation.
Comment from Bennyboy72 should have been attributed to Bennyboy71; another year (hopefully) to go.
There is a video on YouTube with a short interview with Peter Ford, a former ambassador to Syria, who has serious doubts about the accepted story.
News today that the Astana talks (Russia, Syria, Iran, Turkey and "moderate rebels") have agreed "safe zones" for certain areas of Syria. Apparently the "moderate" rebels are not happy!
Do I sense an imminent false flag attack attributed to the "vicious Assad" regime aimed at derailing peaceful efforts? Any bets?
I imagine Mr Hitchens, despite his great experence and talents, and deserving of respect and truth, was nevertheless treated as many are when questioning authority these days: most of the questions put are ignored; and fanciful and often illogical conclusions are drawn from the premises stated. Whether it is civil servants, ministers or corporations (including the BBC), they hide their nonsense and evasion in plain sight.
Also, there's an interesting BBC News article called "Syria 'chemical attack': What can forensics tell us?" by Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert (6 April 2017) - if PH is interested and has not already seen it. It is far from complete, as it completely ignores real world issues, such as the vital issue of custody chains.
Thank for the information. Although I am not knowledgeable in this matter, I tried to understand the French report. But it seems that this report is too much based on their assertion of the 2013 CW attack was done by Assad regime.
Moreover, Mr Hitchens’s questions above could be send to them in France, too - though I am afraid that their answers would be the similar ones of the UK.