OPCW executives praised whistleblower and criticized Syria cover-up, leaks
reveal
AARON MATÉ·OPCW DOUMASYRIA·DECEMBER 7, 2020
from The Grayzone
Exclusive: Documents obtained by The Grayzone show that OPCW executives
privately criticized the manipulation of a Syria chemical weapons probe, and
supported a dissenting veteran inspector. One official, however, feared
helping the Russian narrative. These private admissions further expose the
public whitewash of the Douma cover-up, and undermine the ongoing attacks on
the whistleblowers who challenged it.
Since the explosive revelation that an investigation by the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in Syria was manipulated, a smear
campaign has been waged against a pair of veteran OPCW scientists who
challenged the cover-up.
The two whistleblowers have been dismissed as rogue, uninformed, and
duplicitous actors. Their detractors include the current OPCW director
general; NATO member state ambassadors; and anonymous, self-described OPCW
officials laundering fabricated claims through NATO member state-funded
outlets.
OPCW documents and correspondence obtained by The Grayzone offer a stark
contrast to these public attacks. Among several revelations, they show that
before the attempts to discredit the whistleblowers, OPCW directors
privately criticized the chemical watchdogs suppression of the
investigation, and supported the inspector who vocally protested it.
One of these executives, however, feared that raising alarm about the
scientific fraud would help the Russian narrative a tacit admission that
the organizations independence and impartiality have become subordinate to
geopolitics.
The dissenting inspector, 16-year OPCW veteran Dr. Brendan Whelan, was a
member of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) that investigated an alleged
chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma on April 7, 2018. The teams
findings raised major doubts about allegations of Syrian government
culpability, the pretext for a US-led bombing of Syria one week later.
But senior OPCW officials, in conjunction with a US attempt to influence the
investigation, censored the evidence and released unsupported conclusions. A
series of damning leaks later exposed the deception.
Rather than having their complaints addressed, Whelan and the other known
dissenting inspector, 12-year OPCW veteran Ian Henderson, have been
subjected to a second deceit: false claims about them and their
investigation.
Whoever is behind these public attacks, the private OPCW emails and
documents obtained by The Grayzone further undermine them. In addition to
revealing initial praise by OPCW brass for Whelans attempt to protect the
investigation, these leaks provide a new window into how other officials
compromised it:
One top official acknowledged the doctoring of the Douma evidence. But
rather than order an investigation into how it occurred, this official
sought to have an email protesting the censorship erased from the OPCWs
servers.
Another executive, who appears to have been deeply involved in the
scientific fraud, sidelined the inspectors who collected the evidence in
Syria. This same OPCW official also engineered a delay that ensured that the
most vocal dissenter, Whelan, would no longer be in the picture.
By contrast, two senior directors praised Whelans opposition to the Douma
probe subterfuge. (These directors are distinct from the Director General,
whom they work under.) The first director criticized the censorship of
evidence, and also signaled that it was politically motivated. Yet this same
director was also hesitant to press the issue, out of fear that doing so
would feed
the Russian narrative.
The second director lauded Whelans contributions to the OPCW, as well as
his effort to defend the Douma investigation from fraudulent behavior.
These documents show that internal concerns about the Douma cover-up went
beyond members of the FFM team to even the highest levels of the
organization.
In addition, The Grayzone has previously published an email from a former
senior official expressing alarm about the scandal and the intimidation of
dissenting voices. A subsequent statement from a separate OPCW official
criticized the abhorrent mistreatment of the dissenting inspectors.
This account is based on newly disclosed and previously published documents,
as well as OPCW sources familiar with the investigation.
The report was not redacted at the behest of ODG
A June 22, 2018 email exchange was the opening salvo in the standoff over
the Douma cover-up.
Two days earlier, the OPCWs Fact Finding Mission (FFM) had completed its
draft of the Douma investigation report.
The reports chief author was Dr. Brendan Whelan, a senior member of the FFM
and part of the Advance Team that went to Damascus.
A 16-year OPCW veteran, Whelan was widely considered the OPCWs foremost
expert in chemical weapons chemistry and analysis. He presented some of his
ground-breaking work on chemical weapons analysis to the OPCWs Scientific
Advisory Board in October 2017.
When the OPCW FFM deployed to Douma in April 2018, Whelan served as the
missions scientific coordinator. Upon its return to OPCW headquarters in
the Hague the following month, he was tasked with delivering a briefing to
state representatives on the teams progress.
GP Presentation GZ
A senior OPCW official informs colleagues that Dr. Brendan Whelan will brief
state representatives on the Douma investigation, May 2018: Brendan will
focus on the Douma incident with a presentation on how we went about our
work in this case.
The product of more than two months of work, the Douma reports findings
were explosive. With no evidence of a chemical weapons attack, the document
failed to support the allegations lodged by a trigger-happy Trump
administration that had already bombed Syria, along with the UK and France,
before the OPCW could reach Douma in April.
Neither nerve agents nor their degradation products had been detected, and
there was no proof of chlorine gas use. A group of toxicologists from a
NATO-member state ruled that the cause of death was inconsistent with
exposure to chlorine gas, and could find no other chemical agents as a
plausible alternative.
In fact, the report considered two alternative hypotheses, one of which
included a non chemical-related incident possibly an allusion to the
incident being staged on the ground.
Senior management had been given the reports executive summary and raised
no concerns. The document had been peer-reviewed by members of the FFM team,
including the team leader, and was being prepared for publication.
But shortly thereafter, Whelan made a shocking discovery: unidentified
officials had radically altered the finished product and rushed out a
doctored report for imminent publication, all without informing the team.
The doctored version was a whitewash. Key facts were missing or
misrepresented, and conclusions had been re-written, to disingenuously
suggest that a chlorine gas attack had occurred in Douma.
The ramifications of this subterfuge were staggering. In effect, the
investigation team were blindsided and undermined by an imposter report that
would, based on unfounded conclusions, give post facto justification for the
US, UK, and French military strikes on Syria on April 14, 2018.
Alarmed at this discovery, Whelan wrote an email of protest on June 22
expressing his gravest concern. It was addressed to Robert Fairweather,
the then-OPCW chief of cabinet, a position second only in terms of influence
to the director general. Fairweathers deputy and the other FFM team members
were copied.
After reading this modified report, which incidentally no other team member
who deployed into Douma has had the opportunity to do, I was struck by how
much it misrepresents the facts, Whelan wrote.
Whelans letter was revealed by British journalist Peter Hitchens and
published by Wikileaks in November 2019.
Unpublished until now was Fairweathers response.
Fairweather did not deny that the report had been redacted, but insisted
that the censorship was not done on the director generals behalf. The
report was not redacted at the behest of ODG, Fairweather wrote. The only
input ODG had was to ask that the report did not speculate.
Fairweather added, This is only an interim report which leaves open a large
amount of further work on a number of areas.
RF to FFM - Behest Redacted GZ
OPCW Chief of Cabinet Bob Fairweather acknowledges the redaction of the
Douma report, but insists that it was not done at the behest of the
Director General.
Censoring the censorship protest
Brendan Whelans intervention thwarted the publication of the doctored
report. But Robert Fairweathers nonplussed response sent a clear message:
while he was prepared to acknowledge the censorship and delay the reports
release, there would be nothing further done about it.
Rather than launching an immediate investigation into the deception,
Fairweather was apparently content to leave the inspectors to their own
devices.
Fairweather instructed Whelan, the dissenting inspector, to sit with the
[team leader] and the team to discuss. This team leader, whose name The
Grayzone is withholding, appears to have taken part in the fraudulent
re-editing that Whelan had protested.
Fairweather was, however, proactive in one respect he initiated another
act of censorship.
Shortly after Whelan sent his letter of protest, Fairweather wrote back to
him and the rest of the recipients a one-sentence email: Robert Fairweather
would like to recall the message Grave concern about the redacted Douma
report.
Such a request a rare course of action among OPCW officials would amount
to the OPCW deleting Whelans email of complaint from its server and the
inboxes of each recipient. This recall request, previously unpublished,
suggests that senior OPCW officials were not only reluctant to take Whelans
concerns seriously: they were intent on erasing them from the documentary
record.
BF Recall email
OPCW Chief of Cabinet Bob Fairweather requests the deletion, or recall, of
an email from Dr. Brendan Whelan that protested the doctoring of the FFMs
original Douma report.
The recall request is the exact opposite of the key action Fairweather did
not take: launching an investigation into who was responsible for censoring
and distorting the findings of the original report.
Fairweather, who now serves as the UK special representative for Sudan and
South Sudan, did not respond to emailed questions from The Grayzone about
his exchange with Whelan and the doctoring of the initial report.
Fairweather left the OPCW in September 2018. Three months after his
departure, the UK government made him an Officer of the Order of the British
Empire (OBE) for services to international relations.
The selective nature of presenting the facts
Not everyone was satisfied with Robert Fairweathers response. Emails
obtained by The Grayzone reveal that one senior OPCW director was troubled
by the events.
This senior official was not directly involved in the Douma investigation,
but was kept updated on the internal dispute. The executive was shown
Whelans complaint before Fairweather requested its recall.
In an email to Whelan, the director voiced concern that Fairweather had
belittled Whelans complaints of censorship in responding that this is only
an interim report, and that further work was still to be done.
I dont think saying this is an interim report quite does it in defending
the selective nature of presenting the facts, the director wrote (emphasis
added). From what I heard, at least some of them should find their way back
to the report.
You took all the steps to maintain your moral and professional integrity
The OPCW director also praised Brendan Whelans June 22 intervention.
My respect, I think your email is very carefully crafted, without emotions,
not accusing anybody but laying out the facts and concerns very clearly,
the executive wrote. Really well done.
In another email, the director told Whelan: [Y]ou took all the steps to
maintain your moral and professional integrity and thats what matters
most.
A more professional transparent and sound fact-finding mission
The OPCW director also responded positively to news that Whelans superiors,
in response to his email of protest, had agreed to cancel the publication of
the doctored report.
I hope an important precedent for the future, the executive wrote. The
director continued:
I[t] should serve as an encouragement to future FFM members that it is
important to get engaged in drafting and insist that their findings and
possible concerns be adequately considered and that simply ignoring mission
members views is not an acceptable way of doing business. Through your
action, you could actually be making the first step toward having a more
professional transparent and sound fact-finding mission.
It would have been easier to simply let it go'
The director was not the only top OPCW official to praise Brendan Whelans
efforts.
In August 2018, a second OPCW director wrote a glowing performance appraisal
that celebrated Whelans contributions to the chemical watchdog. The
appraisal came less than two months after Whelans June 22 email of protest,
and just a few weeks before Whelans scheduled departure in early September
2018. (This was Whelans second tenure with the OPCW, dating back to 1998.)
I can say without being unfair to others that you have been the
professional in the TS [Technical Secretariat] that has contributed the most
to the knowledge and understanding of CW [Chemical Weapons] chemistry
applied to inspections, the second OPCW director wrote. You produced a lot
of knowledge and unselfishly shared every bit of what you know with others,
enthusiastically. I thank you very much for this.
The second director also paid tribute to Whelans protest of the Douma probe
censorship.
I want to commend you as well for your character and strong values, which
have stood firm at times when it would have been easier to simply let it
go without fighting for what you believed was right, the second director
wrote. Thank you for everything, it will be difficult to replace you, now
that your tenure is about to end.
Director #2 Appraisal Redacted GZ
A second OPCW Director praises Dr. Brendan Whelans efforts.
The summer shutdown
While Brendan Whelans superior may have lamented his pending departure, the
officials who censored his report apparently saw it as an opportunity.
After the pivotal June 22 intervention, the Douma team leader took steps
that effectively neutralized Whelan until his scheduled exit in early
September 2018, just a few months later.
A compromise interim report was published on July 6. The interim report no
longer contained the deceptive edits that unknown officials had tried to
insert, but, nonetheless, continued to omit several key findings from the
teams original report.
It would soon become clear that this interim report was just a stopgap
measure. Issuing the watered-down document, with its uncomfortable facts
removed, left the door open for future publication of the doctored findings
once Whelan was no longer in the way.
In early July, OPCW officials announced the establishment of a new core
team that would be selected to write the final report. The so-called core
team excluded not just Whelan but also the team members who deployed into
Douma. There was one exception: a paramedic.
In place of the experienced inspectors, the core team now included junior
officials who were just beginning their career with the organization.
As the confidentiality officer during the deployment to Douma and the
post-mission period, Whelan had up until that point been responsible for
management of all of its materials. On July 2, just days before the interim
reports release, Whelan was instructed to hand over all confidential and
non-confidential Douma data to the core team.
Whelan was also relieved of his duties on the Douma team. Nominally I
continued to be part of the team, but in reality I was now side-lined from
any further meaningful contribution to the investigation, Whelan later
recalled, in an April 2019 letter to the Director General. I was no longer
in charge of report writing and my responsibility for sampling and analysis
issues was transferred to a member of the FFM Alpha core team.
The team leader also announced some news: he would be taking a six-week
vacation until September 4, one day after Whelans scheduled departure from
the organization.
With the nominal leader taking an extended break and responsibility handed
to junior officials, some of whom had not even set foot in Syria, the
investigation was effectively on pause until such time as Whelan was gone
for good.
Full of skepticism, but fear of the Russian narrative
With Brendan Whelan out of the picture and the rest of the Douma inspectors
effectively sidelined, it was a small group of so-called core team members
that produced the scientifically flawed final report of March 1, 2019.
The eight-month interval since the publication of the interim report is
notable. The majority of the investigation had already been conducted in
advance of the original suppressed report of late June 2018. This includes
70 percent of the chemical analyses, 90 percent of the interview
assessments, and, judging from the bibliography, all of the scientific
research on the chemical analysis and toxicology.
Despite this, the OPCW leadership, in an attempt to rebut allegations of
scientific fraud, has claimed that the FFM undertook the bulk of its work
in the period after Whelans departure. In fact, it appears that the OPCW
deliberately procrastinated and prolonged the investigation so as to give
the false appearance that significant work was taking place.
Freed from the inconvenience of dissenting experts, the final report
baselessly claimed that there were reasonable grounds to believe that a
chemical attack occurred in Douma, and that the toxic chemical was likely
molecular chlorine.
When the whistleblowers concerns about the final report later became
public, the OPCW leadership accused Whelan of trying to improperly
influence the investigation. In reality, Whelan, after departing the OPCW
in September 2018, only re-entered the Douma fray after the final reports
publication.
Whelan first wrote the director general, Spanish diplomat Fernando Arias, a
private letter on March 25. (Arias had taken over from his predecessor,
Ahmet Üzümcü of Turkey, in July 2018, just weeks after the publication of
the FFMs interim report.)
Uncertain that his concerns would ever make it to Arias desk, Whelan once
again turned to the first OPCW director who had praised his initial
intervention back in June 2018.
Whelan wrote on April 4, 2019, over a month after the final report was
published. Whelan asked for advice and assistance in getting his concerns
directly to the director general. He offered to fly to the Hague if Arias
would agree to meet.
The director responded promptly, apparently not surprised that Whelan had
gotten in touch: good to hear from you and yes, I actually anticipated to
hear from you one way or the other once the report on Douma is out.
The director seemed equally disturbed by the Douma report. Frankly
speaking, the whole thing keeps confusing me, the executive wrote. I cant
make my mind up around many things and thats an uncomfortable feeling,
especially given the hell broken loose about the Douma report.
The director agreed to help Whelan explore how to deliver his concerns to
Arias. The top official also revealed that a senior OPCW colleague with
chemical weapons expertise (who was not one of the inspectors) had similarly
expressed doubts about the final report.
But despite these misgivings, the director added a telling statement that
indicated that the Douma probe had become too politicized for any valid
concerns to make a difference:
He [the senior colleague] is also full of skepticism [about Douma] but
I
fear there is little one can do since the report is final and out unless
one wants to feed in the Russian narrative and that I would never do as they
really are not bona fide friends of this organization, thats for sure.
(emphasis added; ellipsis in original)
Despite doubts about the veracity of the published report, the director
continued to make it clear it was a fait accompli and beyond reproach. I
suppose we both concur that it is difficult to imagine that the DG would
change his mind and order issuing another, revised report or anything of
this kind. The report is simply out, the official wrote resignedly.
These qualms about bolstering a perceived Russian narrative after the
reports release stand in stark contrast to the OPCWs documented
willingness to enable a US narrative since the start of the investigation.
In early July 2018, just before the release of the interim report, Robert
Fairweather, the then-chief of cabinet, summoned the FFM inspectors to meet
with a visiting US delegation. The unidentified US officials sought to
influence the Douma team into concluding that the Syrian government had
committed a chemical attack with chlorine.
The US team promoted this chlorine theory despite the fact that it was still
not publicly known that no nerve agents had been found in Douma an
indication, perhaps, that the US played a critical role in shaping the
ultimate narrative.
A discussion that is difficult to pursue out in the open
In a follow-up email exchange on April 17, the OPCW director again intimated
that political imperatives would overrule any of the concerns about the
Douma probes impartiality.
At the bottom of an email, Brendan Whelan mentioned an open-source paper
written by a group of British scholars criticizing the Douma report: PS. A
very interesting and insightful article has just been published by a group
of UK academics on the Douma report. I can send you the link if you are
interested, Whelan wrote.
Fernando Arias would later suggest in a public statement that this comment
implicated Whelan in a breach of confidentiality. But in fact, the director
had already seen the UK academics paper and again signaled that political
concerns would trump any scientific ones.
Yes, I have seen the analysis by the UK academics, the director wrote.
Unfortunately, this is a discussion that is difficult to pursue out in the
open, knowing that it is already being played by parties who are decidedly
not bona fide supporters of the CWC [Chemical Weapons Convention].
The directors comments read as an acknowledgment that the OPCW was now
subordinate to geopolitical drama. The OPCW was willing, the executives
words suggest, to suppress concerns about scientific fraud and political
interference if paying attention to them could feed [into] the Russian
narrative and other undesirable parties.
A fully unbiased take on things
In another nod to the Douma reports bias, the executive suggested that,
although it was too late to revisit the Douma FFM report, there was another
option. Whelans concerns, the executive proposed, could be sent to the
Investigation and Identification Team (IIT), a separate body within the OPCW
tasked with identifying the perpetrators of chemical attacks.
The senior official intimated that this idea had already been discussed
among management, and that this new IIT team might be less compromised.
I am also thinking how things could develop further and basically see just
one option that seems realistic, given that we cant turn back the clock,
and which has been already floating around: it relates to all your points
being forwarded to the IIT for a fresh and comprehensive assessment by
people who are all also newly recruited and should therefore have a fully
unbiased take on things, the executive wrote on April 18.
The possibility that the IIT would be fully unbiased was a clear
acknowledgment that the FFM had not met that same standard.
Director #1 to BW
An OPCW Director tells Dr. Brendan Whelan that the IIT, unlike the Douma
FFM, may be able to have a fully unbiased take on things. The Director
also says that the Chief of Cabinet is perfectly OK with receiving your
letter to Director General Arias. The letter expressed Whelans concerns
about the Douma investigation and its final report.
There clearly is interest to continue the communication
Brendan Whelans request to meet with Director General Fernando Arias was
denied. But the senior executive did arrange to get a letter from Whelan to
the OPCW chief.
The Grayzone has previously published Whelans April 25, 2019 letter to
Arias, outlining his concerns about the Douma investigation in extensive
detail.
Arias replied to Whelan five weeks later, on June 7. As had happened with
Whelans initial protest about the suppressed interim report, Arias ignored
Whelans concerns about scientific and procedural misconduct throughout the
investigation.
Instead, Arias only reaction was to reiterate his confidence in the final
Douma report, and to falsely claim that the work done after Whelan left the
OPCW justified its conclusions.
Bizarrely, Arias would go on to publicly dismiss Whelans letter as evidence
of a mischievous desire to have continued access to, and influence on, the
Douma investigation. This contrasts starkly with what the director told
Whelan in their correspondence.
The director told Whelan that the chief of cabinet is perfectly OK with
receiving your letter, and that there clearly is interest to continue the
communication. The chief of cabinet is Arias top deputy, and acts on his
behalf.
Public attacks after private praise
Fernando Arias disingenuous comment about Brendan Whelans desire to
influence the Douma investigation came as part of a February 2020 OPCW
inquiry that deceptively characterized the whistleblowers as rogue,
uninformed actors.
Since then, the campaign against the inspectors has intensified. At the
United Nations Security Council, the US, UK, and France the states that
bombed Syria based on the Douma allegation have dismissed the inspectors
concerns as Syrian and Russian disinformation.
In October, these same governments even blocked the OPCWs first director
general, José Bustani, from testifying in support of the inspectors, whom he
worked with during his tenure.
Bellingcat, a NATO member state-funded website, has published a number of
fallacious attacks, including an outright hoax. Shortly after the Bustani
incident at the UN, Bellingcat doxxed Dr. Whelan and falsely suggested that
he had concealed information that disproved his objections.
In reality, as The Grayzone revealed, a purported letter that Bellingcat
claimed was sent to Whelan by the OPCW director general was never actually
sent, replete with errors, and may actually be a fake.
In the latest failed attempt to smear the inspectors, a BBC podcast series
called Mayday recycled Bellingcats debunked assertions; made other
glaring errors and omissions; and credulously promoted the dubious claims of
an anonymous source who claims to work for the OPCW in an unspecified
capacity.
Because false information continues to be leaked about the dissenting
inspectors and their scientific concerns purportedly from individuals
within the OPCW it should not be ruled out that the same people have also
deliberately misinformed Arias.
Whoever is behind this defamation campaign against the whistleblowers, one
fact is certain: the private comments of OPCW executives who praised one
of the inspectors, and questioned the scientific fraud that he challenged
are at direct odds with the public attacks.
