Category Archives: Trump Administration

Gordon Chang is Right, Recall Chinese Diplomats

Posted on by

Today, May 20, Steve Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary announced the tariffs are on hold, pending some kind of a tentative agreement. Really Steve? This as the North Korea Kim/Trump talks are on shaky ground. China wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons, period.

China is a Leninist state. I spent a month on the mainland, I saw it.

A threat to the United States? Yes. To allies? Yes

China has overtly weaponized those pesky island with a H-6 bomber aircraft landing on Woody Island. Did President Xi share any of this with President Trump at that confab at Mar A Lago? The matter of the South China Sea and those disputed waters and island is hardly any new threat. It goes back to at least 2014 and President Obama was briefed often on the building Chinese aggression. There was a temporary Asia Pivot by Obama but it was merely a gesture in retrospect. That Asia Pivot hardly raised any eyebrows in Beijing.

The reason to recall diplomats and expel others from the United States? At least the first one, laser attack on our U.S. airmen.

8 May 2018 — The two airmen reported symptoms of dizziness and seeing rings. Pointing lasers at aircraft is extremely dangerous. It can temporarily blind pilots, and in the United States it’s a federal offense. While the pilots are expected to make a full recovery, the incident raises questions about how far the United States will allow China to push it without pushing back.

But first let’s back up. What’s everyone doing in Djibouti, a tiny country in eastern Africa? America has a base in Djibouti because of its proximity to Yemen, a terrorist incubator. The 4,000 U.S. troops stationed there are tasked with conducting counter-terrorism operations in the region.

Djibouti - China Naval Base photo

What about China? Well, that’s a little more opaque. China opened its Djibouti base last August, claiming that its purpose is to help with anti-piracy patrols and other peacekeeping missions. It’s supposedly a logistics base, but here’s the thing: China doesn’t have foreign military bases anywhere in the world — except in Djibouti, eight miles from the U.S. base.

But is worse…anyone paying attention outside of Gordon Chang and Steven Mosher? Yes thankfully, Congress is. FINALLY

Suggest you watch this video, consider how much of it, if not all of it was stolen from the United States.

So, let us consider some of these items shall we?

  1. Why are we giving China access to our defense contractors? Additionally, there are cyber part operations and hacks of the F-22 and F-35.
  2. Who is challenging the BRI, Belt Road Initiative?
  3. The South China Sea is part of the Blue Water Territory. China is building a navy to be twice the size of that of the United States. That includes up to 12 nuclear powered carrier battle groups.
  4. No one challenged China on the Scarborough Shoal achievement, that is the new China model for hegemony.
  5. China wants all telecom advances developed by the United States for it’s fiber-liked command centers and is getting them. China wants to lead on 5G, then there is outer-space.
  6. China and Russia have an alliance on military, missile and hybrid tactics to alter the balance of global power.
  7. Then there was the China Argentina issue with the Falklands, again.
  8. China has instituted national re-education program. The program is a hallmark of China’s emboldened state security apparatus under the deeply nationalistic, hard-line rule of President Xi Jinping. It is partly rooted in the ancient Chinese belief in transformation through education – taken once before to terrifying extremes during the mass thought reform campaigns of Mao Zedong, the Chinese leader sometimes channeled by Xi.
  9. A significant Chinese operation is debt-trapping. Sri Lanka and the Philippines are already falling due to this.
  10. China forcing Venezuela to give up Blanquilla Island over debt.
  11. If you look at the Qing Dynasty, that is President Xi’s vision and Taiwan is an important key to that achievement. China Wants to Build a Massive Underwater Tunnel to Taiwan and to own/control Taiwan by 2020.
  12. OBOR, One Belt, One Road is a sophisticated trade strategy on a global scale and it threatens currency stability, port security, transportation channels and debt.

 

 

 

Jones Day Legal Counsel to European Corps, Iran Deal

Posted on by

Let’s begin with Ploughshares, shall we? Make sure you check the credits at the end of the video. Those that contributed money to the effort are listed here.

Meanwhile, there is a meeting scheduled in Vienna where Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China are to discuss saving the Iran nuclear deal. It is being chaired by Helga Schmid. Will it soon be called the Vienna nuclear deal?

Impact of U.S. Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal

May 2018

In Short

The Situation: On Tuesday, May 8, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States has withdrawn from the Iran Nuclear Deal and will fully reimpose its suspended sanctions targeting Iran.

The Result: All currently suspended U.S. sanctions in respect of Iran, including sanctions applicable to non-U.S. persons, will be reimposed by November 5, 2018.

Looking Ahead: The reimposition of U.S. sanctions will have limited impact on U.S. companies. However, foreign companies majority-owned or controlled by U.S. persons must now begin winding down any Iran-related activities. In contrast, the impact of the reimposition of U.S. sanctions on non-U.S. companies is less clear, and as the international response develops, non-U.S. companies will increasingly face a complex compliance landscape.

As reported earlier this week, on May 8, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States will reimpose, after specified wind-down periods, all nuclear-related sanctions lifted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) (commonly known as the “Iran Nuclear Deal”). As a result, the U.S. sanctions regime will revert to its pre-JCPOA scope by November 5, 2018.

In light of the comprehensive U.S. primary sanctions that remained in place after implementation of the JCPOA, President Trump’s announcement will have little impact on U.S. companies. In contrast, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. organizations and their non-U.S. counterparts face a dramatically changed compliance landscape. With the reimposition of U.S. extraterritorial, or secondary, sanctions, non-U.S. companies must navigate increasingly complex terrain as they assess continued engagement with Iran, compliance with U.S. sanctions, and the pending response of the other JCPOA signatories.

Immediate Impact

The background of the JCPOA, the resulting international sanctions relief, and President Trump’s criticism of the deal are, at this point, well-known (see “Iran Nuclear Deal Reached; Sanctions Remain in Place,” “Implementation Day Triggers Significant Changes to International Sanctions Against Iran,” and “Potential Options for U.S. Sanctions on Iran Under the Trump Administration“). Although the policy implications of President’s Trump’s announcement may be subject to debate, the immediate impact is clear. In connection with the announcement, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued Frequently Asked Questions setting out a staged reimposition of U.S. sanctions over the next 90 to 180 days (subject to any extension that may be put in place by the United States at a later stage).

Following a 90-day wind-down period ending on August 6, 2018, the United States will reimpose its secondary sanctions targeting activities related to:

  • Iran’s automotive sector;
  • The sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, of graphite, raw or semi-finished metals (such as aluminum and steel), coal, and software for integrating industrial processes to or from Iran; and
  • Certain financial and banking transactions related to Iranian sovereign debt, the acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the Government of Iran, the purchase or sale of Iranian rials, Iranian rial-denominated funds or accounts, and trade in gold or other precious metals.

During the same period, the United States will revoke the following authorizations:

  • The general license authorizing the importation into the United States of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs (as well as certain related financial transactions);
  • All specific licenses (and subsequent wind-down authorizations) issued in connection with the Statement of Licensing Policy for Activities Related to the Export or Re-export to Iran of Commercial Passenger Aircraft and Related Parts and Services (“JCPOA SLP”); and
  • General License I, which authorized certain transactions related to negotiating and entering contingent contracts for activities covered by the JCPOA SLP.

Following a 180-day wind-down period ending on November 4, 2018, the United States will reimpose its secondary sanctions targeting activities related to:

  • Certain transactions by foreign financial institutions with, and provision of specialized financial messaging to, the Central Bank of Iran and/or designated Iranian financial institutions;
  • Certain categories of transactions related to Iran’s energy sector, including certain investments (such as participation in joint ventures); provision of goods, services, technology or technical support; the purchase, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum, petrochemical products, and/or natural gas to or from Iran; and transactions with certain designated persons (such as the National Iranian Oil Company, Naftiran Intertrade Company, and National Iranian Tanker Company);
  • Certain transactions involving Iran’s port operators and/or related to Iran’s shipping and shipbuilding sectors, including activities involving the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, South Line Iran, or their affiliates; and
  • The provision of certain insurance, reinsurance, and underwriting services.

Effective November 5, 2018, the United States will also revoke General License H (and any subsequent wind-down authorizations issued in connection with that general license), which previously authorized foreign entities majority-owned or controlled by U.S. persons to engage in most transactions involving Iran. It appears all other Iran-related general and specific licenses, including licenses issued under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (“TSRA”), issued by OFAC will remain unaffected.

Finally, no later than November 5, 2018, the United States will redesignate all persons who had been removed, through the JCPOA, from the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons and/or other U.S. sanctioned parties lists.

Consequently, by November 5, 2018, the United States is currently expected to have reimposed all sanctions that had been lifted pursuant to the JCPOA.

Near- and Long-Term Implications

As a practical matter, the reimposition of U.S. sanctions suspended under the JCPOA will have limited impact on U.S. companies. As noted in our prior Alerts and Commentaries, substantial U.S. sanctions in relation to Iran have remained in place and continued to prohibit U.S. persons from engaging, directly or indirectly, in virtually all transactions or dealings with Iran without authorization.

The reimposition of U.S. sanctions will, however, have immediate impact on non-U.S. organizations that are majority-owned or controlled by U.S. persons and on U.S.-linked aviation companies. As noted above, the United States intends to revoke all specific and general licenses issued in connection with the JCPOA “as soon as administratively feasible,” including General License H and aviation-specific licenses issued under the JCPOA SLP and General License I. In their place, OFAC intends to issue authorizations that will likely narrowly authorize only activities necessary to wind down previously authorized activities. Companies that rely on these authorizations should immediately reassess their existing Iran-related activities, including in-process and pending transactions, in order to prepare to wind down Iran-related activities and ensure compliance with U.S. sanctions during the wind-down period.

The near- and long-term implications of President’s Trump announcement for non-U.S. companies are less clear. Non-U.S. persons are not, with limited exceptions, subject to U.S. primary sanctions. However, U.S. secondary sanctions provide for an array of penalties that, in effect, foreclose access to U.S. markets—a meaningful deterrent for non-U.S. companies. The United States appears poised to rigorously enforce the renewed sanctions and has advised non-U.S. companies to begin winding up soon-to-be sanctionable activities to “avoid exposure to sanctions or an enforcement action when the applicable wind-down period ends.” Continued engagement with Iran will therefore become an increasingly fraught proposition for non-U.S. persons, and one that may be further complicated by the international community’s response to the United States’ withdrawal.

In that regard, following President Trump’s announcement, the European Union has reiterated its commitment to “the continued full and effective implementation of the JCPOA,” as long as Iran meets its nuclear-related obligations, adding that it “is determined to work with the international community” to preserve the deal. Although the European Union has not yet indicated any measures it may implement to preserve the JCPOA, it suggested earlier this year that it may expand its Blocking Regulation—Council Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96 of November 22, 1996—to protect EU-based organizations doing business in Iran following any U.S. withdrawal.

The Blocking Regulation was adopted in 1996 by the European Union (European Communities at the time) in response to the extraterritorial application of U.S. sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Libya. It prohibits EU companies from complying with blocked sanctions “whether directly or through a subsidiary or other intermediary person, actively or by deliberate omission.” The importance of the Blocking Regulation in the last decade has been limited. This would change if the scope of its application is expanded to cover the U.S. secondary sanctions in relation to Iran, possibly protecting EU companies from enforcement of U.S. judgments or administrative decisions giving effect to the secondary sanctions.

Historically, enforcement of the Blocking Regulation has generally been very limited, but expanding its scope now has the potential to lead to increased enforcement actions across Europe. An expanded Blocking Regulation would, however, place EU companies squarely between the competing demands of U.S. sanctions and EU and national requirements. The European Union may also try to negotiate an exemption for EU companies from the reimposition of the U.S. sanctions. The prospects of relief for EU companies under either approach remains uncertain.

China and Russia have likewise consistently reaffirmed their commitment to the JCPOA, and in a joint statement last month confirmed their “unwavering support” for the deal. In light of current tensions between the United States and Russia and China, it seems unlikely that the U.S. withdrawal will lead Russia or China to alter its commitment to the JCPOA or have a substantial impact on Russian and Chinese business interests in Iran.

As the international response to the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA develops, non-U.S. companies should take steps to protect their interests in light of the pending reimposition of U.S. sanctions. In particular, non-U.S. companies should reassess their Iran-related activities to determine their potential liability under the soon-to-be imposed U.S. secondary sanctions and/or any potential blocking statutes; open dialogues with their financial institutions, insurers, and other service providers regarding any Iran-related activities; and, significantly, prepare to possibly wind down any potentially sanctionable Iran-related activities in order to move promptly to comply with U.S. secondary sanctions, if warranted.

Jones Day will continue to monitor developments and provide updates.

Three Key Takeaways

  1. The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement will result in the reimposition of sanctions that had been lifted as part of JCPOA, or, the “Iran Nuclear Deal.”
  2. Because the comprehensive U.S. primary sanctions remained in place after implementation of JCPOA, the withdrawal and reimposition of sanctions hold few consequences for U.S. companies.
  3. However, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. organizations and their non-U.S. counterparts face a markedly altered compliance situation, and those companies affected should take decisive and deliberate measures to protect their interests.

Law Firm Behind Dossier has Another Lawyer Resigning Ahead of IG Report

Posted on by

Tag team or the whole firm?

So, we know Perkin Coie was the law firm that was hired by Hillary Clinton to pay for the work done on the Trump dossier. The lawyer pinpointed was Marc Elias. Letter of evidence is here. But could there have been another lawyer in the operation, once such Bob Bauer?

P050911PS-0060 | President Barack Obama walks through the ... Bauer on far right

Bauer was formerly the top White House lawyer under the Obama administration. His wife is Anita Dunn who was the White House Communications Director at the same time. She is known for giving a speech where she declared her admiration for Mao Zedong. What a pair eh? Anita by the way is a senior partner at SKDKnickerbocker, a strategic communications firm in DC. Just so you know, SKDKnickerbocker only represents Democrats including Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Fluke. Their favorite issues such as Center for Reproductive Rights, the Obama Presidential Library.

BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO: OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY LAWYER BEHIND IRS ...

Okay, so meanwhile, her husband, Bob has resigned from Perkins Coie to continue teaching at NYU. He has been a the law firm for 40 years. Bauer served as counsel to the Senate minority leader during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial of 1999, and took leave from the firm to work as Obama’s White House counsel from 2010 through July 2011.

Obama's Supreme Court point man low-key but tough photo

Bob Bauer is also the legal counsel for the Obama Foundation and the Biden Foundation as well as the Democratic National Committee, where Marc Elias served as chair. Elias was the lead counsel of record for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Bauer remains in full support of James Comey and his loyalty characteristics. In part from Bauer’s article on Comey is:

Comey writes that at an earlier point in the investigation, he raised with Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates the need for unusual transparency when the investigation was closed. She did not get back to him, he recalls, but soon two events persuaded him that further consultation or coordination was inadvisable. A still-classified email surfaced in the investigation that he believed that partisans would seize on to claim that the attorney general had committed to protect Clinton from legal harm. He did not credit the content of the communication, but feared the consequences of partisan distortions for the reputation of the Justice Department. Then the attorney general announced what Comey refers to as her “tortured half-in, half-out” quasi-recusal following the meeting with Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport.

It was then that Comey concluded that he would go it alone—a course of action that, without explanation, he refers to as a “crazy idea of personally offering the American people unusual transparency, and doing it without the leadership of the Department of Justice.” To the extent that there was a deliberative process, it occurred entirely within the FBI: there, Comey drew on the advice of his management team. So, on an issue of this magnitude, the circle within which views could be expressed was tightly drawn. Comey addressed the process problem he faced through an ad hoc, closed process of his own. He might have thought he was left with no choice, the other principals having disqualified themselves from participation.

The full item that Bob Bauer wrote is quite the read and you can find it here.

 

 

North/South Korea Basis Points for Talks with President Trump

Posted on by

The meeting happen between Kim Jung Un and President Trump which has been scheduled sits on shaky ground due to recent demands by the United States including applying the Libya model of the nuclear program in North Korea.

Talks between North Korea and South Korea have been suspended after the items below were agreed to by both countries, known as the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace:

I. South and North Korea will reconnect the blood relations of the people and bring forward the future of co-prosperity and unification led by Koreans by facilitating comprehensive and ground-breaking advancement in inter-Korean relations. Improving and cultivating inter-Korean relations is the prevalent desire of the whole nation and the urgent calling of the times that cannot be held back any further.

1) South and North Korea affirmed the principle of determining the destiny of the Korean nation on their own accord and agreed to bring forth the watershed moment for the improvement of inter-Korean relations by fully implementing all existing agreements and declarations adopted between the two sides thus far.

2) South and North Korea agreed to hold dialogue and negotiations in various fields including at high level, and to take active measures for the implementation of the agreements reached at the summit.

3) South and North Korea agreed to establish a joint liaison office with resident representatives of both sides in the Gaeseong region in order to facilitate close consultation between the authorities as well as smooth exchanges and cooperation between the peoples.

4) South and North Korea agreed to encourage more active cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts at all levels in order to rejuvenate the sense of national reconciliation and unity. Between South and North, the two sides will encourage the atmosphere of amity and cooperation by actively staging various joint events on the dates that hold special meaning for both South and North Korea, such as June 15, in which participants from all levels, including central and local governments, parliaments, political parties, and civil organisations, will be involved. On the international front, the two sides agreed to demonstrate their collective wisdom, talents, and solidarity by jointly participating in international sports events such as the 2018 Asian Games.

5) South and North Korea agreed to endeavour to swiftly resolve the humanitarian issues that resulted from the division of the nation, and to convene the Inter-Korean Red Cross Meeting to discuss and solve various issues including the reunion of separated families. In this vein, South and North Korea agreed to proceed with reunion programs for the separated families on the occasion of the National Liberation Day of August 15 this year.

6) South and North Korea agreed to actively implement the projects previously agreed in the 2007 October 4 Declaration, in order to promote balanced economic growth and co-prosperity of the nation. As a first step, the two sides agreed to adopt practical steps towards the connection and modernisation of the railways and roads on the eastern transportation corridor as well as between Seoul and Sinuiju for their utilisation.

II. South and North Korea will make joint efforts to alleviate the acute military tension and practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula.

1) South and North Korea agreed to completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of military tension and conflict. In this vein, the two sides agreed to transform the demilitarised zone into a peace zone in a genuine sense by ceasing as of May 2 this year all hostile acts and eliminating their means, including broadcasting through loudspeakers and distribution of leaflets, in the areas along the Military Demarcation Line.

2) South and North Korea agreed to devise a practical scheme to turn the areas around the Northern Limit Line in the West Sea into a maritime peace zone in order to prevent accidental military clashes and guarantee safe fishing activities.

3) South and North Korea agreed to take various military measures to ensure active mutual cooperation, exchanges, visits and contacts. The two sides agreed to hold frequent meetings between military authorities, including the defence ministers meeting, in order to immediately discuss and solve military issues that arise between them. In this regard, the two sides agreed to first convene military talks at the rank of general in May.

III. South and North Korea will actively cooperate to establish a permanent and solid peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. Bringing an end to the current unnatural state of armistice and establishing a robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is a historical mission that must not be delayed any further.

1) South and North Korea reaffirmed the Non-Aggression Agreement that precludes the use of force in any form against each other, and agreed to strictly adhere to this Agreement.

2) South and North Korea agreed to carry out disarmament in a phased manner, as military tension is alleviated and substantial progress is made in military confidence-building.

3) During this year that marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice, South and North Korea agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings involving the two Koreas, the United States and China, with a view to declaring an end to the war and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime.

4) South and North Korea confirmed the common goal of realising, through complete denuclearisation, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. South and North Korea shared the view that the measures being initiated by North Korea are very meaningful and crucial for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and agreed to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities in this regard. South and North Korea agreed to actively seek the support and cooperation of the international community for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

The two leaders agreed, through regular meetings and direct telephone conversations, to hold frequent and candid discussions on issues vital to the nation, to strengthen mutual trust and to jointly endeavour to strengthen the positive momentum towards continuous advancement of inter-Korean relations as well as peace, prosperity and unification of the Korean Peninsula.

In this context, President Moon Jae-in agreed to visit Pyongyang this (northern) autumn.

April 27, 2018

Done in Panmunjom

Moon Jae-in, President, Republic of Korea

Kim Jong-un, Chairman, State Affairs Commission, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

***

Meanwhile, are U.S. officials assigned to working the back channel deals with North Korea suggesting lighter demands of North Korea in a long-term layered approach? Yes, just a down payment on partial denuclearization. Susan Thornton is pushing more feeble demands. Susan is the acting assistant secretary at the State Department and Pompeo wants her replaced. She has also pushed for a more conciliatory approach to China.

Susan should be removed and now we can see there is a real divided and fractured approach to the trade, military and nuclear issues in Asia.

 

 

 

Results of OPCW Investigation in Syria

Posted on by

Remember, the anti-Assad forces otherwise known as rebels don’t have aircraft and don’t have bombs that would create craters in the ground. Oh yeah, notice that Russia has not produced their own investigations or conclusions as they pledged to do?

 

The exact same sort of wheel assembly we saw on the Douma chlorine bombs on the chlorine bomb used in Saraqib!  The details of samples taken are interesting in light of the Douma attack, soils samples and samples from the munitions confirm the presence of chlorine, although these were taken close to the time of attack.   Here’s samples from Khan Sheikhoun, showing the same three chemicals as detected in the Saraqib attack, all indicators of Sarin use.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 16 May 2018 —The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), confirmed in a report released yesterday that chlorine was likely used as a chemical weapon on 4 February 2018 in Saraqib, Idlib Governorate, Syrian Arab Republic.

The FFM determined that chlorine was released from cylinders by mechanical impact in the Al Talil neighbourhood of Saraqib.

The conclusions are based inter alia on the presence of two cylinders, which were determined as previously containing chlorine; witness testimony; environmental samples that demonstrated the unusual presence of chlorine in the local environment; and the number of patients at medical facilities shortly after the incident who showed signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to chlorine and other toxic chemicals.

The Director-General stated: “I strongly condemn the continued use of toxic chemicals as weapons by anyone, for any reason, and in any circumstances. Such acts contradict the unequivocal prohibition against chemical weapons enshrined in the Chemical Weapons Convention.”

The FFM’s report on the Saraqib incident has been shared with States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  The report was also transmitted to the UN Security Council through the UN Secretary-General.

Background

In response to persistent allegations of chemical weapon attacks in Syria, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) was set up in 2014 with an on-going mandate “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic”. The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria. It does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks. Attribution was part of the mandate of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, set up by the UN Security Council, which expired in November 2017.

The FFM has previously confirmed with a “high degree of confidence” the use of chlorine, sulfur mustard, and sarin as weapons.

The FFM is required to study available information relating to allegations of use of chemical weapons in Syria, including information provided by the Syrian Arab Republic and others. The FFM employs investigative methods to determine if chemical weapons have been used. It interviews witnesses and obtains environmental and bio-medical samples and physical evidence for analysis.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons operates according to a strict confidentiality regime, which governs the operations of the Organisation, protects the integrity of its investigations, ensures the security of its technical experts, and determines what information can be made public.

As the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, the OPCW oversees the global endeavour to permanently and verifiably eliminate chemical weapons. Since the Convention’s entry into force in 1997 – and with its 192 States Parties – it is the most successful disarmament treaty eliminating an entire class of weapons of mass destruction.