Why did Syria require the UN to agree that the UN chemical inspectors

[pnwmom]

would only establish whether chemical weapons were used but NOT gather information on the origins of the attack? Even though by collecting things such as rocket shells, and examining the preservatives and other characteristics of the toxins used, they could have helped establish whether a toxic agent was army-made or was made by rebels?

The answer seems obvious. Syria only accepted the UN inspection team under pressure. They knew that the use of chemical weapons would be proven and they also knew who used them. If the rebels had used them, the government would have been happy for the UN to find evidence of that. But they don't want the UN to prove that chemical weapons were used by government forces. So they only allowed the UN in under the very limited mandate of determining whether chemical weapons were used at all.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/221993761_UN_asks_for_accelerated_testing_of_Syria_samples.html

Nesirky has said that under an agreement between Damascus and the United Nations the inspection team's mandate is limited to determining whether chemical weapons were used rather than trying to assign blame for the attack.

[Little Star]

1. I heard someone explaining on tv last night that it was/is the UN's own mandate....

that limit's itself to determining whether chemical weapons were used rather than trying to assign blame for the attack.

I don't believe that part had anything to do with Damascus other than the UN stating it's own mandate.

[pnwmom]

2. Martin Nesirky, UN spokesman, said the mandate "was limited."

Not that the UN limited itself.

Also, the former US chief weapons inspector for the UN has stated that it WOULD be possible to collect such evidence. This isn't some UN policy. It's all they could get Syria to agree to.


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/syria2_08-29.html

CHARLES DUELFER: They have had limited time.

There aren't that many of them. But they are able to interview a range of people who were in each of these areas, to the extent that they can, about what happened, what types of munitions were used. They may be able to collect remnants of the munitions, which could tell you quite a bit about the type of agent.

JEFFREY BROWN: What will that tell you? And will it tell you about who used it?

CHARLES DUELFER: If it is a sophisticated kind of a rocket or an artillery shell, such as the Syrian army would have, you can tell.

There's different reservoirs for the components of the sarin gas if they're there which are made to mix when it's fired. They're able to look at the type of gas, the sarin gas. Some of it is more sophisticated than others. For example, if it were just made up by insurgents, an ad hoc group, as some are suggesting as one alternative, they wouldn't have something called stabilizers or preservatives in it.

Serious Syrian army stuff has been on the shelf for a long time. It's like Wonder Bread. It has got something in the agent which will keep it active for years.

[Igel]

3. I think that Nesirsky's being misinterpreted.

If it was a yes/no "Were chemical weapons used?" it wouldn't take up to 3 weeks to get the results. You'd get a two-three page assay-result sheet with a certification page and a few sheets that said who went where to collect what and why.

Weeks of analysis you're looking at a more complex analysis. Quantity, quality, likely means of delivery. You're digging to see what the samples can divulge. Not just, "Was it a chemical weapon, yes or no?"

However, regardless of the results the UN team will not say, "Our analysis shows that __________ is responsible for the attack." Even if it leaves no doubt.