Podcasts about opcw

Vandaag is het OPCW dag. Dat is de organisatie die zich inzet op verbod van chemische wapens. Het verdrag chemische wapens dat is ondertekend in 1993 heeft de situatie drastisch verbeterd, maar dat is niet het hele verhaal...  Hoe hebben chemische wapens oorlogsvoering veranderd, worden de internationale verdragen wel goed nageleefd en wat voor effect hebben de verschillende soort wapens? te gast: Dokter Anneleen van der Meer, werkzaam aan de Universiteit Leiden bij het Institute of Security and Global Affairs (ISGA).

Amid Evolving Political Reality, Security Council Speakers Urge Breakthrough on Syria's Chemical Weapons Compliance The new political reality in Syria presents an opportunity to obtain long-overdue clarifications on the Syrian chemical weapons programme, rid the country of all such weapons and ensure long-term compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, a senior United Nations official told the Security Council today. “The importance of closing all outstanding issues related to Syria's chemical weapons dossier cannot be overstated,” said Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, during her briefing to the 15-member Council. Although the previous Syrian authorities submitted 20 amendments to Syria's initial declaration, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Declaration Assessment Team was never able to confirm that the information was accurate.  Over the last 11 years, the Team has raised and reported a total of 26 outstanding issues with Syria's declaration. “The OPCW Technical Secretariat has reported that the substance of the 19 outstanding issues remains a ‘serious concern' as it involves large quantities of potentially undeclared or unverified chemical warfare agents and chemical munitions,” she added. The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission and the OPCW Investigation and Identification Team have documented the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and in several incidents, identified the Syrian Arab Armed Forces as the perpetrators.  The OPCW Technical Secretariat has reported that Syria continued to use, and possibly produce, chemical weapons after joining the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2013.  “The situation left by the previous Syrian authorities is extremely worrying,” she went on to stress. But, there are some encouraging signs.  The OPCW Director-General recently received assurances that the new authorities are committed to destroying any remains of the chemical weapons programme, bringing justice to the victims and ensuring Syria's compliance with international law.  A new focal point for chemical weapons matters within the Syria's Foreign Ministry travelled to The Hague for in-person meetings with the OPCW Technical Secretariat on how to advance the OPCW's “Nine-Point Action Plan for Syria”. In the coming days, a team of experts from the OPCW Technical Secretariat will be deployed to Damascus to establish OPCW's permanent presence in Syria and start jointly planning deployments to chemical weapons sites.  While the commitment of the caretaker authorities in Syria to fully cooperate with the OPCW Technical Secretariat is commendable, the work ahead will not be easy and will require additional resources from the international community. “I urge the members of this Council to unite and show leadership in providing the support that this unprecedented effort will require,” she said. In the ensuing discussion among Council members, many speakers took note of the developments reported to date, underscoring them as important steps towards implementing relevant Council resolutions and securing Syria's fulfilment of its international commitments.  Several speakers also stressed the importance of ensuring that chemical weapons do not fall into the hands of non-State actors.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/policy-and-rights--3339563/support.

WHO ARE THE KURDS, AND HOW DO THEY FIT INTO THE MIDDLE EAST PUZZLE?HEADLINE 1: The U.S. Air Force conducted a joint exercise with the Israeli Air Force on Tuesday.HEADLINE 2: Clashes broke out in Syria between Assad loyalists and the new government's security forces.HEADLINE 3: The Trump administration is getting creative with its maximum pressure campaign.BONUS HEADLINE 4: Syria's foreign minister made a historic visit to the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or the OPCW.--FDD Executive Director Jon Schanzer provides timely updates and analysis, followed by a conversation with Giran Ozcan, who serves as the executive director of the Kurdish Peace Institute.Learn more at: https://fdd.org/fddmorningbrief

  The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which prohibits the manufacture, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons, entered into force in 1997. It is now the most widely adopted international arms control treaty, with 193 states parties. The CWC is a clear example of a treaty that works. Since its adoption, all declared chemical weapon stockpiles have been destroyed, including those of the United States last year. Its broad acceptance has also reinforced international norms against chemical weapons use. When such weapons were deployed in Syria in 2013, the atrocity prompted Russia and the United States to pressure the Assad regime to join the CWC and allow investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to oversee the destruction of Syria's remaining stockpile. This effort earned the OPCW the Nobel Peace Prize that same year. The CWC is fulfilling its purpose. Joining me to discuss how the treaty was created, its success in shaping state behavior, and what lies ahead now that all declared stockpiles have been eliminated is Paul Walker. He is the chair of the Chemical Weapons Convention Coalition, vice chair of the Arms Control Association, and a former weapons inspector. We begin with the history of efforts to ban chemical weapons before exploring how the CWC has transformed the global approach to these weapons of mass destruction. This episode is produced in partnership with Lex International, a philanthropic fund dedicated to strengthening international law to address global challenges. It is part of a series showcasing how treaties make the world a safer place. To access the transcript of this episode and others in the series, visit GlobalDispatches.org    

Preview: SYRIA: OPCW: Colleague Andrea Stricker updates the search and destruction of the not-so-small chemical weapon arsenal in Syria. More tonight 1930

OPCW: Chemical weapon search in Syria. Andrea Stricker, FDD. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 1887 WAR OF THE WORLDS

In episode 3 of the Syrian Podcast, Mike Robinson speaks to Dr Piers Robinson about alleged chemical weapons use by the Assad government and Piers' subsequent support for the two OPCW investigators who continue to highlight irregularities in the OPCW report on alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma in 2015. It is hugely important to understand these irregularities now, as the chemical weapons narrative comes back into the corporate media agenda, not only in Syria, but in Ukraine and here in the UK.

PREVIEW: CHEMICAL WEAPONS: SYRIA: Colleague Andrea Stricker of FDD comments on the need for the IDF to work with the OPCW inspectors to make certain chemical weapon arsenals have been completely destroyed. More tonight. 1905 Damascus

#OPCW: Russia accused of CD gas drone dropped on Ukraine trenches. Andrea Stricker, FDD 1906 Dead London after the Martian attack

#OPCW: Ukraine accuses Russia of chemical attacks. Andrea Stricker, FDD https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/07/12/opcw-visits-ukraine-after-accusations-of-russian-chemical-weapons-use/ 1919 Western Front

In this episode of Battlegrounds, H.R. McMaster and Ahmet Üzümcü discuss the vital role of Turkey in advancing peace and prosperity in a time of economic distress; strained relations between Ankara and Washington over Turkey's acquisition of Russian air defense systems; disagreements over US support for Syrian Kurdish forces in the fight against ISIS in Syria; and concerns about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's authoritarian tendencies and his support for the terrorist organization Hamas, on Wednesday June 26, 2024. Join former director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Ahmet Üzümcü, and Hoover senior fellow H.R. McMaster in a deep dive into the current state of US-Turkey (Türkiye) and NATO-Turkey relations. In this episode of Battlegrounds, Ambassador Üzümcü, who has previously served as Turkey's permanent representative to the United Nations and NATO, Turkish ambassador to Israel, and deputy undersecretary of state for bilateral political affairs, shares his expert insights on the evolving dynamics between Ankara and Washington, Turkey's controversial acquisition of Russian air defense systems, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's authoritarian policies and support for Hamas, and the broader implications of all these aspects for NATO and stability in the Middle East. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Ahmet Üzümcü served as director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) from 2010 to 2018. Ambassador Üzümcü accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 on behalf of the OPCW for the organization's extensive work toward eliminating chemical weapons. Prior to serving this role he was Turkey's (Türkiye's) permanent representative to the United Nations, its permanent representative to NATO, Turkish ambassador to Israel, and deputy undersecretary of state for bilateral political affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ambassador Üzümcü holds a bachelor's degree in international relations from Ankara University. He currently serves as a senior network member for the European Leadership Network and as a senior advisor for the Council on Strategic Risks. H.R. McMaster is the Fouad and Michelle Ajami Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is also the Bernard and Susan Liautaud Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute and lecturer at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business. He was the 25th assistant to the president for National Security Affairs. Upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1984, McMaster served as a commissioned officer in the United States Army for thirty-four years before retiring as a Lieutenant General in June 2018. ​

Dr. Robert Kristovich, Ph.D. is Director of the Joint Science and Technology Office (JSTO), at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency ( DTRA - https://www.dtra.mil/ ), an integral component of the United States Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP). As Director of DTRA JSTO, Dr. Kristovich leads an office of 200 professionals including eight divisions of scientists, researchers and administrative staff. He manages the execution of over US$505 million focused on transforming science and technology (S&T) to prepare for current and emerging chemical and biological (CB) threats to better protect the Joint Force, our allies, and the nation. Prior to assuming his current position, Dr. Kristovich served as Chief of the Threat Agent Sciences Division of the U.S. Army's Combat Capabilities Development Command Chemical Biological Center (DEVCOM CBC). In that role, Dr. Kristovich directed a team of CBC experts who evaluate emerging chemical threats facing the Joint Force and the nation. Among his responsibilities, he headed the Forensic Analytical Center, one of only two U.S. laboratories accredited by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Dr. Kristovich previously served as a senior adviser to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Chem Bio Defense, in providing a strategic vision for how the CBDP can use science and technology to help the warfighter win in a CB-contested environment. In 2022, Dr. Kristovich was appointed as the U.S. representative of the OPCW Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), providing science and technology guidance in overseeing the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) treaty. OPCW ( https://www.opcw.org/ ) is a global body of 193 member states, including the U.S., which seeks to eliminate the production and use of chemical weapons. The SAB is a consortium of 25 preeminent experts chosen from the state parties to the CWC treaty. It provides scientific advice and support to the Director General and the state parties regarding implementation of the treaty and deterrence of chemical weapons use. Dr. Kristovich received a B.S. in Chemistry from Fairmont State University, and a PhD in Chemistry from Ohio State University. Support the show

Om twee redenen kijken we knarsetandend naar de liquidaties van tegenstanders van Poetin: hij laat die openlijk uitvoeren, en wij zijn machteloos. Hij heeft ook wel eens gezegd dat hij met de vijanden van het moederland afrekent, waar die zich ook bevinden. Aleksei Navalny is de zoveelste in een lange rij. Misschien was de arrestatie van vier Russische spionnen in Den Haag, in 2018, het meest illustratief. Het ging om een sullige poging om het gebouw van de OPCW te hacken. Dat mislukte. Ze reisden onder hun eigen namen, hadden paspoorten met opeenvolgende nummers, hadden een taxibonnetje op zak met het adres van de Russische geheime dienst, maakten in Den Haag foto's van elkaar. Het Kremlin leek te schreeuwen: ja, ja, wij zitten hier achter. De moord op de journalist Anna Politkovskaja in 2006 leidde tot een onderzoek door de overgelopen oud-KGB-spion Aleksander Litvinenko, die vervolgens in Londen werd vermoord met een kopje thee waarin radioactief polonium zat. Hetzelfde overkwam Pussy Riot oprichter Pjotr Verzoliv, die op het nippertje overleefde. Net als oud-spion Skripal en zijn dochter. Idem Vladimir Kara-Muzra, een invloedrijke oppositiefiguur, die zelfs twee vergiftigingen overleefde. En natuurlijk Boris Nemtsov, oud-vicepremier en later keiharde Poetin-criticaster, die op een brug, vlak bij het Kremlin, in een zee van kogels om het leven kwam toen hij met zijn vriendin een wandeling maakte. Of Prigozjin, de baas van huurlingenleger Wagner, die voortdurend openlijk tekeerging tegen Poetin, een staatsgreep probeerde, en vervolgens in zijn eigen vliegtuig werd opgeblazen. Het is een incompleet overzicht, maar iedereen kent de voorbeelden en de waarschuwingen. Drink in Rusland geen thee, kom niet in de buurt van een open raam, denk niet dat je in het buitenland veilig bent. En denk vooral aan het woord van Poetin: we vinden je overal.  Wat ons terugbrengt op onze frustratie: Poetin doet dit allemaal openlijk, arrogant, zelfovertuigd, provocerend. De EU komt niet verder dan het Mensenrechtensanctieregime – een soort sanctiereglement – naar Navalny te noemen. Daar slaapt Poetin geen minuut korter door. ‘Wie doet me wat?' straalt hij uit. Het antwoord is: niemand – helemaal niemand.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Om twee redenen kijken we knarsetandend naar de liquidaties van tegenstanders van Poetin: hij laat die openlijk uitvoeren, en wij zijn machteloos. Hij heeft ook wel eens gezegd dat hij met de vijanden van het moederland afrekent, waar die zich ook bevinden. Aleksei Navalny is de zoveelste in een lange rij. Misschien was de arrestatie van vier Russische spionnen in Den Haag, in 2018, het meest illustratief. Het ging om een sullige poging om het gebouw van de OPCW te hacken. Dat mislukte. Ze reisden onder hun eigen namen, hadden paspoorten met opeenvolgende nummers, hadden een taxibonnetje op zak met het adres van de Russische geheime dienst, maakten in Den Haag foto's van elkaar. Het Kremlin leek te schreeuwen: ja, ja, wij zitten hier achter. De moord op de journalist Anna Politkovskaja in 2006 leidde tot een onderzoek door de overgelopen oud-KGB-spion Aleksander Litvinenko, die vervolgens in Londen werd vermoord met een kopje thee waarin radioactief polonium zat. Hetzelfde overkwam Pussy Riot oprichter Pjotr Verzoliv, die op het nippertje overleefde. Net als oud-spion Skripal en zijn dochter. Idem Vladimir Kara-Muzra, een invloedrijke oppositiefiguur, die zelfs twee vergiftigingen overleefde. En natuurlijk Boris Nemtsov, oud-vicepremier en later keiharde Poetin-criticaster, die op een brug, vlak bij het Kremlin, in een zee van kogels om het leven kwam toen hij met zijn vriendin een wandeling maakte. Of Prigozjin, de baas van huurlingenleger Wagner, die voortdurend openlijk tekeerging tegen Poetin, een staatsgreep probeerde, en vervolgens in zijn eigen vliegtuig werd opgeblazen. Het is een incompleet overzicht, maar iedereen kent de voorbeelden en de waarschuwingen. Drink in Rusland geen thee, kom niet in de buurt van een open raam, denk niet dat je in het buitenland veilig bent. En denk vooral aan het woord van Poetin: we vinden je overal.  Wat ons terugbrengt op onze frustratie: Poetin doet dit allemaal openlijk, arrogant, zelfovertuigd, provocerend. De EU komt niet verder dan het Mensenrechtensanctieregime – een soort sanctiereglement – naar Navalny te noemen. Daar slaapt Poetin geen minuut korter door. ‘Wie doet me wat?' straalt hij uit. Het antwoord is: niemand – helemaal niemand.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we consider the long and complex history of Riot Control Agents- from the first world war, to the battlefields of modern Ukraine.  There is also a list of recent statements below made in the context of the OPCW on the Ukraine issue:    https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2023/11/29-11-2023%20CSP-28%20_Statement%20Germany%20agenda%209d%20RCA%20_0.pdf   https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024/01/Combined%20Canadian%20statement%20on%20Subitem%209d.pdf   https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2023/11/CSP_28_National%20Statement_Ukraine_OPCW_CW_English.pdf             audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLNMKRqOrMo  

A new report offers the most thorough exposé to date of the OPCW's Syria cover-up scandal, in which the world's top chemical watchdog manipulated an investigation to baselessly accuse Syria of a chemical weapons attack in the town of Douma. In April 2018, after dozens of dead victims were filmed at the scene, the US, UK, and France alleged that the Syrian government had dropped gas cylinders on Douma and launched airstrikes in purported retaliation. But leaks from inside the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons show that international inspectors found no evidence of a chemical attack, raising the possibility that the incident was staged by the insurgents who controlled Douma at the time. The OPCW team's findings were suppressed and replaced with unsupported conclusions that aligned with the US-led narrative. When two veteran OPCW inspectors who deployed to Syria for the probe challenged the manipulation, they were silenced and later publicly defamed. The report is authored by the Berlin Group 21, which is comprised of founding OPCW Director General Jose Bustani, former senior UN official Hans Von Sponeck, Princeton law professor Richard Falk, and academic Piers Robinson of the Organization for Propaganda Studies. Its release follows the Brazilian government's recent public shift in support of accountability over the OPCW's cover-up scandal. The report was submitted to members of the European Parliament as a contribution to discussions around the OPCW. Aaron Maté speaks to Von Sponeck and Robinson about their new report, as well as the ongoing effort to challenge the OPCW's Douma deception and seek justice for the Douma victims. Guests: Hans von Sponeck and Piers Robinson. Support Pushback: https://www.patreon.com/aaronmate

In this episode of the Patrick Henningsen Show on TNT Radio which aired on August 21, 2023,  Patrick talks with Dr Piers Robinson editor of Focus on Propaganda, about a crucial new report released by the research organisation, Berlin Group 21, and its review of the OPCW's controversial fact-finding mission for the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria in 2018. The evidence calls into question the entire official narrative of the event, as well as upending the entire Western propaganda campaign to sell this story to an unwitting Western public. All this and more. Read the Berlin Group 21 report More from Piers Robinson: Propagandainfocus.com PiersRobinson.com Substack Ic911.org Twitter  TUNE-IN LIVE to TNT RADIO for the Patrick Henningsen Show every MON-FRI at 12PM-2PM (NEW YORK) | 5PM-7PM (LONDON) | 2AM-4AM (BRISBANE): https://tntradio.live

Hochrangige ehemalige UN-Offizielle und Wissenschaftler, die seit 2021 als „Berlin Gruppe 21“ (BG21) zusammenarbeiten, haben Abgeordneten des Europaparlaments ihre Untersuchung des OPCW-Berichts über einen angeblichen Einsatz chemischer Waffen in Douma, Syrien, im April 2018 vorgelegt. Gefunden haben sie Beweise für Manipulation, Voreingenommenheit und Zensur. Von Karin Leukefeld. Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.Weiterlesen

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow 1825 #Russia:  How long can the OPCW (Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons) overlook #Rusia's non cooperation & What is to be done?? Andrea Stricker, FDD. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/07/10/opcw-meeting-sets-up-critical-opportunity-to-sideline-russia/

Grayzone Radio 19: Lawfare Rules Summary: The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate return for another Friday Live to discuss efforts to prosecute Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, Aaron's latest takedown of the OPCW's Douma cover-up, and much more. About: Grayzone Radio is a production of The Grayzone, an independent news website dedicated to original investigative journalism and analysis on politics and empire. Washington DC-based independent journalist and author, Max Blumenthal, founded The Grayzone and is your host on Grayzone Radio. For more info on The Grayzone and their reporting, please go to https://thegrayzone.com Hosted by Max Blumenthal Produced and edited by Christopher Weaver

Both the Obama and Trump administrations used alleged chemical attacks in 2013 and 2018 to justify bombing Syria. When inspectors with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who inspected the site of the attacks, stated that there was not evidence to prove the Syrian military was responsible, and in the case of the 2018 attack, that chemical weapons were even used, they were silenced and punished. Aaron Mate has been covering this story for several years and has testified before the United Nations Security Council three times, most recently on March 24 of this year. He speaks to Clearing the FOG about what really happened and how the OPCW is being corrupted by US influence. For more information, visit PopularResistance.org.

Debatte im UN-Sicherheitsrat über die Risiken der Politisierung der OPCW. Fünf Jahre ist es her, dass Aktivisten der „Weißhelme“, die sich selber auch als „Syrischer Zivilschutz“ bezeichnen, schreckliche Bilder um die Welt schickten. Ort des Geschehens war der Ort Douma, es war der 8. April 2018. Ganze Familien seien vergast worden, so die „Weißhelme“ überWeiterlesen

In closing remarks at a United Nations meeting, Aaron Maté of The Grayzone notes that no one disputes the fact that a probe by the Organisation For the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria was censored. Yet powerful states, including the US and UK, oppose any effort to address the suppression, including hearing from dissenting inspectors on the OPCW's Douma team. Support Pushback: https://www.patreon.com/aaronmate

Jon Stewart recently appeared on TV with CNN's Fareed Zakaria to insist that Donald Trump be charged with crimes because in the United States even the rich and powerful should face accountability. We either have the rule of law or we don't, Stewart said, and apparently he believes we actually DO enjoy the rule of law in America. Jimmy and Americans' Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss all the ways the rule of law does not prevail in the United States. Plus a segment with Pushback host Aaron Maté on his testimony to the United Nations about the OPCW whistleblower scandal in Syria. Also featuring Stef Zamorano and Mike MacRae! And phone calls from Chuck Schumer and the duo of George Clooney and Brad Pitt!  

In a geopolitical shift, Brazil has come out in favor of accountability for the OPCW's Syria cover-up scandal. At a meeting of UN Security Council members on March 23rd, Brazil criticized the OCW's “poor” handling of the issue and rebuked the UK and other states for blocking the testimony of veteran Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani, the OPCW's first Director General. In response to remarks from The Grayzone's Aaron Maté, Ambassador João Genésio de Almeida Filho, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Brazil, said: "You are clear, you are logical, and you come here with data." The Ambassador then asked Maté for suggestions on how to address the OPCW's Douma controversy. Support Pushback: https://www.patreon.com/aaronmate Links: Video: "Aaron Mate at UN: OPCW cover-up denies justice to Douma victims" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BCtPgyxY Aaron Mate: "Burying key evidence, new OPCW report covers up Douma's unsolved deaths" https://thegrayzone.com/2023/03/27/burying-key-evidence-new-opcw-report-covers-up-doumas-unsolved-deaths/ Aaron Mate: "In Douma cover-up, OPCW's new smoking gun backfires" https://thegrayzone.com/2023/02/03/opcw-smoking-gun-backfires/

Speaking to the United Nations Security Council, Aaron Maté of The Grayzone calls out the OPCW's ongoing cover-up of its investigation into the alleged April 2018 chemical attack in Douma, Syria. Aaron also debunks the latest efforts by the OPCW, in a new report put out by the watchdog's Investigation and Identification Team (IIT), to whitewash the scandal. Audio: Aaron Maté's opening remarks to UN Security Council members, March 24 2023. Support Pushback: https://www.patreon.com/aaronmate

Russische wie ukrainische Quellen deuten mit ihren Berichten darauf hin.Ein Kommentar von Peter Frey.Verschiedene Quellen außerhalb der Leitmedien berichten über den Einsatz chemischer Kampfmittel durch ukrainische Truppen in der Gegend von Artjemowsk (Bachmut) (1 bis 4). Videos, die das belegen möchten, wurden inzwischen bei Twitter teilweise gesperrt (5).Eines der Videos, selbst aufgenommen von ukrainischen Kämpfern in der ersten Januarhälfte des Jahres, zeigt in Kühlschränken gelagerte Kartuschen, die an Drohnen montiert werden. Dazu spricht der Kommandeur einer taktischen Luftaufklärungseinheit, namens Robert Madyar (6).Dem Autor klingen jetzt noch die Ohren, wie die westlichen „Qualitätsmedien“ schäumten, als die „Truppen des Diktators Assad“ angeblich Giftgas auf das eigene Volk ausgebracht hatten sollen. All diese Behauptungen stellten sich später als erstunken und erlogen heraus und eine UN-Organisation, die OPCW spielte munter ihre zweifelhafte Rolle bei diesem Medienkrieg gegen Syrien. Nun aber ist Schweigen, obwohl Russland das Thema offiziell zur Sprache gebracht hat.Bereits am 8. Februar des Jahres führte der russische Vertreter bei der OSZE-Jahrestagung in Wien, Konstantin Gawrilow, vor dem Plenum aus:„[…] Wir erhalten auch Berichte über den Einsatz chemischer Waffen durch ukrainische Streitkräfte bei Kampfhandlungen in der Nähe von Artjomowsk und Solear, wodurch russische Soldaten schwere Verbrennungen und Vergiftungen erlitten haben. […] Das russische Untersuchungskomitee arbeitet daran, alle Umstände dieser Vorfälle aufzuklären. Wir fordern die OSZE-Mitgliedsstaaten auf, diese Vorgänge im Zusammenhang mit den OSZE-Prinzipien zur Nichtverbreitung [solcher] Waffen, die von den Staats- und Regierungschefs verabschiedet wurden, streng zu bewerten.“ (7)Die Konvention (unter anderem) über den Nichteinsatz von chemischen Waffen wurde übrigens auch von der Kiewer Regierung ratifiziert. Dass die OPCW angesichts dieser Indizien so still hält, dürfte nach den Ereignissen in Syrien kaum einen überraschen (8).Eines ist auffällig: Propaganda können die Russen offenbar nicht, da hinken sie dem Apparat im Wertewesten meilenweit hinterher...weiterlesen hier: https://apolut.net/chemische-kriegfuehrung-in-der-ukraine-von-peter-frey/+++Dank an den Autor für das Recht zur Veröffentlichung des Beitrag.+++Dieser Beitrag erschien zuerst am 17.02.2023 auf dem Blog peds-ansichten.de+++Bildquelle: shutterstock / Andreas Gradin+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app/Die apolut-App steht auch zum Download (als sogenannte Standalone- oder APK-App) auf unserer Homepage zur Verfügung. Mit diesem Link können Sie die App auf Ihr Smartphone herunterladen: https://apolut.net/apolut_app.apk+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolutSoundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/apolut Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.Nachdem immer noch Sanktionen Syrien quälen, und selbst nach dem Erdbeben erst nach Tagen zeitlich befristet erleichtert wurden, sollte man noch einmal in das Giftgasnarrativ schauen, welches nicht nur das Rückgrat für Sanktionen und Bombardierungen gegen die Regierung des Landes darstellt, den USA als Begründung für die Besetzung von Ostsyrien und Plündern der Öl-Vorkommen dient, sondern jetzt auch gegen Seymore Hersh (1) verwendet wird, der es, ebenso wie Prof. Postol in einem konkreten Fall als Fake entlarvt hatte. Weil Hersh gerade Furore mit seinem Artikel über den Anschlag gegen Nordstream, die seinen Recherchen zufolge durch die USA und Norwegen organisiert worden waren. Auch wenn ich schon 2019 in einem Essay mit Tim Anderson die Giftgaserzählung als Anhaltspunkt genommen hatte, wie man typischerweise Kriegslügen entlarven kann, will ich mich diesmal auf einen Artikel von Aaron Maté in Grayzone (2) stützen. Nachdem die BBC schon 2021 zugab, FakeNews wegen Giftgas in Douma verbreitet zu haben (3) wird hier nicht nur das Lügengebilde „Giftgas“ aufgezeigt, sondern auch das Maß an Beeinflussung, welche UN-Gremien durch gewisse Großmächte erleiden, und die Legitimität der ganzen Organisation gefährden.OPCW und Giftgas in DoumaZunächst erklärt der Autor, worum es bei diesem Vorfall geht:„Im jüngsten Kapitel eines internationalen Vertuschungsskandals hat die Organisation für das Verbot chemischer Waffen (OPCW) Syrien direkt beschuldigt, einen tödlichen chemischen Angriff in der Stadt Douma verübt zu haben. In einem neuen Bericht des Ermittlungs- und Identifizierungsteams (IIT) der Organisation für das Verbot chemischer Waffen wird behauptet, dass syrische Streitkräfte am 7. April 2018 zwei Chlorgasflaschen abgeworfen und 43 Zivilisten getötet haben.“Der erste Bericht der OPCW, der im Juni 2018 von einer separaten Untersuchungsmission (Fact-Finding Mission, FFM) fertiggestellt wurde, habe Zweifel daran aufkommen lassen, dass in Douma überhaupt ein chemischer Angriff stattgefunden hat. Er habe auch die Möglichkeit offen gelassen, dass der Vorfall inszeniert war, vermutlich von Aufständischen, die das Gebiet zu der Zeit kontrollierten...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/syriens-giftgas-oder-korrumpierte-un-von-jochen-mitschka+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app/Die apolut-App steht auch zum Download (als sogenannte Standalone- oder APK-App) auf unserer Homepage zur Verfügung. Mit diesem Link können Sie die App auf Ihr Smartphone herunterladen: https://apolut.net/apolut_app.apk+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolut+++Website und Social Media:Website: https://apolut.netOdysee: https://odysee.com/@apolut:aRumble: https://rumble.com/ApolutTwitter: https://twitter.com/apolut_netInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/apolut_net/Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/apolut_netTelegram: https://t.me/s/apolutFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/apolut/Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/apolut Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ein Standpunkt von Jochen Mitschka.Nachdem immer noch Sanktionen Syrien quälen, und selbst nach dem Erdbeben erst nach Tagen zeitlich befristet erleichtert wurden, sollte man noch einmal in das Giftgasnarrativ schauen, welches nicht nur das Rückgrat für Sanktionen und Bombardierungen gegen die Regierung des Landes darstellt, den USA als Begründung für die Besetzung von Ostsyrien und Plündern der Öl-Vorkommen dient, sondern jetzt auch gegen Seymore Hersh (1) verwendet wird, der es, ebenso wie Prof. Postol in einem konkreten Fall als Fake entlarvt hatte. Weil Hersh gerade Furore mit seinem Artikel über den Anschlag gegen Nordstream, die seinen Recherchen zufolge durch die USA und Norwegen organisiert worden waren. Auch wenn ich schon 2019 in einem Essay mit Tim Anderson die Giftgaserzählung als Anhaltspunkt genommen hatte, wie man typischerweise Kriegslügen entlarven kann, will ich mich diesmal auf einen Artikel von Aaron Maté in Grayzone (2) stützen. Nachdem die BBC schon 2021 zugab, FakeNews wegen Giftgas in Douma verbreitet zu haben (3) wird hier nicht nur das Lügengebilde „Giftgas“ aufgezeigt, sondern auch das Maß an Beeinflussung, welche UN-Gremien durch gewisse Großmächte erleiden, und die Legitimität der ganzen Organisation gefährden.OPCW und Giftgas in DoumaZunächst erklärt der Autor, worum es bei diesem Vorfall geht:„Im jüngsten Kapitel eines internationalen Vertuschungsskandals hat die Organisation für das Verbot chemischer Waffen (OPCW) Syrien direkt beschuldigt, einen tödlichen chemischen Angriff in der Stadt Douma verübt zu haben. In einem neuen Bericht des Ermittlungs- und Identifizierungsteams (IIT) der Organisation für das Verbot chemischer Waffen wird behauptet, dass syrische Streitkräfte am 7. April 2018 zwei Chlorgasflaschen abgeworfen und 43 Zivilisten getötet haben.“Der erste Bericht der OPCW, der im Juni 2018 von einer separaten Untersuchungsmission (Fact-Finding Mission, FFM) fertiggestellt wurde, habe Zweifel daran aufkommen lassen, dass in Douma überhaupt ein chemischer Angriff stattgefunden hat. Er habe auch die Möglichkeit offen gelassen, dass der Vorfall inszeniert war, vermutlich von Aufständischen, die das Gebiet zu der Zeit kontrollierten...... hier weiterlesen: https://apolut.net/syriens-giftgas-oder-korrumpierte-un-von-jochen-mitschka+++Apolut ist auch als kostenlose App für Android- und iOS-Geräte verfügbar! Über unsere Homepage kommen Sie zu den Stores von Apple und Huawei. Hier der Link: https://apolut.net/app/Die apolut-App steht auch zum Download (als sogenannte Standalone- oder APK-App) auf unserer Homepage zur Verfügung. Mit diesem Link können Sie die App auf Ihr Smartphone herunterladen: https://apolut.net/apolut_app.apk+++Abonnieren Sie jetzt den apolut-Newsletter: https://apolut.net/newsletter/+++Ihnen gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten finden Sie hier: https://apolut.net/unterstuetzen/+++Unterstützung für apolut kann auch als Kleidung getragen werden! Hier der Link zu unserem Fan-Shop: https://harlekinshop.com/pages/apolut+++Website und Social Media:Website: https://apolut.netOdysee: https://odysee.com/@apolut:aRumble: https://rumble.com/ApolutTwitter: https://twitter.com/apolut_netInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/apolut_net/Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/apolut_netTelegram: https://t.me/s/apolutFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/apolut/Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/apolut Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The US destroys a Chinese balloon, while the Ukraine war rages. Aaron's latest article: “In Douma cover-up, OPCW's new smoking gun backfires” https://mate.substack.com/p/in-douma-cover-up-opcws-new-smoking Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

A potential bombshell story developing right now around Pfizer's mRNA shots in multiple countries. Tonight we'll focus on Thailand which is about to drop a hammer on Pfizer and could be the first country in the world to make this move. We're also covering the developing OPCW report story in Syria. Joining us tonight is Dr. Piers Robinson who's been cataloging the major problems with the investigation. And President Trump is back with a big message on battling the big pharma. 

“We are fighting a war against Russia," the German Foreign Minister says, as the US and Germany authorize tank shipments, and new dangers, in the Ukraine proxy war. Plus: the OPCW doubles down on the Douma fraud. Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

"Parallel Construction" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis Website for the show: https://governamerica.com Vicky's Websites: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com and http://channelingreality.com COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22315-govern-america-october-26-2019-parallel-construction Rep. Barbara Lee calls for the U.N. to monitor U.S. elections. Maria Butina arrives home in Russia after serving an 18 months prison sentence. Who is Bill Browder and how does he fit into the anti-Russian narrative? Wikileaks publishes documents by whistleblower, showing that the OPCW report about the alleged chemical weapons attack left out evidence that the scene was staged. What is ID2020? How will it impact the world? NBC promotes human microchipping as convenient, cool, safe, and painless. Pre-crime programs and the national security surveillance state. Edward Snowden interviewed by Joe Rogan. Former FBI agent Mike German comments on the corruption of the agency.

Welcome to Gorilla Radio, recorded September 17th and 18th, 2022. This week past, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency officially demanded Russia relinquish control of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant, or (ZNPP), and "all nuclear facilities within Ukraine's internationally recognized borders" into the hands of "competent Ukraine authorities". The Russian-held nuclear plant has been repeatedly shelled and was too the target of a Kiev commando-raid. The IAEA's investigation on the status of the plant, and now this report, are precedent-setting for the agency, but not a departure from the recent trend toward politicizing international agencies to serve the interests of America and NATO. John Helmer is a journalist, author, and principle behind the web news site, Dances with Bears. He's a past professor of political science, sociology, and journalism and has served as advisor to governments at the highest level. Helmer has spent decades living in and reporting from Russia, and among his many book titles are: ‘The Lie That Shot Down MH-17,' ‘Skripal in Prison,' ‘The Man Who Knows Too Much About Russia,' and his latest, ‘The Jackals' Wedding: American Power, Arab Revolt'. John Helmer in the first half. And; even as the UN's IAEA and OPCW are co-opted against their mandates into the service of the war-state, so too countries big and small are strong-armed to bend their laws to suit the aims of the United States. Witness Great Britain's abandonment of the Magna Carta in the Assange case, or Canada's deplorable political arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou and two-plus year torturing of logic and jurisprudence required to keep her imprisoned. What chance then do smaller countries like Sweden, or Iceland, or Cabo Verde have when their leadership receives a call from Uncle Sam? In the latter's case, that phone rang when Venezuelan diplomat and businessman, Alex Saab's plane landed for refueling in the tiny African nation, en route to Iran. Today, Saab languishes in an American prison cell for the crime of challenging imperial power. Roger D. Harris' long civil rights activism career encompasses the teaching political science at a Historical Black College in Mississippi in the 1960's and community organizing in East Harlem, New York City. Today, Roger's a Wildlife Biologist and conducts eco-tours with the Oceanic Society, but he still has an oar or two in the activist waters; sitting on the board of the human rights organization, Task Force on the Americas, and serving on the executive committee of the US Peace Council, among others. His political essays feature online at CounterPunch, Dissident Voice, Mint Press News, Popular Resistance, and at the Task Force on the Americas site, where I found his recent article, 'Possible Prisoner Exchange in US Hybrid War Against Venezuela'. Roger Harris and freeing Alex Saab in the second half. But first, John Helmer and the IAEA's use as an instrument of one party in conflict. Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing since 1999; in Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: cfuv.ca.  Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.com/

Support Pushback: https://www.patreon.com/aaronmate A recent article in The Guardian parroted a US state-funded group's evidence-free allegations that The Grayzone's Aaron Maté -- who has reported extensively on the OPCW's Syria cover-up scandal -- is "the most prolific spreader of disinformation" about Syria among a "network" of "conspiracy theorists." Aaron called Guardian reporter Mark Townsend on the phone to ask him to substantiate these defamatory claims, and why he didn't reach out before printing them. Guest: Mark Townsend. Reporter for The Guardian who wrote the story, “Network of Syria conspiracy theorists identified” — now updated with Aaron Maté's response. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/19/russia-backed-network-of-syria-conspiracy-theorists-identified Note: to reduce repetition, the recording of the phone call between Aaron and Mark Townsend has been shortened. Townsend was contacted for comment prior to publication of this segment, but did not respond.

We discuss the UK High Court's ruling that Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, and what this means for Assange and a free press. Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola on Twitter), editor of Shadowproof.com and the Dissenter Newsletter (thedissenter.org), who has covered Assange's case extensively, breaks down the latest and answer questions. Plus, Ian update on a trip to Mexico City this week, where I was honored to receive an international journalism award from the Club de Periodistas de México, for Russiagate coverage in The Nation. Background reading: Kevin Gosztola on the Assange ruling: https://thedissenter.org/assange-plans-appeal-high-court-decision-extradition/ Club de Periodistas de México award https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1469010854008004617 NYT's new Syria exposé: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/12/us/civilian-deaths-war-isis.html?referringSource=articleShare Aaron's new OPCW scoop: https://thegrayzone.com/2021/12/06/corrupting-science-part2/ 0:55 Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

In the second episode of AM Live, we discuss US intelligence claims that Russia is preparing for a potential invasion of Ukraine. And we get an update on the OPCW's Syria cover-up scandal, with a recap of this week's conference of state parties and Aaron's latest reporting for The Grayzone. Plus, your comments/questions on any topic! Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

Aaron Maté joins Jackie and RJ to discuss the state of journalism, the OPCW findings, and why TYT is not really news. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/fred-hampton-leftists/support

Tonight, we continue our discussion on the pattern of unreliable of intelligence made public to us by our government and the media's complicity. Dr Theodore Postol MIT physicist and missile expert returns to BLID as our guest. Dr Postol Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT worked as a scientific and policy advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations who commands more ships, more planes and more people under arms than the combined forces of the UK, France and Germany.” Four gas attacks March 19, 2013 March Khan al Assal; August 21, 2013 Damascus/El Ghouta; April 2017 Khan Sheikhon gas; and April 2018 Douma gas attack all blamed on Assad with absolute certainty despite failure to present supporting incontrovertible evidence. In fact, the ‘evidence' brought to the US public had fatal inconsistencies and physical impossibilities as revealed by our guest, Dr Postol. We excerpt Secretary of State John Kerry's testimony to the Senate on 9/3/13 regarding such inconsistencies that almost brought us to the brink of war. We also review 9/22/20 testimony and report to the UN Security Council where he details multiple inconsistencies, he discovered within the OPCW report following 2017 gas attack. Repeated intelligence failures (in addition to Iraq 2003) are detailed by Dr Postol. We include important excerpts from Robert Parry past writings suggesting how the US has led the undermining of UN agency heads responsible for assuring quality information to the world at large and the history of US government providing incriminating evidence despite said concerns of revealing means and methods when we have it. Therefore, the absence of such information suggests there is none to support evidence free anonymous intelligence claims that too often are later revealed to be intelligence failures.

Tonight, we continue our discussion on the pattern of unreliable of intelligence made public to us by our government and the media's complicity. Dr Theodore Postol MIT physicist and missile expert returns to BLID as our guest. Dr Postol Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT worked as a scientific and policy advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations who commands more ships, more planes and more people under arms than the combined forces of the UK, France and Germany.” Four gas attacks March 19, 2013 March Khan al Assal; August 21, 2013 Damascus/El Ghouta; April 2017 Khan Sheikhon gas; and April 2018 Douma gas attack all blamed on Assad with absolute certainty despite failure to present supporting incontrovertible evidence. In fact, the ‘evidence' brought to the US public had fatal inconsistencies and physical impossibilities as revealed by our guest, Dr Postol. We excerpt Secretary of State John Kerry's testimony to the Senate on 9/3/13 regarding such inconsistencies that almost brought us to the brink of war. We also review 9/22/20 testimony and report to the UN Security Council where he details multiple inconsistencies, he discovered within the OPCW report following 2017 gas attack. Repeated intelligence failures (in addition to Iraq 2003) are detailed by Dr Postol. We include important excerpts from Robert Parry past writings suggesting how the US has led the undermining of UN agency heads responsible for assuring quality information to the world at large and the history of US government providing incriminating evidence despite said concerns of revealing means and methods when we have it. Therefore, the absence of such information suggests there is none to support evidence free anonymous intelligence claims that too often are later revealed to be intelligence failures.

Welcome to the IndependentLeft.News Daily Headlines podcast for January 2nd, 2021. Early Edition - https://independentleft.news/?edition_id=94bfe850-4cf7-11eb-a9a9-002590a5ba2d&utm_source=anchor&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=top-headlines-podcast&utm_content=ILN-Anchor-top-headlines-podcast-early-ed-01-02 Top Headlines: Let's Be Absolutely Clear What's At Stake In The Assange Case - Caitlin Johnstone US govt-sponsored website Bellingcat disrupts MH17 trial in Netherlands - Eric Van De Beek, The Grayzone 2020 Be Gone - Abby Zimet, Further columnist, CommonDreams Chuck Schumer Begins 2021 Promising To Fight — Then Immediately Surrenders - David Sirota & Andrew Perez, Jacobin Top 12 The Grayzone stories of 2020: From Julian Assange persecution to Bolivia coup defeat, corporate war on free speech to OPCW cover-up - The Grayzone Top Videos: #ForceTheVote Can't Wait! Why The Idea Caught Fire w/ Dylan Ratigan (6:00) - The Jimmy Dore Show The #ForceTheVote Day Is Almost Here (Breaking News) (25:52) - Moment of Clarity with Lee Camp Democrats Fold on $2000 & Refuse to Force The Vote on Healthcare but Jimmy Dore Yells! (16:12) - The Convo Couch DEBATE: Could #ForceTheVote Push Anti #M4A Republicans? W/ Nando Vila, Natalie Shure, Ben Burgis, Briahna Joy Gray & Dr. Adam Gaffney (5:19) - The Katie Halper Show (Wayback Machine - 2019) Is the US Meddling in Venezuela? Max Blumenthal Asks US Congress Members (4:36) - The Grayzone Evening Edition - https://independentleft.news/?edition_id=284d0bc0-4d5c-11eb-a9a9-002590a5ba2d&utm_source=anchor&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=top-headlines-podcast&utm_content=ILN-Anchor-top-headlines-podcast-evening-ed-01-02 Top Headlines: Progressives Say Paygo Exemptions in House Rules Will Help Pave Way for Green New Deal and Medicare for All- Julia Conley, CommonDreams As Stimulus Falls Short, Mutual Aid Organizers Work to Meet People's Needs - Robert Raymond, Truthout Breaking New York's Cycle of Austerity - Robbie Nelson, Jacobin Nashville, Rockford, and the new age of paranoia - Philadelphia Inquirer In 2021, Let's Ring a Global Alarm — on Inequality — that Everyone Can Hear - Sam Pizzigati, Inequality.org Top Videos: Lee Carter Announces Run For Governor Of Virginia (7:39) - David Doel, The Rational National Live from #ForceTheVote in Washington DC w/ Jackson Hinkle, Savage Joy Marie Mann, Lee Camp, Briahna Joy Gray & more (1:27:36) - The Movement for a People's Party Progressives March to #ForcetheVote | Jon Farina LIVE From D.C. (1:41:44) - Status Coup [78.2] Free Assange Vigil Live in DC (1:55:02) - Slow News Day Attorney Activist Hector Oseguera on the Panama Papers and Corruption (9:57) - Tina-Desiree Berg, District 34 If you liked this podcast, please help us grow by subscribing & giving us a 5-star review on your favorite podcasting platform.

“ I have these epiphanies all the time, especially if I had anchovies on my pizza..” Could the White Helmets be involved in staging chemical attacks? When James Le Mesurier fell to his death in Turkey in 2019 he left behind a tangle of truths and lies. Mayday tells the extraordinary real story of the man who organised the White Helmets – rescuers who film themselves pulling survivors from bombed out buildings in rebel-held areas of Syria – and investigates claims that, far from being heroes, they are part of a very elaborate hoax. James Le Mesurier – his detractors say – was a British secret agent, pulling the strings. So when his body was found by worshippers on their way to morning prayers, there were a lot questions. Produced, written and presented by: Chloe Hadjimatheou Editor: Emma Rippon Researcher: Tom Wright Mixed by: Neil Churchill Arabic translation and additional research: Vanessa Bowles, Abdul Kader Habak Turkish researcher: Nevin Sungur Narrative Consultant: John Yorke Original music: Nick Mundy and Bu Kolthoum Production Coordinator - Gemma AshmanREFERENCES “Roger Waters - Reporting The Truth” Roger Waters YouTube channel, 6 December 2019 “Briefing by Chief of Main Operational Directorate of Russian General Staff Sergei Rudskoy” Минобороны России (Ministry of Defense of Russia) YouTube channel 17 March 2018“Voices of people hiding in a basement in #EasternGhouta while #Assad regime & #Russia forces shell the area. Trying to destroy #Syria & kills its people or make them succumb to starvation & tyranny.” Dima Moussa @dimam78 Tweet 04 March 2018Syria Gas Attack Victims Treated at Hospital, Syria Civil Defence video“Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov - BBC HARDtalk rushes” - BBC HARDtalk exclusive, 17 April 2018برومو رجل الثورة Revolution Man promotional video, 10 February 2018 - Movie Produced by the Syrian ministry of culture“Gasping for life: Syria's merciless war on its own children” CNN كونتاك الحلقة 23 Panet46 (Contac Episode 23 Panet46) dailymotion - Shoof Drama شوف دراما“Ethics Forum: Paul McKeigue (Edinburgh Usher Institute)” 25 January 2019 video from Jamie Smith on 12 February 2019, published on the University of Edinburgh website“UN: Chlorine was placed in Douma by militants for provocative purposes –Russia's OPCW rep. Shulgin” 20 January 2020, Ruptly YouTube Channel (Ruptly is part of the same media family as RT) credit: UNIFEED-UNTV

Waldimir Putin hat Alexej Nawalny nicht persönlich vergiftet, aber der russische Präsident war auf jeden Fall über den Anschlag informiert. In diesem Punkt sind sich die allermeisten Experten für Russland und Chemiewaffen einig. Aber der Kreml und einzelne deutsche Politiker widersprechen.Haben Sie Themenvorschläge? Schreiben Sie Christian Herrmann auf Twitter: twitter.com/chrherrmann Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here

Tuesday, 30 April 2019 - 9.00am Location: Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Finley Library All-day workshop: 09:00 - 17:00 hrs Conveners: Eyal Benvenisti, Harold Hongju Koh, and Tomohiro Mikanagi In 2019 three major treaty withdrawals will reach important watersheds. Sometime in spring, the United Kingdom is scheduled to withdraw from the European Union under the withdrawal notice it gave under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. On November 4, 2019, the United States (under the administration of Donald Trump) is set to give notice that it will withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Accord one year later. In November 2019 the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO will terminate effectively unless the US agrees to re-appoint a judge of the Appellate Body. These events may be seen as signaling a decline in leading states’ commitment to multilateralism and a growing preference to bilateralism. The Trump administration has clearly asserted its preference for bilateral deals while dismissing international organisations as taking advantage of US generosity. China also seems to prefer alternative groupings outside existing multilateral organisations. In October 2007, during its ascent to global power, China declared FTAs to be its basic international economic strategy. America’s disengagement from multilateralism did not prompt China to fill the void by reinforcing existing multilateral bodies with global reach. Instead, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its regional security arrangements are modelled on the “hub and spokes” pattern, an architecture that allows it to tightly control its numerous partners and limit the application of existing standards and mechanisms. Famously, it ignored the UNCLOS arbitral award on the South China Sea in 2016. Perhaps to confront the risk of two superpowers busy dividing and ruling the rest, other countries have sought to preserve the minilateral institutions (eg the CPTPP) and utilise existing multilateral mechanisms (WTO reforms, UNCLOS conciliation and arbitration, OPCW attribution mechanism, etc.). In this workshop we wish to address the uncertain future of multilateralism in light of the prospective withdrawals and resurgence of bilateralism. We wish to discuss motivations, prospects, and implications for domestic and international law. This one day workshop seeks to reflect on the questions. In particular we wish to address the following questions: Panel I: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and Revising the WTO Since 2017, the Trump Administration has announced its withdrawal from a host of bilateral and multilateral arrangements, including the Paris Climate Agreement; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran Nuclear Deal); the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the Global Compact on Migration; the U.N. Human Rights Council; the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Relations with Iran; the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations on Dispute Settlement; the Universal Postal Union Treaty; and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is the Trump Administration aberrational, or are we witnessing the culmination of a long-term trend of U.S. withdrawal from multilateralist institutions? To what extent has the Trump Administration applied tactics first adopted by prior administrations: e.g., blocking reappointment of members of the WTO Appellate Body? What constraints do U.S. and international law place upon blanket unilateral presidential withdrawal from all disfavored organizations? Panel II: The Domestic and International Legal Issues Surrounding China’s “Hub and Spoke” Strategy This panel will address the following questions, among others – Is China accepting the existing multilateral legal rules and mechanisms in economic and non-economic areas? Is China deviating from international standards (including with respect to ISDS) in its various legal arrangements under BRI? Is China deviating from UNCLOS in the South China Sea, including through bilateral COC negotiation? Panel III: The Future of Rule-Based Global Governance through International Institutions: Limits and Potential What are the prospects for international institutions to reclaim multilateralism through concerted action, or through insistence on multilaterally binding norms? To what extent can the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, or other international organisations and tribunals can contribute to maintaining and developing further globally-binding norms? To what extent can international process enhance the rule-based global governance through the clarification of law and facts? The UK and the Changing Legal Landscape: The Way Forward from Here