Their work continues to draw wrath from the OPCW’s [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] boss General
Fernando Arias who remarkably seems to be conducting a smear campaign
against them slamming their work as “erroneous, uninformed, and
wrong,” believed to be what has sparked a new whistleblower – believed
to be British – to come forward with startling new allegations which
cast a shadow over the integrity of the organisation.

“It is quite unbelievable that valid scientific concerns are being
brazenly ignored in favour of a predetermined narrative,” the email
reads. “The lack of transparency in an investigative process with such
enormous ramifications is frightful.

Yet the culture of arbitrary vengeance against those who question the
biased narrative or working practices of its chief, is deeply
worrying, as the latest whistleblower reveals in the email.

“I am one of many who were stunned and frightened into silence by the
reality how the organisation operates,” the official wrote. “The
threat of personal harm is not an illusion, or else many others would
have spoken out by now.”

Why aren't the internal discussions between the various members of the organizations and the draft versions and their revisions made public? Is there a public reason for this or is transparency something that international organizations such as the OPCW rarely have for some non-political reason?


Tom Inch, Chairman of the advisory committee to the UK national authority wrote:

Within the OPCW, concerns about scientific and commercial
confidentiality and national sensitivities invariably take
precedence over transparency.Transparency and openness, with
appropriate changes beingmade to procedures as a result of experience,
are essential if the CWC is to build the confidence it deserves. We
are being let down by the opacity of the OPCW

Changed status to publish