By Matthew Russell Lee, Investigative follow up
UNITED NATIONS, May 8 -- The question of why the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons chose to dispose of Syria's chemical weapons a company Veolia which does business in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, first raised by Inner City Press on February 15, was finally put to Sigrid Kaag on May 8, 2014.
She told Inner City Press to "ask the OPCW," which ran the tender.
In the tender, 14 companies submitted bids. On February 14 the OPCW told the press there were two winners:
Ekokem OY AB (Finland)
Veolia Environmental Services Technical Solutions, LLC (U.S.A.)
Veolia stands accused of illegal operations in the occupied Palestinian territories, including waste disposal in the illegally occupied Jordan valley, North of the Yafit settlement; waste water treatment in the illegal Israeli settlement of Modi’in Illit; bus service to illegal settlements and Jerusalem Light Rail / tramway. h/t In April 2010 the UN Human Rights Council declared the tramway and its operations to be illegal (A/HRC/RES/13/7 of 14 April 2010).
So how did the OPCW select Veolia? There was a one page press release sent to the media, "reported" (or merely repeated, without any of the above) by Reuters and others, not mentioning that France, where Veolia is actually headquartered at the parent level, had contributed no money at all to the OPCW or UN trust funds on destroying Syria's chemical weapons.
On transparency back on February 6, after OPCW-UN mission chief Sigrid Kaag briefed the UN Security Council about Syria chemical weapons, Inner City Press asked her about her Mission's trust funds, as it did back on January 8.
Inner City Press noted that the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons put online a January 24 press release about Canada donated 10 million CAD, but that it had no link to any over-all chart.
Kaag said, "I knew you'd ask that," and said it should go online soon. Video here and embedded below. After 6 pm, Inner City Press ran an update with the chart, which shows for example that to the UN Trust Fund, Japan has pledged $9 million -- but has as of yet provided no money.
In terms of cash, Kaag's native Netherlands has provided more (barely) that the United States: $2,062,500 versus $2 million from the US.
The OPCW Trust Fund for Syria is denominated in Euros. The European Union is the largest donor, and several EU members have also contributed in their own name - but not France.
The OPCW Trust Fund for Syria is denominated in Euros. The European Union is the largest donor, and several EU members have also contributed in their own name - but not France.
A separate OPCW Syria Trust Fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons has more in unpaid pledges then monies actually paid. Among those yet to come through are once again Japan, the aforementioned Canada, the EU, Australia, India, Italy and South Korea.
There is the maritime component (see chart) and then this:
In addition to their contribution to the OPCW trust fund for the Destruction of Chemical Weapons, Canada contributed another CAD 5 million (almost US$ 4.7 million) for the destruction operations on board the vessel MV Cape Ray. Italy has indicated that the port of Gioia Tauro will be made available for transloading of priority chemicals from the cargo vessels onto the MV Cape Ray. Germany has indicated it will dispose of approximately 370 tons of effluent generated through the hydrolysis of the priority chemicals. The United Kingdom has indicated that it will destroy two binary chemical weapon components at a commercial facility.
And so the only Permanent Five member of the Security Council not to contribute... is France.