Ahmet Üzümcü - Director General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons HARDtalk

began in March. It is time for HARDtalk. When the

Nobel committee awarded this year's peace prize to the Organisation for

the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, its staff were on the

ground in Syria, overseeing the destruction and removal of its

chemical weapons. I am here in Oslo for a special edition of HARDtalk,

with the Director`General of the OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, who is here to

collect the prize. Does the work of his organisation in Syria mean that

peace is any more likely? Ahmet Uzumcu, welcome to HARDtalk.

It is 20 years to the day since Nelson Mandela came here to collect

his Nobel Peace Prize. Do you think that it still means as much today as

it did then? I think it does. Nelson Mandela was always a source of

inspiration for our generation. He was very dedicated to peace,

reconciliation, and he did it. He was also a source of inspiration to

our organisation. He was like a moral guide. I think in our limited

area, we follow his path in order to contribute to global peace. The

award was given to the entirety of the oak PCW's work, but the timing

was such as you were in Syria. Let's consider the progress that has been

made in Syria. You have a significant deadline coming up, the

ultimate deadline is that all chemicals weapons should have been

dealt with by the middle of next year. That you will have a more

immediate one, in which that the most dangerous weapons should be out

of the country by the end of the year. Can you meet that deadline? I

am pretty confident that we can meet the deadline of June, 2014, to

destroy all chemical weapons which are existing in Syria. As to the

target date is that we have established for the removal of

chemical weapons outside of the country, there may be some slight

delay, it was a technical problems that we have been counted in this

country, because of the provision of certain equipment and material which

was delayed, and because of the security situation. So the

transportation of all those chemical weapons to the port for loading onto

the ship may not happen before the 31st of December. There may be a

slight delay. But I am not worried about it. The situation is that

there are chemical weapons at seven different sites across Syria?

Indeed. They are located in different sites. Some of the sites,

the access roads are quite risky at the moment. Of course the security

and safety of our inspectors is an overriding concern, and the

transportation will have to be executed in a safe environment.

There will be some verification activities. There will be an

analysis. Therefore all of this has to be done in a smooth manner. This

may take a little longer time than we have foreseen. But you have

managed to get them from more than 20 different sites across the

country. You have got them down to about seven as the aim is to get

those within a matter of weeks, the road, more than 100 miles of road,

in a war zone. It seems scarcely credible. Now the Syrian experts are

being trained for packing and say transportation of all those

materials. They are being delivered the necessary equipment, most of the

drop will be done by the Syrian authorities themselves. Both the

United Nations as well as OPCW will monitor this operation. This is

quite challenging. It is happening for the first time in a war zone.

But we think that it is feasible. As I said earlier, it may take a little

longer time than we have foreseen, but we are confident that it will

happen. Does the Syrian regime control all the roads to the port?

It depends. V massacres `Homs Road was closed for some time. ``

Damascus. It is being controlled again by government forces. The

situation may change. Therefore we have to find the right moment to

transport the materials. We hope that the opposition will also be

cooperative and supportive. At the moment, you are finding that the

Syrian regime that President Assad himself is being extremely

cooperative? They are cooperative, they are fulfilling their

obligations. They have obligations. It was put together by the executive

committee and the UN Security Council. And the opposition? The

opposition has not post any problems so far. I assume, we do not have

direct contact with the opposition, I assume that they are supportive.

Have you negotiated transfer of materials via roads that are in

rebel held areas? The UN has some contact with the opposition. They

were invited to support this operation which we believe is in the

interest of all the Syrian people, because after all... I am asking is

actually on the ground you have done deals so that you can move material.

Just trying to imagine the situation where you have got hundreds of tons

of lethal material that you are transferring by road, with your

staff monitoring it alongside it, transferring by road, with your

will escort the materials. What they will do, they will verify the

loading of the things, and the unloadings at the port. Again,

loading on the ship. They will not go along with the convoy. But how do

you feel about this? You talk about the roads between Damascus and Homs,

let alone beyond from Homs to retire `` to the port. These materials have

been moved on several occasions before. By the Syrian government

forces. So it will not be happening for the first time. If it was

feasible in the past issue be feasible now. But there is no plan

B. It is the Syrian responsibility to move everything to the port. Once

it gets there, what is the plan? You it gets there, what is the plan You

have lined up the Norwegians and the Danes to have ships ready, because

there is no way that an American ship can sail into a Syrian port.

That is correct. A Norwegian ship will take over. The priority one

chemical materials as we call them. They will sail to the port, to be

identified, they will upload these all transfer it to an American ship.

This may take some days. We expect that everything could be done, in

terms of loading, by the end of January. In the next few weeks, this

material, 500 tonnes of mustard gas and the like, is going to the port,

been put on a Danish or Norwegian ship, and being taken where? We do

not know yet. There are some contacts which are under way. I

expect that one of the parties will accept to provide the facility of

trans` loading. This is also important, eight kind contribution.

Presumably you are talking about a country that is on the

Mediterranean. I assume so. So country such as Italy all Greece. I

do not know yet. I hope you have negotiations going on. I am pretty

sure that one of those countries will step forward. So the Danish and

all `` and Norwegian ships go into one of those ports, and the material

is transferred to an American ship. That is correct. It destroys and

neutralises the material import? That is correct. It destroys and

neutralises the material import? Not necessarily. The facilities for

neutralisation are being installed on the ship. There will be two

facilities. All the material will be loaded onto the ship, they will be

neutralised on the ship, and there will be every action as a result of

this. The reaction or effluent as we call it will be ten times more than

the substance, which is going to be neutralised. Everything will be

stored on the ship. After all this operation is over, the effluent will

also be insulate it somewhere in a commercial plant. I notice you are

saying it is on the ship. So will it be done at sea? It may be. All

preparations are being done for either option. Either deport all at

sea. So the actual neutralising of the material... Absolutely. Do you

also have to transfer at sea? It could be done. I prefer to do it at

a port. It is easier. Has it ever been done before? No. It was not

destroyed at sea. Clearly these facilities are tested and they

function quite well. The safety record is quite high. But it is

going to be done for the first time at sea. You say it is quite high

which is not very reassuring. This whole operation seems incredibly

risky. Is it risky but you do not have a choice? We do not see any

risk. We have received several briefings from experts who have

worked on this project. We were assured that all safety measures

will be in place. We have gone through the technicalities and found

them very convincing. I cannot help wondering how you will feel, how all

of a should be feeling while it is ongoing? I think you should be very

comfortable. Our inspectors will also be on the ship and they will

verify every activity of destruction as they are doing at other

destruction facilities. Before we get to that phase, as the

organisation, we have to verify whether the facility is up to the

job, and we will have an inspection and after this inspection, an

agreement will be signed with the United States, and we expect... 500

tonnes of mustard gas will be neutralised while a ship is sailing

around the Mediterranean. Less than 500 tonnes. There are other

substances. This is not really a safety risk. From our point of view.

So people should be quite relaxed about that? Absolutely. The head of

your field operations in Syria is reported as saying, when the

organisation won the prize, we will celebrate when our mission in Syria

is successfully completed. When will you judge that to be? We have a

mandate until June. The end of June next year. As to our presence of in

a joint mission with the United Nations in Damascus. We will

continue to have a presence for the coming months. But however much you

destroy, will you be able to say that Syria is free of chemical

weapons? According to our estimates and the estimates of State parties,

Syria has disclosed in fact its chemical weapons. If there are

question marks about some facilities or chemical weapons which may not

have been declared, then the State parties have the right, in fact to

invoke a mechanism, according to the executive Council decision as well

as the UN Security Council resolution, and our inspectors would

go and verify those facilities. . go and verify those facilities. .

But how confident are you that what the Syrian government has said it

has are accurate? Whether it is the government putting it somewhere or

even the opposition, which has taken some?

Actually, we have seen no evidence about the position of `` possession

of chemical weapons by the opposition. There was some

speculation but we have seen no evidence at all. As for the Syrian

government, we think that they have been transparent and we have raised

some questions with them and they replied quite constructively. But if

there are still some questions, every state party has tried to raise

those questions and we will follow them up. If there's no evidence at

all that opposition groups have used chemical weapons, was the Syrian

government responsible for the attacks in Damascus? I didn't say

they haven't or have used them. I am saying we haven't got evidence of

the possession of chemical weapons. As the investigation determined,

there was large`scale use of sarin gas in Damascus but they didn't get

that far to apportion the blame on anyone. Human Rights Watch reported

that it was sarin gas but also those inspectors found sufficient evidence

to allow the project three of the missiles to be determined `` the

trajectory. And established it had been fired from a large military

base, home to the Republican guards 104th Brigade. Are they wrong in

saying that? I would say that. This is an investigation by a doctor,

is an investigation by a doctor appointed by the US Secretary

General. We consider this as purely a UN mission that was deported

because Syria at that time was not a state party and this was the only

mechanism. Therefore, I am not really in a position to discuss the

details of this report. Why? Nine of the 12 of the team were OPCW staff.

Are you not saying anything now because Syria is a member state

Eleanor not at all. Since the beginning of this process, it was

considered purely a UN process. `` not at all. All the information is

considered UN property. You might say you know... The inspectors are

reporting to the US Secretary General, not to me. Have you not

seen the report? No, not before it was concluded. It has been

concluded. Yes, I read it. There will be a final report in about one

week or ten days to be Sydney to the secretary general. Will it apportion

blame? I don't think so. The mandate was to investigate whether chemical

weapons were used or not. And it was found that they were. But one of the

difficulties you will know that people have here is that you are not

wanting to apportion blame, not wanting to point the finger, perhaps

at the regime, and you will know that opposition groups in Damascus

and elsewhere say that the of the deal that was done, as a result of

the Russian brokered deal that avoided US intervening militarily,

was that Assad was given the green light by the international community

that he can kill his people by conventional means, does not buy

chemical weapons and that was the suggestion of opposition groups in

Damascus as a result of your team writing Syria. Actually, it would be

unfair to blame the OPCW or the UN to be involved in such a deal. I

don't think it's correct. I think what we have been doing, in fact, to

fulfil the tasks entrusted to both the OPCW and the OPCW and be when

baby international community or within the mandate of the Secretary

General himself. The decision was made by the Russian Federation and

the United States on the 14th of September. To eliminate the chemical

weapons in Syria. I don't think it's connected to one issue or another,

nor does a deal exist. To you accept one of the consequences of it is it

good along the wall in Syria? My expectation is the opposite. `` the

war. For the first time, for more than 2.5 years, the international

community, including the major powers, were able to agree on one

area related to the Syrian conflict, the annihilation of Syrian

chemical weapons. This area might be a little limited to some but still

it's a very important area and I hope and expect that the

international community can build on this agreement and pave the way for

a wider dialogue and negotiations in order to address the Syrian problem.

If we can keep this momentum and if the second to it the conference is

held in January, I hope we can also use this process as a catalyst ``

Geneva conference. But up until a certain point, it looks like

President Assad had tremendous pressure on him and suddenly he is

off the hook. You know opposition groups in Syria, as much as they may

want to mingle weapons removed, see an entirely different balance of

power in the country `` want to chemical weapons removed. My mandate

is limited to the removal of chemical weapons. I don't think I am

in the right place to comment on why is there a problem in Syria. Of

course as a human being I am very sad about the situation in Syria.

And by the tremendous number of losses of life. Innocent people are

being killed every day. Over 10 ,000 people have been killed over the

past 2.5 years. Of course I want this conflict to end as soon as

possible. 5000 people every month. Something like 1000 of those were

killed by chemical weapons, the rest by conventional. One can't help but

wonder what the difference is. Whether guns and bombs are less

barbaric than gas. No one could argue with that. There is no

monopoly of... The atrocities... Various aspects of the weapons. Gen

Y, to use the words of Nobel citation, your work as defined use

of chemical weapons as to do under international law `` Gen Y. But they

are no worse than any other weapon? I wouldn't say so. After the massive

use of chemical weapons in the First World War in 1915, and the repeated

use of chemical weapons in different wars and conflicts, the

international community decided that those weapons should be eliminated.

Because of their effects on the human beings. Because of the

suffering. Because of the long`term effects. They decided that they

should be, you know, gotten rid of. So, this doesn't mean the other

weapons should continue to be used, not at all. There are actually

remarkably few countries that have signed or ratified the agreement.

Two who have side are Myanmar and Israel. If you've had the Israeli

Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, sitting here with you, about to

collect the Nobel Peace Prize, what would you say to him? I know

Israel's concerns. Security concerns. And I was told that this

prevented them from joining in the previous years. I believe the

situation has changed considerably now because of Syria joining the

convention. And I would in fact call upon him to reconsider the position

and to join the organisation as soon as possible. Can you see any reason

why he wouldn't? I don't know. Every country is solo in their decision

and they may have some concerns we do know about. I believe the

decision to them. We met a few months ago when you had first been

awarded the prize and one sensed a sort of surprise on the part of the

organisation and yourself, that you had been given the price. I wonder

if there was almost something that could have happened that would make

you feel satisfied and comfortable and a worthy recipient of the price?

Is there something you would point to that says, when we have done

this, yes. I surprise wasn't linked to lack of confidence or any sense

of us not deserving it. That wasn't so. What I was expecting, in fact,

to make a little more progress. We are now at the level of 82, which is

very considerable. 82%? Yes. Enormous resources have been

allocated to the destruction of chemical weapons, within the US, and

chemical weapons, within the US and elsewhere. And I thought that maybe

we could be awarded at 90%. It came little earlier, which we are pleased

very much. Ahmet Uzumcu, thank you very much for coming on HARDtalk.

Thank you. A lot of fine and settled weather

around this week. Not much wet weather around. Remaining very mild

for this time of year. Most places dry, if cloudy. Also breezy,

particularly across western parts. The breeze is warm. Coming from the

south or south`west. Coming up around an area of high pressure

centred over Europe. The influence of that high keeping us dry. Where

we have clear skies it could turn chilly in eastern areas. You could

encounter mist and fog. For the rest of us,