In September 2017 the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü of Turkey, congratulated Russia on completing the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile which originally totalled 39 967 agent tonnes.
As the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said the procedures by which states declare their chemical weapons and how the OPCW verifies their destruction were “informed by the experience gained from a 1989 Memorandum of Understanding and a 1990 Bilateral Destruction Agreement concluded between the Soviet Union and the United States”.
I share few political ideas with Jeremy Corbyn but like the late Tony Benn he is not afraid, as Shakespeare has it, to “kick against the pricks”. The pricks in this case being the baying ignorant Russophobes courting the madness of a new war – without any international verification nor domestic British legal process.
The May Government is prima facie guilty of one doubtful “truth”, one untruth and two legal scandals.
- Claiming that the Novichok poison actually exists (as the leading British experts Black, Robinson and Mckiegue have doubted – see my previous article) and
- that only Russia could have used it – since post Soviet chaos (with the USA cleaning up!) and a book on Amazon showing the supposed Novichok formula could have made the poison widely available.
- It is also against all British legal principles to condemn a party without presenting prima facie evidence to the alleged perpetrator (the UK Government has refused to show the Russians the evidence) and proving the said evidence in a court.
- Internationally the U.K. has failed to follow the procedures of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons when accusing another party of violating the Convention.
Ironically that procedure will now be followed to test the May assertion that Russia was guilty – but only after she acted on that very assumption.
Instead she expels Diplomats and ushers in freezing Anglo Russian temperatures on the basis that:
“the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible”
Or that ludicrous phrase used by Foreign Minister Boris Johnson who said it was
“overwhelmingly likely”
which is like saying “categorically possible” – with the strength of the first word seeking to trump the weakness of the second!
May said in Parliament that there were “Only two explanations” – either the Russian State was responsible or the Russian State lost control i.e. “someone else” which means “anyone else” – brilliant! that certainly narrows it down!
The UK has become an embarrassment to her Allies who have been dragooned into open support but still await any proof.
THE POSSIBLE POISON SCENARIOS
But of course we now know that the USA also had access to this group of poisons through its chemical clean up work in Uzbekistan – so May should have said that was a third possibility! There are several possible scenarios.
- On past precedent individual rogue agents or scientists could have been responsible (see below).
- It could have been a western false flag operation.
- Russian based Islamic extremists could have wished to weaken Putin.
- Russian internal Intelligence Agents might have wanted to damage Putin politically.
WHO BENEFITS?
The SKRIPAL poisoning case is a mystery – only someone as demonstrably ignorant as Prime Minister May could show certainty about it. Everyone else asks “cui bono” – who benefits? Russia does not benefit from killing a spy who was swapped in an East West deal – for such deals will never be trusted again. Putin has no incentive just before an election in which he is leading with 70% of Russian support. Naturally the British could have done it or the Americans but they, like the Russians, would also jeopardise all future spy swaps.
If either the Russian or British State wanted to kill Skripal they had far better opportunities over the last 8 years since he was released from Russian imprisonment.
Why, if the Russian State had (in defiance of international agreements and an internationally verified end to their chemical weapons last September), illegally maintained a chemical weapons capability, would it use it for such a stupid reason? And why would a highly advanced nation with sophisticated modern armed forces and nuclear weaponry think of ever using chemical weapons?
The Novichok group of chemical poisons could be easily manufactured – anywhere and by any rogue Russian or American or Briton!
Russian opposition forces are very weak electorally. The West’s favourite “Opposition Leader” never rated more than about 2% in the polls. But that does not mean that Vladimir Putin does not have enemies within his own State system. A rogue Russian scientist or intelligence agent could have bought Novichok poison internationally or internally – given the chaos of the post Soviet period.
Séamus Martin is a former Irish Times Moscow correspondent:
“In September of 1993 as The Irish Times Moscow correspondent I obtained a list of chemical and biological weapons, including Novichok, that were being produced by Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union. I brought these documents to the recognised expert at the time Dr Thomas Stock of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
Dr Stock’s reaction was that Russia immediately needed western financial help to stop Novichok and other chemical and biological agents being exported illegally by criminal elements. Western help arrived eventually but it was too late.”
Some of these could have fallen into the hands of Islamic extremists inside Russia – where, given the millions of Muslims within and on the Russian borders – they could have had a network dedicated to attacking Russia and its President. There have been no shortage of Islamist attacks in Russia.
OTHER CASES OF ROGUE AGENT POISONING
I have already recorded (last Post on Skripal) how a rogue US State employee stole Anthrax spores and sent them in letters to journalists in politicians in America. Now a Russian lawyer, Boris Kuznetsov, has told Reuters he was offering to pass to the British authorities a file of an incident when poison hidden in a phone receiver killed a Russian banker in 1995. The poison came from an employee at the Russian state chemical facility who sold it through intermediaries to help reduce his debts.
AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ALLIES
UK Allies in France, Germany and the USA have been corralled into giving initial support to the British Government but they all seem a bit cautious in laying blame. A French spokesman talked of continuing investigations and we know from the past French attitude to sanctions against Russia that they resent having to fall in with US or UK policies. As the
French ambassador to Russia said:
“France has an absolutely clear position in what concerns the US sanctions of exterritorial character,” she said. “We find them to be unacceptable. We would like to safeguard our own interests and the opportunities for investment and economic presence here in Russia.”
The above analysed failures of the British Government to understand the history or even identity of the Novichok agent and its availability plus the failure to follow international procedures for accusations against Russia could well lead to a grave weakening of the UK position and an unwillingness by France and Germany to engage in aggressive moves against Russia which (despite sanctions) provides a large market for goods and investment and considerable gas supplies to western Europe (about 37% of Europe’s demand).
OLIGARCHS IN LONDON
Perhaps the most ludicrous statement of the May Government has been the attack on Russian businessmen in London, most of whom fled Putin’s crackdown on Yeltsin era corruption. Those that did not avoid Russian tax or abscond with hundreds of millions of Dollars worth of Russian business wealth would be welcomed back to Moscow as valued investors. So the idea that the Conservative Government (itself a recipient of Russian businessmen’s donations) is by, attacking such Oligarchs, “cracking down on Putin” is absurd.
