Conclusive evidence of Russia’s guilt is lacking
The UK Government has
not presented conclusive evidence that the nerve agent used in the attempted
assassinations of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia originated in Russia,
let alone that the Russian state was responsible for these crimes.
The Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Commons on 12 March 2018 said:
“It is now clear that
Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of
a type developed by Russia. It is part of a group of nerve agents known as
Novichok.
“Based on the
positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, our knowledge that
Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing
so, Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations and our
assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for
assassinations, the Government have concluded that it is highly likely that
Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.”
That is a heroic effort to connect the Russian
state with the attempted assassinations, but it is almost entirely devoid of
facts that do so.
To make a connection, the ideal scenario would have
been that, having carried out the relevant analysis on the nerve agent used, Porton
Down scientists were able to state unequivocally that it was manufactured in
Russia. Clearly, they were not able to
do so, otherwise it would have been at the heart of the Prime Minister’s message
to the House of Commons on 12 March.
Think of the difference it would have made to her
case that Russia was responsible if she had been had been able to say:
“Our world-leading experts at the Defence
Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down have established that the
agent used was produced in Russia”.
Instead, in trying to prove that the Russian state
responsible, the Prime Minister had to make do with saying that the nerve agent
used was “of a type developed by Russia” and
“Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing
so”. That raises the possibility that
Russia may have been the source of the nerve agent, but it is a long way from
proof.
And it certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility of
another state (or even a non-state entity) being responsible for its
manufacture. In her statement, the Prime
Minister did not attempt to argue that no state other than Russia is capable of
manufacturing the agent used in Salisbury.
On March 20, the New Scientist said
that “several countries could have made the nerve agent used in the chemical
attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal”. It
also said that “other countries legally created Novichok for testing purposes
after its existence was revealed in 1992 and a production method has even been
published” by Iranian scientists in 2016.
The creation of Novichok for testing purposes is legal under the
Chemical Weapons Convention, partly so that agents can be identified in
situations like Salisbury. The UK may be
one of those countries: in an interview with Deutsche Welle on 20
March, Boris Johnston was asked if Porton Down possesses samples of Novichok: he replied “they do”.
(Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray,
who has commented extensively on the fallout from the events in Salisbury on 4
March, wrote the following on 16 March:
“I have now received confirmation from a well-placed FCO [Foreign &
Commonwealth Office] source that Porton Down scientists are not able to
identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture, and have been
resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only
sign up to the formulation ‘of a type developed by Russia’ after a rather
difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation.”)
Russia declared guilty
On 14 March, the Prime Minister returned to the House of Commons to declare Russia guilty of the attempted
assassinations and to pronounce sentence (which was the expulsion of 23 Russian
diplomats and a range of other measures).
On that occasion, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tried
to do his job as Leader of the Opposition and seek information about the
progress of the investigation. In
particular, he asked the Prime Minister if tests had been done on the nerve agent
at Porton Down to try to identify its origin and those responsible:
“Has high-resolution trace analysis been run on a sample of the nerve
agent, and has that revealed any evidence as to the location of its production
or the identity of its perpetrators?”
An answer to that question would have revealed that
Porton Down scientists were unable to establish the location of the agent’s
production. Understandably, the Prime Minister didn’t answer that question (and
others from him), since having already declared Russia guilty exploring the
evidence for its guilt was redundant. Instead,
she rounded on him for failing to endorse wholeheartedly the guilty verdict she
had declared.
OPCW verifies
destruction of Russia's chemical weapons programme
On 27 September 2017, the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) announced that it had verified the
completion of the destruction of Russia's
chemical weapons programme. Understandably,
the Prime Minister didn’t mention this relevant fact in her indictment of
Russia in the House of Commons on 12 March.
Of course, this
doesn’t absolutely exclude the possibility that Russia continues to hold
chemical weapons stocks and/or production facilities. On the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on 18 March Boris
Johnson claimed
just that, saying:
“We actually have evidence within the last 10
years that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents
for the purpose of assassination, but has also been creating and stockpiling
Novichok.”
And the Prime Minister told
the House of Commons something similar on 26 March. But neither gave any evidence.
The OPCW is the
international body charged with the implementation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention. The Convention, which
came into force on 29 April 1997, bans the acquisition and use of chemical
weapons and requires state parties to destroy existing stocks and production
facilities upon joining.
However, state parties
are allowed to produce small quantities of chemical agents, in order to develop
countermeasures to them (see UK Government document The
Truth About Porton Down). If Boris Johnson is to be believed, Porton
Down possesses samples of Novichok.
States that joined
prior to the Convention coming into force were allowed 10 years to complete the
destruction of their stocks and production facilities. Both the US and Russia were unable to fulfil
that requirement and had to be given additional time to complete the
destruction. US is now the only state
party to the Convention that still hasn’t fulfilled that requirement – it is
scheduled to do so in 2023. All the
states in the world apart from Egypt, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan are
now parties to the Convention.
On 27 September 2017, the OPCW Director-General, Ahmet Üzümcü, congratulated Russia in the following terms:
“The completion of the verified destruction
of Russia's chemical weapons programme is a major milestone in the achievement
of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I congratulate Russia and I commend all
of their experts who were involved for their professionalism and dedication …”
Addressing a
conference of OPCW state parties in November 2017, the UK Ambassador to the
OPCW, Peter Wilson, praised Director-General Üzümcü and listed his achievements
during the year. These included:
“… the completion
of the verified destruction of Russia’s declared chemical weapons programme.”
He didn’t qualify
this achievement in any way: he didn’t suggest that Russia had an undeclared Novichok
programme. The UK was, apparently,
content that all of Russia’s chemical weapons stocks and production facilities
had been eliminated. It is strange that
a few months later the UK is claiming that Russia is “creating and stockpiling
Novichok” and “investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purpose of
assassination”.
OPCW state parties “shall consult and cooperate”
Article IX.1 of the
Chemical Weapons Convention lays down that state parties to the Convention “shall
consult and cooperate, directly among themselves, or through the Organization
(OPCW) … on any matter which may be raised relating to the object and purpose …
of this Convention”.
Article IX.2
stipulates that state parties “should, whenever possible, first make every
effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and
consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance
with this Convention”. A request for
information from one state to another should be answered appropriately “as soon
as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the request”.
The attempted
assassination of Sergei Skripal and daughter certainly caused “doubt about compliance
with the Convention”. Under Article IX
of the Convention, it was the clear duty of the UK to co-operate with other state
parties including Russia (and the OPCW) to investigate this matter.
Instead, in the House
of Commons on 12 March, the Prime Minister declared that the Russian state was
responsible – in her words:
“There are,
therefore, only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on 4
March: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country;
or the Russian Government lost control of their potentially catastrophically
damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.”
By the time she spoke,
the Russian ambassador had been summoned to the Foreign Office and asked “to
explain which of the two possibilities it is and to account for how this
Russian-produced nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury against Mr
Skripal and his daughter” (in her words).
And he was told “that the Russian Federation must immediately provide
full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and he has requested the Russian
Government’s response by the end of tomorrow”.
That procedure was
not designed to elicit information from a fellow state party to the Convention,
information which might throw light on the origin of the nerve agent used in
Salisbury and who used it. On the
contrary, it was an ultimatum requiring the Russian state to plead guilty, not
merely to the attempted assassinations, but also to having a Novichok
production programme. Understandably, Russia
refused to respond.
This refusal has been
interpreted by the UK government and others as evidence of guilt. In fact, unlike the UK, Russia has tried to
act in accordance with its obligations under Article IX.2, offering to respond
within 10 days to any UK request for information. However, the UK has not taken up this offer
and it has also refused to supply Russia with a sample of the nerve agent used
in the attack for testing by Russian experts (see Russian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs document dated
21 March). The Russian Embassy requested access to Julia
Skripal, who is a Russian citizen, but that was also refused.
UK seeks OPCW technical assistance
After declaring the
Russian state guilty without any independent input, the UK did eventually seek technical
assistance from the OPCW. The Prime
Minister told the House of Commons on 12 March that “we are working with the
police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis”.
Technical experts
from the OPCW are in Salisbury at the time of writing (26 March). Court permission has been obtained for blood
samples to be taken from Sergei and Yulia Skripal. This was necessary because both are unable to
give permission themselves. According to
the court judgement, the OPCW technical experts intend (a) to undertake their
own analysis of the freshly taken blood samples for evidence of nerve agents
and (b) to retest the samples already analysed by Porton Down scientists. These had originally “tested positive for the
presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent”, according
to the judgement.
What motivated Putin
to do it?
On 16 March, Boris Johnson declared that it was "overwhelmingly likely" that Vladimir Putin personally
ordered the attack against Sergei Skripal. But what motivated Putin to do
it? To that question, the Foreign
Secretary gave no answer.
At the time of the attack, a presidential election,
in which he was expected to have an overwhelming victory, was imminent; in a
few months’ time, Russia was going to host the World Cup and he would have the
honour of presenting the Cup to the winning team. Why would he risk having this disrupted?
The attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal – a Russian who had spied for Britain using a
nerve agent with Russian associations – was always going to be blamed on the
Russian state and its president, whether or not the evidence warranted such a
conclusion. Diplomatic and economic
retaliation against Russia by Britain and its allies was inevitable. Disruption of the World Cup by, for example,
the withdrawal of some of the competing countries was a possibility. At the time of writing (26 March), it looks as
if the response is going to be largely diplomatic, but just imagine the
reaction if more British citizens had been injured or even killed in the attack.
If Putin ordered the attack, he must have been
prepared to risk this kind of retaliation and worse. But what could he possibly hope to gain by
doing so? It has been suggested that, in
attempting to kill Sergei Skripal, he was acting on the principle that traitors should be executed. Proponents of this theory
have quoted remarks
he made in December 2010, which could be interpreted as a warning that those
who betray the country would face lethal consequences:
“Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me. … Whatever they got in
exchange for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on
them.”
But why wait until the
spring of 2018 before attempting to execute Sergei Skripal, when he was convicted for spying for Britain in 2006? And why, after 12 years of waiting, choose to
do it two weeks before the presidential election and with the World Cup in the offing? Why
not delay it to the autumn, for instance?
Also, why use a nerve
gas with Russian associations in executing traitors or political opponents,
which makes it easy for the finger to be pointed at Russia, whether the
evidence justifies it or not? If a hand
gun had been used to kill Sergei Skripal in
Salisbury on 4 March, most likely he would be dead (and his daughter would be
alive). Most likely also, the UK would
not have been able to pin the murder on Russia and get international support
for diplomatic sanctions against Russia.
The attempted killing
of Sergei Skripal has
had negative consequences for President Putin and the Russian state, albeit
mostly diplomatic to date, consequences that were entirely predictable. Those who ordered the killing would have
known that there would be negative consequences for President Putin and the
Russian state.
One could for
forgiven for thinking that those who ordered the killing were opponents of
President Putin.
David Morrison
26 March 2018