For the Ron Paul Institute, Rob Slane writes:
There are a lot of
issues around the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal which, at the time of
writing, are very unclear and rather odd. There may well be good and innocent
explanations for some or even all of them. Then again there may not. This is
why it is crucial for questions to be asked where, as yet, there are either no
answers or deeply unsatisfactory ones.
Some people will assume that this is conspiracy theory
territory. It is not that, for the simple reason that I have no credible theory
— conspiracy or otherwise — to explain all the details of the incident in
Salisbury from start to finish, and I am not attempting to forward one. I have
no idea who was behind this incident, and I continue to keep an open mind to a
good many possible explanations.
However, there are a number of oddities in the official
narrative, which do demand answers and clarifications. You don’t have to be a
conspiracy theorist or a defender of the Russian state to see this. You just
need a healthy scepticism, “of a type developed by all inquiring minds!”
Below are 30 of the most important questions regarding the
case and the British Government’s response, which are currently either wholly
unanswered, or which require clarification.
1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of
Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the
investigation?
2. Are they still alive?
3. If so, what is their current condition and what
symptoms are they displaying?
4. In a recent
letter to The
Times, Stephen Davies,
Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, wrote the
following:
Sir,
Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”,
Mar 14) may I clarify that no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning
in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant
poisoning.
His claim that “no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury” is remarkably odd, as it appears to flatly
contradict the official narrative. Was this a slip of the pen, or was it his
intention to communicate precisely this — that no patients have been poisoned
by a nerve agent in Salisbury?
5. It has been said that the Skripals and Detective
Sergeant Nick Bailey were poisoned by “a military grade nerve agent.” According
to some claims, the type referred to could be anywhere between five and eight
times more toxic than VX nerve agent. Given that just
10mg of VX is
reckoned to be the median lethal dose, it seems likely that the particular type mentioned in the
Skripal case should have killed them instantly. Is there an explanation as to
how or why this did not happen?
6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort
of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, it was almost a week before
Public Health
England issued advice
to those who had visited The Mill pub or the Zizzi restaurant in Salisbury on
the day that the Skripals fell ill. Why the delay and did this pose a danger to
the public?
7. In their advice, Public Health England stated that
people who had visited those places, where traces of a military grade nerve
agent had apparently been found, should wash their clothes and:
Wipe
personal items such as phones, handbags and other electronic items with
cleansing or baby wipes and dispose of the wipes in the bin (ordinary domestic
waste disposal).
Are baby wipes
acknowledged to be an effective and safe method of dealing with objects that
may potentially have been contaminated with “military grade nerve agent,”
especially of a type 5-8 times more deadly than VX?
8. Initial reports suggested that Detective Sergeant
Bailey became ill after coming into contact with the substance after attending
the Skripals on the bench they were seated on in The Maltings in Salisbury.
Subsequent claims, however,
first aired by
former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Ian Blair on 9th March, said that he came into contact with the substance at Sergei
Skripal’s house in Christie Miller Road. Reports since then have been highly
ambiguous about what should be an easily verifiable fact. Which is the correct
account?
9. The government have claimed that the poison used was “a
military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia.” The phrase
“of a type developed by Russia” says nothing whatsoever about whether the
substance used in the Salisbury case
was produced or manufactured in Russia. Can the government
confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance
that poisoned the Skripals and DS Bailey was
actually produced or manufactured in Russia?
10. The former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has
claimed that sources within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have told
him that
scientists at
Porton Down would not agree to a statement about the place of origin of the
substance, because they were
not able to establish this. According to Mr Murray, only under much pressure
from the Government did they end up agreeing to the compromise wording, “of a
type developed by Russia”, which has subsequently been used in all official
statements on the matter. Can the FCO, in plain and unambiguous English, categorically
refute Mr Murray’s claims that pressure was put on Porton Down scientists to
agree to a form of words and that in the end a much-diluted version was agreed?
11.
On the
occasion that the FCO did attempt to refute Mr Murray’s claims, the wording they used included a straightforward repetition
of the same phrase – “of a type developed by Russia.” Is the FCO willing and
able to go beyond this and confirm that the substance was not only “of a type
developed by Russia,” but that it was “produced” or “manufactured” in Russia?
12. Why did the British Government issue a 36-hour
ultimatum to the Russian Government to come up with an explanation, but then
refuse their request to share the evidence that allegedly pointed to their
culpability (there could have been no danger of their tampering with it, since
Porton Down would have retained their own sample)?
13. How is it possible for a state (or indeed any person or
entity) that has been accused of something, to defend themselves against an
accusation if they are refused access to evidence that apparently points to
their guilt?
14. Is this not a clear case of the reversal of the
presumption of innocence and of due process?
15. Furthermore, why did the British Government issue an
ultimatum to the Russian Government, in contravention of the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) rules governing such matters, to
which both Britain and Russia are signatories, and which are clearly set out in
Article 9,
Paragraph ii of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?
16. Given that the investigation,
which has been described by the man leading it as being “an extremely challenging investigation” and as having “a number of unique and complex issues,” and given that many of the facts of the case are not yet known, such as when, where and how the substance was administered, how is it possible for the British Government to point the finger of blame with such certainty?
17. Furthermore, by doing so, haven’t they both politicised and prejudiced the investigation?
18. Why did the British Government feel the need to come
forward with an accusation little more than a week into the investigation,
rather than waiting for its completion?
And I
might just say in response to Mr Chizhov’s point about Russian stockpiles of
chemical weapons. We actually had evidence within the last ten years that
Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the
purposes of assassination, but it has also been creating and stockpiling
Novichok.
Where has this
intelligence come from and has it been properly verified?
20. If this intelligence was known before 27th September
2017 – the date that the
OPCW issued a
statement declaring the
completion of the destruction of all 39,967 metric tons of chemical weapons
possessed by the Russian Federation – why did Britain not inform the OPCW of
its own intelligence which apparently contradicts this claim, which they would
have had a legal obligation to do?
21. If this intelligence was known after
27th September 2017, why did Britain not inform the OPCW of this “new”
information, which it was legally obliged to do, since it allegedly shows that
Russia had been lying to the OPCW and had been carrying out a clandestine
chemical weapons programme?
22. Also on The Andrew Marr Show, Mr Johnson made the
following claim after a question of whether he was “absolutely sure” that the
substance used to poison the Skripals was a “Novichok”:
Obviously
to the best of our knowledge this is a Russian-made nerve agent that falls
within the category Novichok made only by Russia, and just to get back to the
point about the international reaction which is so fascinating.
Is the phrase “to the
best of our knowledge” an adequate response to Mr Marr’s request of him being
“absolutely sure”?
23. Is this a good enough legal basis from which to accuse
another state and to impose punitive measures on it, or is more certainty
needed before such an accusation can be made?
24. After hedging his words with the phrase, “to the best
of our knowledge,” Mr Johnson then went beyond previous Government claims that
the substance was “of a type developed in Russia,” saying that it was
“Russian-made.” Have the scientists at Porton Down been able to establish that
it was indeed “Russian-made,” or was this a case of Mr Johnson straying
off-message?
25. He also went beyond the previous claim that the
substance was “of a type developed in Russia” by saying that the substance
involved in the Skripal case “falls within the category Novichok made only
by Russia”? Firstly, is Mr Johnson able to provide evidence that this category
of chemical weapons was ever successfully synthesised in Russia, especially in
the light of the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board stating as recently as 2013,
that it has
“insufficient
information to comment on the existence or properties of ‘Novichoks’”?
26.
As Craig
Murray has again pointed out, since its 2013 statement, the OPCW has worked (legally)
with Iranian scientists who have successfully synthesised these
chemical weapons. Was Mr Johnson aware that the category of “Novichok” chemical
weapons had been synthesised elsewhere when he stated that this category of
chemical weapons is “made only by Russia”?
27. Does the fact that Iranian scientists were able to
synthesise this class of chemical weapons suggest that other states have the
capabilities to do likewise?
28. Is the British Government aware that the main plant
involved in attempts to synthesise Novichoks in the 1970s and 1980s was based
not in Russia, but in Nukus in Uzbekistan?
29. Does the fact that the US Department of Defence
decontaminated and dismantled the Nukus site,
under an
agreement with the Government of Uzbekistan, make it at least theoretically possible that substances or
secrets held within that plant could have been carried out of the country and
even back to the United States?