In
2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair misled the British people so that he could commit
the United Kingdom to an illegal war in Iraq, which cost the lives of 222 Brits
and an obscene number of Iraqis (Figure 116.1). It is well documented that Blair’s
government leaned on civil servants to produce a dossier stating that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction and that the UK was potentially under threat. It was a
despicable deception, and many believe Blair ought to be investigated for war
crimes. As a result, public scepticism about government pronouncements has been
ratcheted upward.
Figure 116.1: Mass protest in the UK
Copyright © 2014 Global
Research
Something
disturbingly similar is happening today. Eight days after former Russian spy
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were supposedly found poisoned in a Salisbury park, Prime
Minister Theresa May pointed her finger straight at President Vladimir Putin
and his Russian government (Figure 116.2). In a single stroke, May claimed that
the toxin had been identified as a ‘novichok’, ‘of a type developed by Russia’. Samples from the victims had been
analysed at the Ministry of Defence’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory
at Porton Down, which just happens to be a mere seven miles from Salisbury.
Figure
116.2: Theresa May accuses Russia.
Copyright
© 2018 Sky UK
Now,
consider the careful wording: ‘of a type
developed by Russia’. It does not state explicitly that the toxin was
prepared or manufactured in Russia, nor even that it had ever been successfully synthesized
at all. Nonetheless, May accused Russia of being responsible for its use and
demanded an immediate explanation. Putin refused and was within his rights to
do so. May ought to be reminded that innocence is presumed, and that the burden of proof lies entirely with the
accuser.
Proof
has yet to be established. May has agreed for samples to be given to the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a UN agency based
in the Netherlands, to whose strict protocols both the UK and Russia have agreed.
Until the OPCW’s independent analyses are complete, the facts remain unknown.
‘Novichok’
molecules are quite simple structures (Figure 116.3). As recently as 2016,
however, both Porton Down and the OPCW went on record, stating that it was
doubtful that ‘novichoks’ had ever been made – by anyone. This is important: if
Porton Down has never seen one, let alone one with Russian ‘fingerprints’, how
can it be sure that the one it has now was manufactured in Russia? Of course,
it cannot, because no comparison is available. Today, a former British
Ambassador to (the former Soviet Republic of) Uzbekistan stated, from a Foreign
Office source, that scientists at Porton Down have indeed been unable to identify
the toxin as being of Russian origin. Further, they resent insidious governmental
pressure to make them do so.
Figure
116.3: ‘Novichok’ is Russian for ‘newcomer’.
We
seem to have been here before. The UK and the West in general have an
overriding, and highly devious, anti-Russian narrative (e.g. Crimea, East
Ukraine, Syria etc.). In addition, we must remember that the government has
form when it comes to concocting scientific ‘evidence’ to foment conflict with
other nations.
A
few hours ago, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson stated that it was ‘overwhelmingly
likely’ that the toxin had been made and administered by Russia. I dare say
the word ‘likely’ would be laughably inadequate for a Crown Court judge; yet
Johnson expects it to suffice when, without watertight evidence, accusing a sovereign
nation of an extremely serious breach of international law.
Until
the OPCW’s investigations are complete, wild accusations are plain stupid.
Facts should come first; conclusions second. This affair stinks to high heaven.
Copyright
© 2018 Paul Spradbery
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.