However, the UK received overwhelming support from its allies on the council, including the US, amid heated debate on Wednesday night. Washington’s envoy, Nikki Haley, delivered the most unambiguous statement of support from the Trump administration so far.
In her statement on behalf of the US, Haley said: “Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent.”
Presenting the UK case to the UN security council on Wednesday, Britain’s deputy permanent representative, Jonathan Allen, said Russia was “in serious breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention through its failure to declare the novichok programme”.
“This fact alone means you should discount any arguments you hear about the possibility of other countries having inherited this technology,” he said.
“This was no common crime. It was an unlawful use of force, a violation of ... the United Nations charter, the basis of the international legal order,” Allen said.
Amid heated debate, the Russian envoy, Vissaly Nebenzia, rejected UK accusations of responsibility and suggested that the British government might have carried out the attack itself in an effort to “tarnish” Russia ahead of the football World Cup this summer. “No scientific research or development under the title novichok were carried out,” he said. He alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended to harm Russia’s reputation. “Most probable source of this agent are the countries who have carried out research on these weapons, including Britain,” Nebenzia said.
0:52
Russian ambassador responds to UK and US accusations in the UN - video
But Haley, the US ambassador, said: “This is a defining moment. Time and time again, member states say they oppose the use of chemical weapons under any circumstance. Now, one member stands accused of using chemical weapons on the sovereign soil of another member. The credibility of this council will not survive if we fail to hold Russia accountable.”
The Russian ambassador sought to turn the tables on the UK, claiming that Theresa May’s letter to the UN, outlining UK grounds for accusing Russia, was itself a “threat to a sovereign state”.
“The letter contains completely irresponsible statements which are even difficult for me to comment on using diplomatic vocabulary,” the Russian envoy said. He later told reporters that the case belonged at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague. “We are ready to cooperate,” he said.
Allen pointed out that the UK had already called in the OPCW to take part in the investigation. He described extensive evidence that novichok nerve agents had been developed by the Soviet Union and bequeathed to Russia.
The French ambassador, François Delattre, made a similar declaration backing the UK position, offering “the full support and complete solidarity of France for the UK”.
“We have reached a new stage: the use of a substance never declared to the OPCW used in a public area in the territory of a European country,” DeLattre said.
Disclaimer
: I do detest the abhorrent, authoritarian, White supremacist
and oligarch orientated Putin as much as I do detest his abhorrent,
authoritarian, White supremacist and oligarch orientated USA
counterpart, Trump.
1. In stead of comparing the Skripal nerve gas dossier with the WMD Iraq
dossier as Corbyn did - which comparison in my opinion is also a completely
valid and legitimate approach (from Corbyn) to the apparently
artificially blown-up, politically motivated, tactical hysteria from
the May government and elements from Labour alike - I recently did
compare the Skripal attack-dossier to the five or so, so-called WMD
gas attacks in Syria, allegedly executed by the Assad government.
2. Most
of those terrible WMD attacks seemed to have arrived at suspiciously
convenient points in time for the Western powers - directly or by
proxy - engaged in a project of systematically removing a number of
heads of states within the ME region, among which president Assad was
only one.
3. The
Skripal attack namely, did also seem to bare some hallmarks of the
"accidental" presence of suspiciously convenient
circumstances and timing.
4. After
all, not only can one ask for the precise motives and the exact gain
for a possible involvement of Putin and his awful regime in the
attack, but one has also take into account the possibility scenario,
that the attack had been executed by a third party, in order to
discredit the Putin regime (even more).
5. If
Putin were behind the Skripal atttack, what would he have to gain
from employing a nerve gas agent, which would contain that much
specific characteristics of its origin, that it might be similar to
handing out publicly his own signature of approval.
6. What
would Putin have to gain from handing over to his opponents abroad
his alleged mark of approval, which as a consequence would almost
certainly escalate into the inhaling the toxic fume of even more
suffocating sanctions from the West.
7. The
serious consequences of yet another tranche of economic restrictions
from the West, that might almost certainly feed the already steadily
growing nucleus of social unrest in Russia, which in its turn might
further undermine his position of political leader
8. On
the other end of the spectre there is the fact, that we might indeed
point to another field of certain third parties, that might have
something substantial to win by staging such a false flag nerve gas
attack on a former double agent in the name of Putin and his regime.
9. One
such party might very well consist of a rogue faction from within the
FSB and / or from one or more of Russian oligarchs that might have
felt damaged by some punishing actions from Putin.
10. Another
possible candidate that might be prepared to plant a false flag
operation on UK soil to take advantage of the retaliations against
Russia that might be following that attack, might be one or two
parties that are engaged with Russia and its allies in the battle
fields of the Middle East.
11. Which
supposition does lead me to the beginning of my expose : Historically
there have been several occasions, that third parties involved in the
violently calving up of the ME - in order to develop one's
geo-political aims in that region - have been planting false flag
operations, in order to damage the enemy.
12. I
even might be tempted to place the Skripal attack in a somewhat
broader scheme of things, and consider it a false flag, that might be
ultimately meant to prepare the way to an attack on Russian ally
Iran.
13. Apart
from that indication, one could observe more dynamic signs in the
world that do seem to evidently point at a thorough preparation by
the USA and European neo-conservatives, of planning the final stage
of the decades old ideologically tainted colonial agenda that already
provided for the regime change and the successive breaking up of a
number of ME countries.
14. Do
in this respect for example study carefully the list of seven or so
nations to be attacked by the West - i.e. the famous 2001 “7
countries in 5 years” memo - that Wesley Clark did hand over
to the public in 2007 or about.
15. In
order to calculate on a possible success-rate of such an attack on
Iran - whereby not only lots of Iranian strategic military equipment
will be destroyed, but one also might try to achieve the goal of
regime change - one logistically would be well advised to clear up
all the possible obstacles, that might be in the way of such an
attack.
15. One
of the main obstacles of course will be the Iranian ally Russia, so
Russia will have to be weakened at all spots that can be located,
both in a economical way as in a political way.
16. Other
obstacles to be taken care of will have been all the internal critics
of such an attack on Iran, both in the USA and in the UK.
17. Anti-Iran, pro-Israel lobbyist Nikki Haley at the VN meeting on the nerve gas incident in the UK, also contributed with her necessary part into the total preparation for war with Iran
18 in another development the war on Iran sceptical secretary of State Tillerson has been replaced, by the
anti-Iranian hawk Pompeo, and more tactical replacements will follow
suit within the next future, to prepare for the ultimate attack on
Iran.
1
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten
Opmerking: Alleen leden van deze blog kunnen een reactie posten.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten
Opmerking: Alleen leden van deze blog kunnen een reactie posten.