OPCW Salisbury Report Confirms Nothing But the Identity of the Chemical
By Craig Murray | April 12, 2018
The word “Russia” does not occur in today’s OPCW report. The OPCW Report says nothing whatsoever about the origin of the chemical which poisoned the Skripals and certainly does not link it in any way to Russia.
The technical ability of Porton Down to identify a chemical has never been in doubt, and the only “finding of the United Kingdom”the OPCW has confirmed is the identity of the chemical.
10. The results of analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of environmental and
biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United
Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury and
severely injured three people.11. The TAV team notes that the toxic chemical was of high purity. The latter is
concluded from the almost complete absence of impurities.
There are scores of countries that chemical could have come from. For the BBC and other mainstream media outlets to pretend that the OPCW has in any sense endorsed Boris Johnson’s claims about Russia is to spread deliberate lies as propaganda. In fact what they have confirmed is simply the finding of Porton Down – and that finding was that it is a chemical which cannot be confirmed as made in Russia.
Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress
By Craig Murray | April 11, 2018
Only the Russians have allowed us to hear the actual voice of Yulia Skripal, in that recorded conversation with her cousin. So the one thing we know for certain is that, at the very first opportunity she had, she called back to her cousin in Russia to let her know what is going on. If you can recall, until the Russians released that phone call, the British authorities were still telling lies that Sergei was in a coma and Yulia herself in a serious condition.
We do not know how Yulia got to make the call. Having myself been admitted unconscious to hospital on several occasions, each time when I came to I found my mobile phone in my bedside cabinet. Yulia’s mobile phone plainly had been removed from her and not returned. Nor had she been given an official one – she specifically told her cousin that she could not call her back on that phone as she had it temporarily. The British government could have given her one to keep on which she could be called back, had they wished to help her.
The most probable explanation is that Yulia persuaded somebody else in the hospital to lend her a phone, without British officials realising. That would explain why the first instinct of the British state and its lackey media was to doubt the authenticity of the call. It would explain why she was able to contradict the official narrative on their health, and why she couldn’t get a return call. It would, more importantly, explain why her family has not been able to hear her voice since. Nor has anybody else.
It strikes me as inherently improbable that, when Yulia called her cousin as her first act the very moment she was able, she would now issue a formal statement through Scotland Yard forbidding her cousin to be in touch or visit. I simply do not believe this British Police statement:
“I was discharged from Salisbury District Hospital on the 9th April 2018. I was treated there with obvious clinical expertise and with such kindness, that I have found I missed the staff immediately.
“I have left my father in their care, and he is still seriously ill. I too am still suffering with the effects of the nerve agent used against us.
“I find myself in a totally different life than the ordinary one I left just over a month ago, and I am seeking to come to terms with my prospects, whilst also recovering from this attack on me.
“I have specially trained officers available to me, who are helping to take care of me and to explain the investigative processes that are being undertaken. I have access to friends and family, and I have been made aware of my specific contacts at the Russian Embassy who have kindly offered me their assistance in any way they can. At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services, but, if I change my mind I know how to contact them.
“Most importantly, I am safe and feeling better as time goes by, but I am not yet strong enough to give a full interview to the media, as I one day hope to do. Until that time, I want to stress that no one speaks for me, or for my father, but ourselves. I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being. Her opinions and assertions are not mine and they are not my father’s.
“For the moment I do not wish to speak to the press or the media, and ask for their understanding and patience whilst I try to come to terms with my current situation.”
There is also the very serious question of the language it is written in. Yulia Skripal lived part of her childhood in the UK and speaks good English. But the above statement is in a particular type of formal, official English of a high level which only comes from a certain kind of native speaker.
“At the moment I do not wish to avail myself of their services” – wrote no native Russian speaker, ever.
Nor are the rhythms or idioms such as would in any way indicate a translation from Russian. Take “I thank my cousin Viktoria for her concern for us, but ask that she does not visit me or try to contact me for the time being. Her opinions and assertions are not mine and they are not my father’s.” Not only is this incredibly cold given her first impulse was to phone her cousin, the language is just wrong. It is not the English Yulia would write and it is awkward to translate into Russian, thus not a natural translation from it.
To put it plainly, as someone who has much experience of it, the English of the statement is precisely the English of an official in the UK security services and precisely not the English of somebody like Yulia Skripal or of a natural translation from Russian.
Yulia is, of course, in protective custody “for her own safety”. At the very best, she is being psychologically force-fed the story about the evil Russian government attempting to poison her with the doorknob, and she is being kept totally isolated from any influence that may reinforce any doubts she feels as to that story. There are much worse alternatives involving threat or the safety of her father. But even at the most benevolent reading of the British authorities’ actions, Yulia Skripal is being kept incommunicado, and under duress.
Pentagon Does Not Have Evidence of Chlorine, Sarin Use in Syria’s Douma – Mattis
Sputnik – 12.04.2018
US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has told lawmakers that the US military is still “assessing the intelligence” on the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma, and that President Trump has yet to decide whether to launch strikes against the Middle Eastern country.
“There have been a number of these attacks. In many cases, you know we don’t have troops, we’re not engaged on the ground there, so I cannot tell you that we had evidence, even though we had a lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used,” Mattis said, speaking to members of the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday.
The defense secretary said he did believe that a chemical attack took place, but that the US was still “looking for the actual evidence.”
“We’re still assessing the intelligence, ourselves and our allies. We’re still working on this,” he reiterated.
Warning that he was concerned that a US strike might lead to an “out of control” escalation in the Syrian war, Mattis said that Washington was “committed to ending that war through the Geneva process through the UN-orchestrated effort.”
“On a strategic level, [the issue is] how do we keep this from escalating out of control, if you get my drift on that,” he said, alluding to the prospects of a confrontation between Russian and US forces deployed in the Middle Eastern country.
No Decision Yet
According to Secretary Mattis, President Trump has yet to decide whether or not to launch an attack. “We’ve not yet made any decision to launch military attacks into Syria,” he said.
“I don’t want to talk about a specific attack that is not yet in the offing, knowing that this would be pre-decisional. Again, the president has not made that decision,” he added.
No Congressional Approval Needed
Mattis said he would discuss Syria options at a National Security Council meeting later Thursday, and promised to keep lawmakers informed if the Pentagon did decide to attack. He added, however, that the White House has the authority to conduct strikes without seeking Congressional approval.
Asked if the US was ready to mount an attack, Mattis replied that “We stand ready to provide military options if they’re appropriate, as the president determined.” … Full article
International Lawyers: Strike Against Syria Would Be Illegal
Consortium News | April 11, 2018
In this statement released Wednesday, a group of international law experts warn that a U.S. military strike on Syria would be illegal if not in self-defense or with U.N. Security Council authorization.
We are practitioners and professors of international law. Under international law, military strikes by the United States of America and its allies against the Syrian Arab Republic, unless conducted in self-defense or with United Nations Security Council approval, are illegal and constitute acts of aggression.
The unlawful killing of any human being without legal justification, under every legal system, is murder. And an act of violence committed by one government against another government, without lawful justification, amounts to the crime of aggression: the supreme international crime which carries with it the evil of every other international crime, as noted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946.
The use of military force by a state can be used in self-defense after an armed attack by another state, or, with the approval of the United Nations Security Council. At present, neither instance would apply to a U.S. strike against Syria.
We understand the urge to act to protect innocent civilians. We strongly condemn any and all violence against civilians, whoever the perpetrators. But responding to unlawful violence with more unlawful violence, bypassing existing legal mechanisms, is a road to a lawless world. It is a road that leads to Hell.
Accordingly, we urge the United States and its allies to refrain from illegal conduct against Syria. We must point out that for the last several years, as is now common knowledge, the United States has armed rebels/insurgents to overthrow the current government of Syria. This is illegal under international law.
In 1986, in The Nicaragua Case, the International Court of Justice reprimanded the United States for arming and supporting contra militias and combatants, and for mining Nicaragua’s harbors, as acts which violated the U.N. Charter and international law. Perhaps the Syrian crisis would look differently today if the United States and its allies had consistently respected law for the last several years. They have not.
We take pains to note what should be obvious: our demand that the United States and its allies immediately comport themselves with their international legal obligations is not a justification, excuse, or some type of free pass on the investigation and accountability for international legal violations committed by other actors who may be involved in this sad affair. But our point is a simple one: the only way to resolve the Syrian crisis is through commitment to well-settled principles of international legal norms.
We urge the United States to abide by its commitment to the rule of international law and to seek to resolve its disputes through peaceful means. These means include recourse to the use of established and legitimate institutions designed to maintain international peace and security, such as the U.N. Security Council or the International Court of Justice. Unilateral action is a sign of weakness; recourse to the law is a sign of strength. The United States must walk back from becoming the very monster it now seeks to destroy.
Inder Comar, Executive Director, Just Atonement Inc.
Dr. Ryan Alford, Associate Professor,
Bora Laskin, Faculty of Law, Lakehead University
Marjorie Cohn, Professor Emerita, Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Jeanne Mirer, President, International Association of Democratic Lawyers
Dr. Curtis F.J. Doebbler, Research Professor of Law, University of Makeni, UN Representative of International-Lawyers.org
Abdeen Jabara, Civil Rights Attorney and Co-Founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Ramsey Clark, 66th Attorney-General of the United States
Trump’s exit door is open on Syrian attack
By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | April 11, 2018
US President Donald Trump’s fateful decision on a military strike against Syria is imminent and it will impact not only Syria’s future and Middle Eastern politics but also the US’ capacity to impose its global hegemony in the emergent world order.
As expected, the day began with Trump’s tweet. He said,
- Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
- Our relationship with Russia is worse now than it has ever been, and that includes the Cold War. There is no reason for this. Russia needs us to help with their economy, something that would be very easy to do, and we need all nations to work together. Stop the arms race?
Trump claims he’s about to order the attack. But it is also a Trumpean message. The second part is addressed to the Kremlin and speaks about potential US-Russia cooperation to mutual benefit. Trump offers the bait of negotiations on curbing arms race, which is a priority issue for Russia.
Trump apparently thinks he’s ‘negotiating’ a ‘win-win’ solution by dangling a carrot and expecting Moscow to stand aside and letting the US attack on Syria go ahead. It’s tragi-comic, to say the least, that US diplomacy has come to such a pass – POTUS negotiating Syria as if it’s a property deal in Manhattan.
A flood of Russian statements, on the other hand, underscore that Moscow will defend Syria no matter what it takes. Which means not only that the US missiles will be shot down but also that American launch pads will be targeted. This latter message has been conveyed through the Hezbollah TV channel, which is of course a devastating snub to Israel.
Following the Israeli attack on the T4 air base in Syria on Monday, Putin deputed his special envoy on Syria Alexander Lavrentiev to go to Tehran on an ‘unscheduled and unexpected’ visit to meet Iran’s powerful national security czar and point person on Syria, Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani, who is the executive head of the national security council and reports directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Evidently, Russian-Iranian coordination is at a very high level.
As for Iran, it is playing its cards close to the chest, which is as it should be. Tehran understands perfectly well that the false flag operation alleging chemical attack may be used as alibi by the US to create new facts on the ground in Syria aimed at eroding the commanding position that Russia and Iran enjoy.
Putin availed of a Kremlin ceremony for the new foreign envoys’ presentation of credentials today to make an oblique reference to Trump’s war cry. Putin said,
- The state of world affairs invokes nothing but concerns, the situation in the world is becoming more chaotic. Nevertheless, we still hope that common sense will eventually prevail and international relations will enter a constructive course, the entire world system will become more stable and predictable.
The remark can be construed as an appeal to Trump’s ‘common sense’. But then, Putin also stressed that Moscow will continue to advocate strengthening of “global and regional” security, and will fully adhere to its “international responsibilities and develop cooperation with our partners on a constructive and respectful basis.”
Earlier in the day, at a media briefing, the Kremlin presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov was explicit. He said, “We are not participating in ‘Twitter-diplomacy’. We are supporting serious approaches. We still firmly believe that it is important to abstain from taking steps, which may be detrimental to the already fragile situation (in Syria).”
In reality, Trump finds himself in an unenviable situation. Russia has made it abundantly clear that it will counter any US attack on Syria and, God forbid, if there is any loss of Russian lives in the American attack, all hell will break loose. On the other hand, if Trump backtracks, it will dent his credibility. This is not like calling Kim Jong Un a “Little Rocket Man” and getting away with it.
Is there an exit door available for Trump? Yes, there is. The US Defence Secretary James Mattis said today that the work to assess the intelligence on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria’s Douma is still in progress. To quote him, “We’re still assessing the intelligence – ourselves and our allies. We’re still working on this.” Mattis said this when asked pointedly whether there is sufficient evidence to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical agents in Douma.
To my mind, the chances of the western intelligence giving a ‘Nil’ report are fairly good. (The First Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff’s Main Operations Department Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir told reporters in Moscow today that the notorious White Helmets, which is an ‘NGO’ outfit of intelligence agencies collaborating with terrorist groups in Syria, had staged and filmed a chemical weapons attack on civilians in the town of Douma.)
Indeed, if the Russian general’s assessment of a false flag operation is upheld, Trump might heave a sigh of relief. After all, if there was no chemical attack, why should there be retribution?
UK Labour leader Corbyn says MPs should have say on military action in Syria
Press TV – April 12, 2018
The leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, says members of parliament (MPs) should decide if British Prime Minister Theresa May can join the United States in any military action against Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack.
Corbyn, a veteran anti-war campaigner, also demanded a political process for ending the war in Syria and preventing an escalation of the crisis.
US President Donald Trump has warned of imminent military action in Syria in response to the suspected chemical attack near Damascus on Saturday.
“Parliament should always be given a say on military action,” Corbyn told the BBC on Wednesday when asked about Syria.
“Obviously the situation is very serious, obviously there has to be, now, a demand for a political process to end the war in Syria. We cannot risk an escalation even further than it’s gone already.”
Corbyn also said countries involved should get around a negotiating table to find an end to the civil war by political means.
“What happened last weekend was terrible. What we don’t want is bombardment which leads to escalation and leads to a hot war between Russia and America over the skies of Syria,” he said.
May is considering joining the United States in any military action in Syria.
The British premier is not bound by law to seek parliamentary approval for offensive military action, but many now believe lawmakers should always have a vote before the government takes military action.
On Wednesday May accused Syrian authorities of carrying out the alleged chemical attack, and said she was working with allies on how to hold those responsible to account.
Damascus, in a statement released late on Saturday, strongly rejected the allegation of using chemical munitions and said that the so-called Jaish al-Islam Takfiri terrorist group was repeating the false reports.
The Iranian and Russian governments have also rejected the accusations. Russia and Iran have warned against any US military action against the Syrian government.
Russian Embassy doubts statement released by UK police was indeed Yulia Skripal’s
RT | April 12, 2018
The statement released by UK police on behalf of Yulia Skripal appears to be designed to cut her off from outside contact, the Russian Embassy in the UK says. The mission is calling for verification that the statement is genuine.
Scotland Yard earlier issued a statement that was apparently from Yulia Skripal, the daughter of former double agent Sergei Skripal, who are both recovering from poisoning in the UK. British authorities have been accusing Moscow of poisoning the Skripals since day one of the case, allegations that Moscow firmly denies.
“If everything mentioned there is true we cannot but congratulate our compatriot,” the Russian Embassy said in reaction to the Yulia Skripal statement, which it dubbed “an interesting read.”
The embassy then called for verification that the words attributed to Yulia were indeed her own. “With no possibility to verify it, the publication by the Metropolitan Police raises new questions rather than gives answers,” the embassy’s message said. “As before, we would like to make sure that the statement really belongs to Yulia. So far, we doubt it much.”
The statement, in which Yulia Skripal refuses the proffered assistance of the Russian Embassy and asks her cousin Viktoria to avoid trying to contact her, seems to have been “composed in a special way so as to support official statements made by British authorities and at the same time to exclude every possibility of Yulia’s contacts with the outer world – consuls, journalists and even relatives,” the embassy said.
The part where the statement released by the Met Police talks about Yulia having “access to friends and family” has also raised questions. Yulia’s closest relatives, according to the embassy, are her cousin Viktoria and her grandmother Elena, Sergei Skripal’s mother, who live together. Seeing as how Yulia is refusing contacts with Viktoria, it is unclear what family the statement speaks of.
“Particularly amazing is the phrase ‘no one speaks for me’ appearing in a statement which, instead of being read on camera by Yulia herself, is published at Scotland Yard website,” the embassy said. The original statement also says Yulia is “not yet strong enough to give a full interview to the media.”
Before the London police released Yulia Skripal’s supposed statement, reports suggested that she had been moved to a secure, undisclosed location, “thought to be a well-guarded country house.” The Russian diplomatic mission then voiced worry that she was being “held hostage” – which was not alleviated by the release of the official statement.
“To sum up, the document only strengthens suspicions that we are dealing with a forcible isolation of the Russian citizen. If British authorities are interested in assuring the public that this is not the case, they must urgently provide tangible evidence that Yulia is alright and not deprived of her freedom,” the embassy said.
Yulia Skripal and her father had spent several weeks in a coma following their poisoning on March 4 in the city of Salisbury, where Sergei lived after being exchanged in a spy swap in 2010. Yulia and Sergei only recently woke up, though, according to the statement attributed to Yulia, both are still “suffering with the effects of the nerve agent used against us.”
Despite International ‘Attacks,’ Venezuela Elections Will Go Ahead as Planned
teleSUR | April 11, 2018
Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza says his country will go ahead with the presidential elections scheduled for May, despite foreign interference and the threat of further sanctions.
Speaking at a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, Arreaza said: “The only ones who have to recognize the results in Venezuela are the Venezuelan people and the National Electoral Council (CNE).
“We are not worried about if (U.S. President) Trump recognizes it; if (Spanish Prime Minister Mariano) Rajoy recognizes it or if the European Union does not recognize it.
“It’s OK if they go beyond their capacity to dabble in new realms of political aggression against Venezuela. That’s not what we want to see; it wouldn’t be the best thing diplomatically, but if it happens, all we can do is govern for our people.”
Arreaza said the government had invited the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini to “observe the Venezuelan electoral process. The observation means coming two days before, but if they want to come two weeks before, come; and if they want to leave two weeks after… because in the end, it is to be present to observe the auditing process.
“Venezuela has a robust and secure electoral system. We don’t need anyone to moderate it; in fact, there are a lot that could learn something from Venezuela’s electoral system.”
Recalling the threats Venezuela has faced courtesy of the U.S. government and other Western powers, Arreaza said: “(Former U.S. President) Obama issued a decree in 2015 qualifying Venezuela as an unusual and extraordinary threat.
“I sincerely believe that the unusual and extraordinary attacks continue to happen against Venezuela in every field you could imagine.”
Despite the challenges, Arreaza said: “The Venezuelan people will prevail in spite of all the blockage… now President Trump is talking about an embargo, an oil embargo against Venezuela.
“We will work with our allies. There is Russia, there is China, there is Turkey, and even some European countries that want to help us as well, so we are not afraid and nothing will stop us.
“No political extortion, no extortion will stop the Venezuelan people, the Venezuelan Bolivarian government to do what we have to do.”
Venezuela’s presidential elections are scheduled to take place on May 20.