By Reginald Johnson
Do I hear an
echo?
The
administration of President Donald Trump announced that it would be expelling 60
Russian diplomats from the United States due to the charges made by its
long-time ally the United Kingdom that Russia was responsible for the poisoning
of a former Russian spy turned British double agent and his daughter, in
Salisbury, England recently.
“It looks like”
Russia was behind the poisoning, Trump told reporters. The alleged attack, Trump said, “is something
that should never, ever happen.”
Britain and countries in
the European Union, Canada and Ukraine also expelled dozens more Russian diplomats based on the charge of
Russian complicity in the incident, in which a nerve agent was allegedly used
to contaminate Sergei Skripal and his
daughter, Yulia.
Russia has now
retaliated by expelling 60 American diplomats and closing the U.S. Consulate in St.
Petersburg.
The diplomatic
expulsions have worsened relations between the United States and Russia, relations which were already
strained due to sanctions previously slapped on Russia in connection with
Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and so-called wrongdoing by
Russia in Ukraine.
But there’s a big
problem with the poisoning story: there
is no solid proof that the Russian government was actually behind the chemical
attack. There is only a claim by UK
government officials that the Russians were behind the crime, simply
because, in their words, the chemical agent found in the victims “was of a type developed by Russia.” That’s it. There’s been no further details or
supporting evidence given.
The British
“analysis” was done by officials at Porton Down, the biochemical warfare
facility dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction, which is located
only 10 miles from Salisbury.
The Russian
government has vigorously denied the UK claims.
The Russians repeatedly requested that samples of
the nerve agent be given to them so they could examine the substance and
respond to the charges.
But the samples
have not been provided.
 |
| A scene from Moscow, Russia. The West is blaming the Russian government for poisoning a former Russian spy turned British agent in Salisbury, England. |
In refusing to
provide the material to the Russians, the UK government of Prime Minister
Theresa May is violating the terms of the Chemical Weapons Treaty. It is also denying due process to Russia. It is standard legal
practice in the United States the UK and other Western countries, not to
mention most countries around the world, that if some person, some institution
or some country is accused of committing a crime, they or their counsel have a right to examine
the evidence that forms the basis of the charges that have been leveled against
them. They can then raise questions if
necessary, and contest the charges.
But this right has
not been given to Russia.
Apparently, the principles of due
process and presumption of innocence mean nothing when it comes to charges
against Russia.
Any accusation, any
wild accusation, suddenly becomes verified fact if Russia is the named culprit.
If there’s some vague link that Russia is behind a terrible event, forget about
a careful gathering of evidence, just assume Russia did it.
This is a mockery
of justice.
And it also recalls a
time not too long ago ------ to be exact, just over 15 years ago ---- when the
United States and the UK were claiming repeatedly that Saddam Hussein, the
leader of a Iraq, had weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal and therefore
represented a grave threat to the rest of the world. Officials of the administration of the
President George W. Bush, led by the CIA,
insisted that they knew for sure that Hussein had stockpiles of chemical
weapons and possibly nuclear weapons, and that he was hiding them. They refused
to provide the evidence of this charge but said in effect ‘Trust us, he’s got
them.’
CIA director
George Tenet said famously at the time, that it was a “slam dunk” certainty that Hussein had the
weapons.
International
weapons inspectors were not so sure and said they had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq.
But Bush and his
administration stuck to their position that Iraq was a major threat. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice,
said it was important to move quickly against Saddam because he had terrible
weapons of war that could threaten this country.
Bush said at one point “we can’t wait for final proof --- the smoking gun --- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
So on March 19,
2003, American forces launched an invasion of Iraq, an attack which was not
authorized by the UN and was illegal under international law. American forces quickly overran the country,
killed Saddam and set up a new government.
But just a few
months later, the whole case made by the Bush administration for making war in
Iraq fell apart. An American team sent in to find WMD ---- after months of searching --- came up empty. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
By that point,
thousands of Iraqis had already been killed, many Americans had been killed and
there was massive damage to the infrastructure of Iraq, which up to that point
had been one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East.
The war did not
stop there. The U.S. military and its allies had to spend the next eight years
fighting in Iraq, maintaining large troop contingents in an effort to stabilize
the country and suppress rebellions against the U.S. imposed government.
By the time
President Barack Obama decided to pull the bulk of U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, the U.S. had lost some 4500 soldiers and
military personnel and more than 30,000 were wounded. The Iraqi death toll was estimated at close
to 1 million.
Now, according to
researchers Nicolas J.S. Davies and Medea Benjamin, a study of mortality figures
in Iraq show that the Iraqi death toll for the past 15 years is likely to be
an incredible 2.4 million.
If that figure is
correct, a case could be made that the U.S., Britain and allied forces
committed genocide in Iraq.
The financial cost
to the United States already for waging war in Iraq has been a staggering $1.7 trillion. Estimates are that future
costs stemming from the war will be trillions more, once the cost of ongoing
veterans care is factored in.
By any rational
standards, the Iraq war has been a total disaster for the United States, and
catastrophic for Iraq and its people.
Did the U.S. really
wage war on Iraq because of the possible presence of weapons of mass
destruction? No. There was no imminent threat posed by Iraq and U.S. and
British officials knew it, despite their public statements.
The real reason for
the invasion was that the United States wanted to lay claim to Iraq’s
considerable oil reserves and make them available to Western companies. U.S.
policymakers also wanted to remove Saddam,
because he was a sometimes independent actor in the Middle East
who was seen as an impediment for the U.S. maintaining total control over the
region.
The Iraq experience
shows that people both in the United States the UK as well as other Western
countries always have to be skeptical about statements made by their leaders
when they blame other countries for committing crimes or invoke the supposed
danger those countries pose. There is often a hidden agenda behind accusations
of wrongdoing made against different countries whether it’s Russia, Iraq, Syria
or Iran.
Just as there was
an agenda behind the propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,
so too there’s an agenda today behind the statements and charges being made
about Russia. The agenda with Russia is the same as it was with Iraq: the U.S.
wants to get rid of the existing government and replace it with a leadership
that is more obedient to the United States.
For a number of
years now, U.S. leaders have been blaming Vladimir Putin and Russia for acting
inappropriately, they say, in a number of arenas, whether it’s the war in
Syria, relations with Iran or in Ukraine. The Russians have also been blamed
--- and with some degree of merit, for interfering in the 2016 US election ----
although it is rarely noted that Americans did the exactly same thing to Russia
in 1996 in order to help Boris Yeltsin retain power and also aided in the 2014
coup in Ukraine which unseated a democratically-elected government.
Now comes the
poisoning incident in Britain allegedly carried out by Russia and ordered by
Vladimir Putin.
Prof. James Petras,
writing recently in Global Research, said the
“UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare
the Western public for heightened military confrontations” with Russia.
“The Western
regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance…. They
believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions,” said
Petras, who has written widely on foreign-policy issues.
The U.S. and its
NATO allies in recent years have also been stepping up their military
activities in Eastern Europe which has alarmed Russian leaders.
The increased NATO
activity, together with the drumbeat of criticism directed at Russia, all serve
to undermine any chance for a new detente between the U.S., its allies and
Russia.
Commenting on the UK poisoning
incident, veteran journalist John Pilger said “….this is so dangerous, with
Russia being effectively pushed into a corner with these accusations, it’s part
of a propaganda campaign. I can tell you that, I’m a journalist who has spent
almost all my career working in the mainstream (media) in Britain.”
“This is a propaganda
campaign promoted specifically in the media and in the government,” Pilger said
in an interview with RT, which was reprinted in the UK’s Press-Gazette.
It is crucial that
the media and the public in the United States and in Western countries show
skepticism about claims being made by their governments particularly with
respect to foreign policy and the actions of other countries. Frequently
leaders lie and make up facts, covering
up the truth so they can justify some
plan like an intervention or a war, which will be costly in lives and treasure.
There were lies
told in the lead-up to the war with Iraq and the result was disastrous. The
media failed to ask the tough questions. Reporters too easily accepted the government
narrative.
The media today and
people in general have to demand that the British and U.S governments provide
more information about just how the UK poisoning incident took place.
Government leaders cannot be allowed to just keep spinning a storyline without providing real facts, and in the
process worsen relations with a nuclear-armed country and heighten the chance
for a catastrophic war.
