By Olamide Samuel*, Senior Researcher KEDISA
Examining the significance of UK calls for EU solidarity against a common enemy, Post-Brexit
On the 4th of March 2018, a “military-grade nerve agent” identified as Novichok was identified as the means used to poison a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal.[1] Novichok is a series of nerve agents, widely known to have been developed by the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[2] Theresa May stated on Monday, that her government has concluded it “highly likely” that Moscow was responsible. May stated:
“This attempted murder using a weapons-grade nerve agent in a British town was not just a crime against the Skripals, it was an indiscriminate and reckless act against the United Kingdom, putting the lives of innocent civilians at risk”[3] – May
Theresa May’s remarks indicate a dramatic plunge in diplomatic relations between London and Moscow, arguably to ‘their lowest point since the Cold War’. The consequent expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats from the UK is reminiscent of the 1971 incident, when the UK government expelled 90 Soviet diplomats for espionage and subversion.
Whilst the UK government’s enthusiastic response to this gruesome act is entirely understandable from a moral perspective, London could be more calculated in its response to this attack. On Tuesday, Theresa May was expected to disclose retaliatory measures against Russia. However, she wisely permitted the Russian government the time (until Tuesday afternoon) to explain this incident. But, following Putin’s dismissive remarks “Sort this out for yourselves first, then come talk to us”[4], coupled with Dmitry Peskov’s denial of Russia’s involvement in the incident, it is clear that Moscow does not intend to take responsibility for this incident.
Moscow’s denial inherently questions the credibility of the UK’s claims that Moscow was indeed behind the attack, as it restricts the possibility bi-lateral investigations between Moscow and London, and throws relevant, facilitative, organizations such as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in uncharted waters. Other factors that restricts the OPCW’s utility in this matter, is the fact that this is the first time Novichok has ever been used; Novichok was never declared at the OPCW by any country (so technically, the OPCW would have to retroactively include Novichok in the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction), the United Nations is deeply divided politically over this issue, and so is the UNSC (where Russia can veto decisions).
With no official acknowledgement from Moscow, and the Russian embassy in London promising an “equal and opposite reaction” to any UK measures, the UK is being forced to rely on two factors. Firstly, a common European response, and secondly, the full backing of the US government. Tom Tugendhat (The chairman of the British parliament’s foreign affairs committee) has stated that retaliatory action would be more effective if other countries participated.[5] With regards to a common European response, there has been some solidarity from EU capitals. However, with ongoing Brexit negotiations, one can only imagine what concessions the UK would have to agree to, to encourage anything more than lukewarm promises, and a mere extension of current EU sanctions against Russia. Additonally, Fabrice Pothier (former director of policy planning, NATO) indicated that the UK might encounter difficulty convincing NATO’s European members to join in serious coordinated action, referencing frustration with the UK over Brexit. He said:
“There is little appetite to help the U.K. and little appetite for more sanctions on Russia… The question is whether she will be able to rally her NATO European counterparts around more sanctions and this isn’t going to be easy.”[6] – Fabrice Pothier
Support from the US government is also likely to be less than adequate. Until yesterday, Rex Tillerson was the only senior member of the US administration that was explicit in his accusation of Russia – he has since been fired (presumably, these explicit accusations could be one of the factors that led to his dismissal).[7] President Trump on the other hand, has offered Theresa May conditional support depending on the facts of this case. Facts that can only be independently verified by the OPCW, working with the full cooperation of London and Moscow.
In the near future, it is very likely that Moscow would once again utilise its well-known tactic, promulgating propaganda that it is once again the subject of western oppression. Factoring the upcoming Russian Presidential elections on Sunday, it is highly probable that Putin would seek to utilise the UK’s retaliations to persuade core Russian nationalists, and boost his popularity ratings domestically.
“Moscow’s goal is to demonstrate the UK’s weakness and isolation and to drive a wedge between us and other countries. The Kremlin understands how to make these sorts of interventions at just below the level that will trigger a serious collective reaction against them.”[8]
May on the other hand, has been placed in a difficult position where, if her reprisals are perceived as inadequate, she would appear to lack the desired conviction of a UK Prime Minister. However, if she hastily declares an irreconcilable stance against Russia, she might be disappointed by a lack of enthusiasm from European allies, as European “collective solidarity” with the UK is gradually waning due to the strained Brexit negotiation process.
*This article was written on the 14th of March 2018
Bibliography
Pike, J. (2018). British PM: ‘Highly Likely’ Russia Behind Attack on Former Spy. [online] Globalsecurity.org. Available at: https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2018/intell-180312-voa01.htm [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
Tucker, Jonathon B. (2006), War of Nerves, New York: Anchor Books, ISBN 978-0-375-42229-4
Asthana, A., Roth, A., Harding, L. and MacAskill, E. (2018). Russian spy poisoning: Theresa May issues ultimatum to Moscow. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/12/russia-highly-likely-to-be-behind-poisoning-of-spy-says-theresa-may
Sky News. (2018). Salisbury spy: How will UK respond if Russia was behind nerve agent attack?. [online] Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-spy-how-will-uk-respond-if-russia-was-behind-nerve-agent-attack-11281502
VOA. (2018). British PM: ‘Highly Likely’ Russia Behind Attack on Former Spy. [online] Available at: https://www.voanews.com/a/british-prime-minister-russia-poisoning-spy/4294683.html
Blake, A. (2018). Analysis | Did Trump fire Tillerson because he was too anti-Russia? [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/13/did-trump-fire-tillerson-because-he-was-too-anti-russia/?utm_term=.d613d274a4e4
End Notes
[1] Pike, J. (2018). British PM: ‘Highly Likely’ Russia Behind Attack on Former Spy. [online] Globalsecurity.org. Available at: https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2018/intell-180312-voa01.htm [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
[2] Tucker, Jonathon B. (2006), War of Nerves, New York: Anchor Books, ISBN 978-0-375-42229-4
[3] Asthana, A., Roth, A., Harding, L. and MacAskill, E. (2018). Russian spy poisoning: Theresa May issues ultimatum to Moscow. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/12/russia-highly-likely-to-be-behind-poisoning-of-spy-says-theresa-may [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
[4] Sky News. (2018). Salisbury spy: How will UK respond if Russia was behind nerve agent attack?. [online] Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-spy-how-will-uk-respond-if-russia-was-behind-nerve-agent-attack-11281502 [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
[5] Pike, J. (2018). British PM: ‘Highly Likely’ Russia Behind Attack on Former Spy. [online] Globalsecurity.org. Available at: https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2018/intell-180312-voa01.htm [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
[6] VOA. (2018). British PM: ‘Highly Likely’ Russia Behind Attack on Former Spy. [online] Available at: https://www.voanews.com/a/british-prime-minister-russia-poisoning-spy/4294683.html [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
[7] Blake, A. and Blake, A. (2018). Analysis | Did Trump fire Tillerson because he was too anti-Russia?. [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/13/did-trump-fire-tillerson-because-he-was-too-anti-russia/?utm_term=.d613d274a4e4 [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].
[8] Pike, J. (2018). British PM: ‘Highly Likely’ Russia Behind Attack on Former Spy. [online] Globalsecurity.org. Available at: https://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2018/intell-180312-voa01.htm [Accessed 14 Mar. 2018].