because there must be proof that the government hold that they are not at liberty to disclose
I accept that this could be the case . I just hope they do as I said above .
To be clear: you don't know what type of evidence you want to see but want to see it? The OPCW ( No i hadn't heard of them either!) are not, by the looks of it, a policing/criminal investigatory organisation. It is suggested that the UK leads the world in the identification and classification of biological, radiological, chemical & nerve agents. Perhaps we have systems, tools and processes that we don't want to disclose
Its not that I am unclear about the type of evidence I want to see , it is that I accept that there will be evidence that is clearly going to be classified and never sees the light of day . Anyway its not about the evidence I want to see . Its about the due process I want to see followed . What is the point in us being a signatory of an international treaty if we are not then going to follow its provisions in precisely the type of situation it was created to address before unilateral action being taken .
Both us and Russia are signatories to the CWC , to my mind the allegations are serious enough for us to have made a complaint pursuant to the provisions of the CWC . Muddying the waters by making bold statements stating that someone is responsible before the OPCW has had a chance to investigate and without first making representations to the OPCW about this incident is in my view not the best acts of diplomacy .
I know that if someone had accused our government of using chemical weapons and of having undeclared production and stockpiling facilities I would want to see the complaint substantiated and investigated by an independent party before taking the accusations seriously .
The OPCW is a widely regarded organisation that has been in receipt of a nobel peace prize for its work . As mentioned above the convention we are signatory to contains provisions for an investigation and remedies that are applicable following an alleged use of chemical weapons . It has capabilities to investigate use of chemical weapons . And is the body responsible for the administration of the chemical weapons convention . The convention states remedies available for a breach .
I think some people still do not understand the gravity of the accusations that we as a nation are making . The ones that Russia is responsible for this and has violated our sovereignty are serious enough . But under the chemical weapons convention signatories are also bound to declare programs , stockpiles and production facilities . We are making accusations that the types of agents used are a type that Russia has never declared to the OPCW. Indeed the UK's permanent representative to the OPCW has made representations to this effect . We are alleging that they have manufactured and stockpiled this type of agent under programs not declared as they are bound to do by the treaty . This is a very serious breach of the chemical weapons convention and one that could carry more sanctions for Russia .
This is one of the reasons why I would personally question the motivation of the government in Russia for sanctioning this . The type of agent used can be directly linked to them , and more importantly is of a type that Russia has never disclosed as having any stockpiles or production facilities for . If they have as some predict carried this attack out to bolster Putins support in an upcoming domestic election by showing he is not scared or provoking other countries then this was incredibly foolhardy because whilst the identification of this agent as of Russian origin would serve that purpose it would also place it under extreme scrutiny as it indicates a breach of the CWC that people have believed Russia to have been guilty of for years . This will actually damage Russias security capability . And could actually lead to some secrets being exposed .
It was like when the allegation was made that polonium used in the murder of Litvinenko could only have been sourced from state regulated nuclear reactors pointing to Russian involvement . Evidence that was subsequently discredited and a much more accessible source of the substance was identified .
I doubt it is! The quality of evidence available will never satisfy the test of reasonable doubt.
I would suspect it should be . I never indicated that the full beyond reasonable doubt burden be applied . But if the government are going round making statements and taking action on the basis that it is more likely than not then that in my view is wrong .
As far as due process goes, in these circumstances there is no such established protocol. This is not a criminal trial.
To the contrary , the chemical weapons convention has clear guidelines and protocol . See above as well . We are not just saying they are responsible for this attack but are in clear and serious breach of the CWC for not declaring the production of this type of agent .
, their sole carrier is in a right old state and needs to be constantly escorted by an ocean going tug in case the vessels notoriously unreliable steam turbines breakdown. The ship is currently laid up in port awaiting for the Russian defence ministry to cough up the money for a major refit. Her current condition is beyond deplorable and she is a nightmare for the ships company to live on.
