Embassy Press Officer replies to a media question on the legal basis of air strikes against Syria
Question: The UK has published its legal position claiming that the legal basis for the strikes against Syria is “humanitarian intervention”. Does Russia agree with that?
Answer: First of all, the concept of “humanitarian intervention”, actively promoted by the West in the 1990s, has been rejected by the international community. As such, it cannot possibly serve as a legal basis for any use of force. International law only allows to use force in self-defence or under a Security Council mandate.
The fact that Britain refers to “humanitarian intervention” is therefore a direct acknowledgement of the unlawfulness of the air strikes. The specific arguments used by the UK in support of its position confirm this further.
The gist of British reasoning is that the whole international community recognizes that a “new” chemical attack in Syria is imminent and that only the air strikes could prevent it. Yet, let alone a new attack, the international community is not convinced that a chemical attack took place in Douma, and wants to see the results of the ongoing OPCW investigation. When international monitors are arriving in Damascus, and – more broadly – when the Syrian government and large parts of the opposition are moving towards creating a constitutional committee to end the war, to say that “there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved” is hypocritical, to say the least.
We should add that today, speaking at the Andrew Marr Show, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson admitted that the strikes were not about saving lives or actually prevening President Assad from further chemical attacks, but should simply be seen as a “message”.
Let’s leave legal details to lawyers. But one doesn’t need deep expertise to see that we are dealing with an attack under a false pretext, a false legal basis and a false result.
Question: Speaking at the National Cyber Security Centre’s CYBERUK conference on 12 May 2021, the UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said that ‘states like Russia’ have a responsibility to prosecute criminals operating from their territory, ‘not shelter them’. How would you comment on this? Answer: The Embassy has on multiple occasions commented unfounded accusations of numerous ‘sins’ in cyberspace made against our country. It is disappointing that the British authorities keep using Russia as a negative example, while having no actual grounds for this. Over the past few years we have repeatedly suggested to the UK, as well as to the USA and other countries, to develop professional cooperation to tackle the issues arising in this field... The UK prefers resounding speeches and vague ‘sheltering criminals’ insinuations.
The Embassy has no comment to make on the substance of the allegations against HRH Prince Michael of Kent made in the recent media publications. Prince Michael is well known in Russia as a champion of Russian-British friendship and cooperation. He has immensely contributed to developing human, cultural and economic ties between the two countries, including by serving as the Patron of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce. In this capacity, His Royal Highness has maintained a wide range of contacts with Russian counterparts at various levels.
The Embassy expresses sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims of the tragic events in School №175 in Kazan on 11 May 2021, and wishes of a speedy recovery to everyone who was injured. A Book of Condolence is open at the Embassy's Consular Section. You can also send your message to: condolences@rusemb.org.uk.
Question: What impact have the sanctions had on the state of relations between Russia and the West?
Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, the growing use of politically motivated, unilateral restrictive measures by a number of Western countries, primarily the United States, has become a reality of our time. We increasingly view the sanctions against Russia as a “gesture of despair” and a manifestation of the local elites’ inability to accept the new reality, abandon the stereotypes of their bloc-based thinking, and recognise Russia's right to independently determine its path of development and build relationships with its partners.
In terms of discussion of the issue of current implementation of the Treaty on Open (OST) Skies, the Russian Delegation would like to announce the official position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on the situation with regard to the Treaty on Open Skies.
On April 21, Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy Bart Gorman was summoned to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was handed a note saying that 10 US Embassy employees in Moscow had been declared persona non grata. These people have been ordered to leave the Russian Federation before the end of the day on May 21.
We consider the FCDO statement of 15 April on “malign activity by Russian intelligence services in cyberspace” as nothing but an attempt to play along with the US, which as usually try to put a blame on Russia while obviously failing to ensure their own cyber security.
Question: Newly appointed to lead the inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess, Baroness Hallet has announced her plans to examine the Russian state’s involvement in poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury as part of the inquest. Any comments?
Answer: We see it as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that the situation with regard to these tragic events would evolve according to the Litvinenko Case scenario. Regular investigation and regular use of existing international legal instruments (since there have been Russian nationals affected) is being substituted with a quasi-judicial procedure. It does not formally pertain to the incident in Salisbury as such, yet would undoubtedly be used to support again and again the groundless accusations against Russia made by the British authorities.
On 10 March 2021, the Embassy undertook a demarche to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office regarding the leaked FCDO-related documents that reveal a large-scale campaign being performed by the UK Government aimed at exercising systematic influence on the Russian-language media space.
Three years have now passed since the highly publicized incident in Salisbury. So far we have learnt little on what really happened. The British authorities laid the blame on Russia for an alleged use of chemical weapons on the British soil. Such a serious accusation however was not backed by any facts, proof or other sort of relevant information. Being ungrounded, it cannot be considered credible.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy