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.
Q: Do you have a comment on the Ofcom statement regarding pressure on the channel RT?
A: We have taken note of UK Government’s exercise of pressure on media, bordering on censorship, regarding the coverage of the Salisbury poisoning. In particular, the “Sunday Times” reported on 8 April that the National Security Council staff “had seized control” over the media response of the Salisbury incident. The media manipulation by the authorities is corroborated by multiple “leaks” of new versions of the incident which could not have appeared in any other way. Highly likely the apparent lack of interest from media outlets to gain access Sergei and Yulia Skripal, the doctors treating them and many other involved parties, in spite of evident public interest, testifies to the same.
Question: State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert claimed that Russia failed to live up to its 2013 commitments to assist in the elimination of chemical stockpiles in Syria. What is your comment?
Sergey Ryabkov: The elimination process included close cooperation between the countries concerned, including the US, and went on under strict international control. At certain stages, Moscow and Washington were coordinating their moves in real time in the course of telephone conferences and continuous contact at various levels.
Statement by Permanent Representation of the Russian Federation to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) A.Shulgin at the 58th EC Meeting of the OPCW
Faced with mounting threats in the information space, civil society continues to look for the most effective ways to counter these challenges, using various forms of consolidated efforts by professionals. The non-governmental sector is ready to contribute to international information security and make the information space a secure environment.
In line with this trend, the National Association of International Information Security was set up in Russia on April 10, 2018.
Q: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK has announced today that the nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury was delivered in a liquid form. How can you comment on this?
Q: A week ago the Embassy announced that Ambassador Yakovenko was planning to meet with Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Dick in order to discuss the ongoing investigation of the death of Nikolay Glushkov. Do you have any update on the issue?
Q: How would you comment on statements of the British officials and allegations in the media drawing attention of the public to “growing cyberthreats from Russia”?
Question: How do you assess the statement by the UK Prime Minister Theresa May accusing Russia of blocking an OPCW investigation of the events in Douma?
Answer: This is completely untrue.
Question: UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has called today’s air strikes against Syria a “highly successful mission”. Does Russia share his assessment?
Tweet Follow @russianembassy