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: Mr Vershinin, following the UN General Assembly session, it was stated that, in the wake of the visa scandal, several UN General Assembly committees could be transferred from New York to another country. Do you think it is possible?
Sergey Vershinin: I think this is feasible, but the decision should be taken by the General Assembly. This is not the first time the United States has violated its obligations under the UN Charter and the agreement on the location of the organisation’s central bodies in the United States. As you may be aware, this is not just a question of this year or today. We have been raising this issue for many years, specifically, since 2004, in the special UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country, because there were similar incidents then, too.
On 25 September, the Metropolitan Police published new data on blood tests taken in March 2018 from individuals that might have been affected by a nerve agent in Salisbury. The samples did not reveal any traces of exposure.
Leaving aside the question of why the tests have been carried out only now, let us point out that the absence of traces of “Novichok” does not help to support the official British version of the incident.
But there is another aspect to the news.
The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format held a trilateral meeting on the margins of the 74th meeting of UN General Assembly.
The Ministers:
1. Reaffirmed the strong commitment of the Astana guarantors to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and emphasized that these principles should be respected by all sides.
These days, the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly opens up. So does a new international “political season”.
The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.
Question: How would you comment on the plans by Charlie Rowley, a victim of the Amesbury poisonings, to initiate judicial proceedings against the Russian authorities? Answer: As far as we understand, these plans are at a very preliminary stage. A lawsuit specifically against the Russian Government is but one of the options considered by Mr Rowley’s lawyers. For our part, we fully share Charlie’s desire to establish truth regarding his poisoning that also resulted in the death of his partner Dawn Sturgess. Mr Rowley is seeking clarity over the “unanswered questions”, which is, incidentally or not, the title of the Embassy’s own report with questions to the British authorities.
According to media reports, a large-scale drone attack was launched in the early hours of September 14 against oil refineries of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company Saudi Aramco near the cities of Abqaiq and Khurais in the eastern part of the Kingdom. The Houthi Ansar Allah movement, now fighting against forces loyal to President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi and the Arabian Coalition supporting him in Yemen, has claimed responsibility for the attacks.
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran H.E. Hassan Rouhani, President of the Russian Federation H.E. Vladimir Putin and President of the Republic of Turkey H.E. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan gathered in Ankara on 16 September 2019 for a Tripartite Summit.
Moscow has taken note of the Arab countries’ highly negative reaction to the statement made by Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu regarding his intention to extend Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley.
We share concerns over these Israeli plans, the implementation of which can lead to a dramatic escalation of tensions in the region and undermine hopes for a long awaited peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
12 September 2019 marks exactly one year and half since Russian national Nikolay Glushkov was murdered in London under mysterious circumstances. We regret to state that the British side has failed to provide any meaningful reply to our numerous enquiries. Since April 2018 the Home Office has been ignoring the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance over Russia’s own criminal case into the death of Nikolay Glushkov. The British authorities have also been silent regarding the Embassy’s repeated proposals to arrange a meeting between the Russian Ambassador and the Met Police Commissioner or hold law-enforcement experts’ bilateral contacts.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy