The events in Salisbury, and the fall out over the last fortnight, are completely shocking. Retired military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal, his daughter Yulia and police officer Nick Bailey remain in a critical condition after being poisoned by a nerve agent. Nerve agents shut down someone's nervous system and, well, unless an antidote is immediately nearby, the consequences can be – and have been – disastrous. Such an action is truly despicable and morally repellent.
While I'm sure everyone can react emotionally with horror to this case, emotion must be put aside. Instead, time and effort must be invested by the government in finding out who did this and bringing them to justice, facing the full force of the British legal system. Though we can never be certain, it is overwhelmingly likely that Russia was responsible for this abhorrent crime. Lots of factors point to them, far too many to be just a nasty coincidence. Skripal was a double agent, secretly spying on behalf of MI6. The nerve agents come from a group called Novichok, developed in the former Soviet Union. Some of those are extremely powerful, more so than the VX nerve agent used to kill the half-brother of Kim Jong-un. Russia failed to meet the Prime Minister’s deadline to co-operate and assist in the case, denying all accusations of wrong doing and providing no explanations. Instead, they promote propaganda on their TV stations, urging people not to live in the UK and suggesting we are ‘playing politics.’ What nonsense. Some action has been rightly taken: expelling 23 diplomats, Ministers and the royal family will not attending the Fifa World Cup in Russia later this year (though I, as no football fan, don’t have a subjective view on the matter) and the retraction of the state invitation to Russian's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Who can be against this? The law has clearly been broken, hundreds of people were under threat and the evidence suggests that Russia authorised it. If they had nothing to hide, why weren’t they willing to co-operate? Standing against Russian state assassination attempts should unite MPs of all parties. Yet, despite Jeremy Corbyn’s rightful condemnation, when initially responding to the Prime Minister’s statement having received a briefing, he felt it appropriate to mention donations the Tories had received, specifically from Russian oligarchs. Let me say, I am no fan of the oligarchs. As I have written, and will continue to write, as a young person who hopes to find affordable housing in the future, I am terrified about the housing market. The fact that entire streets of London can be bought out by people who don’t live in the same country, at huge prices, cannot be seen as the norm. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise how parties are funded. It’s a debate we often have in my politics class, a cry of shame or a shrug of disinterest across the room. Personally, while I oppose the complete funding of state parties (though support short money), I do think there should be tighter regulations on the amount that people can donate, with most of the money parties rely on coming from members. Political parties shouldn’t be allowed to ‘buy’ elections. It should be on the basis of their policies. If their policies appeal to a broad range of people and seem common sense, they will attract more members, increasing their revenue. It’s simple. Nevertheless, it was the timing of Mr Corbyn’s statement that I, and so many others, found so shocking. In the context of an attempted murder by another state, a member of the UN, squabbling over how a party is funded should be the least of our concerns. Yes, raise the issue. That is the job of the opposition. But not at that time, Jeremy. Instead, unite behind the Prime Minister. Stand by the government instead of opening partisan lines. The same was the case on Wednesday, when Russia has specifically failed to meet the deadline to help. Despite the sarcastic, wholly inappropriate tweets from the Russian Embassy, Corbyn still didn’t think it totally appropriate to condemn Russia. Instead he said there was not full evidence (right about that) and that Russia still could have lost control of such an agent. This is nonsense. Were Russia to have lost control of the nerve agent, it would be embarrassing yes, but surely they would utterly condemn what has happened and wish to help Britain in proceedings? Politically, this has opened differences in the Labour party that were thought to have died down after the better than expected election result. Over a dozen Labour MPs have signed a motion supporting the government wholeheartedly in their actions. Even shadow cabinet colleagues are now trying to distance themselves from Mr Corbyn’s remarks, agreeing these Russian diplomats (who weren’t even registered!) must go. Despite many divisions on other matters, the Tories are mostly aligned on foreign policy, presenting a united front in Parliament. Mr Corbyn then proceeded to talk about ‘a history between weapons of mass destruction and intelligence which is problematic.’ The timing and context was, once again, totally misjudged. There were severe failings of the Iraq War: mostly that the main reason for war – weapons of mass destruction – turned out not to exist. Yet even though the weapons were seen to be the main reason for war, surely those who supported war desired regime change. That is totally wrong. I am completely opposed to both Saddam Hussein and Vladmir Putin, but it is not Britain’s job to be the world’s police, invade other nations simply because we dislike their leader. This difference between Iraq and Salisbury is stark. A nerve agent, with the potential to harm hundreds of people, actually exists! It is there, tests are being done and it is already linked to Russia. Like Mr Corbyn, I am non-interventionist on most matters. I certainly don’t want any sort of war with Russia, the sort justified as humanitarian intervention by military hawks. When Britain is threatened, the evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the actions of another state, the opponents must be dealt with. We should cherish living in a democracy. Despite the rowdy chamber, frequent jeering that would be banned at school, it is a tremendous thing that the government of the day can be held to account on all types of matter. Labour have put forward some valuable opposition day debates, frequently winning votes because the government don’t bother to turn up. In a way, we should celebrate how volatile politics is now, how nobody knows who will win the election. The same certainly couldn’t be said for Mr Putin. Jeremy Corbyn, on domestic policy, makes many worthy points for a nation fed up with austerity. But as Tim Shipman, the Sunday Times political editor tweeted yesterday, it’s the Leader of the Opposition’s views on foreign policy that are the biggest impediment to taking his party out of opposition and into government.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|