CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE USE OF A MILITARY-GRADE NERVE AGENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard from a number of delegations on the British investigations into the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury and Amesbury and the report by the technical secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

In her introductory remarks, Beliz Celasin Rende, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said that following the public plenary, the Conference would hold an informal meeting to continue the work on the adoption of the revised and amended draft annual report, which had already been shared with the delegations.

France reiterated its deep commitment to ensuring that there was no proliferation crisis - chemical or nuclear in nature - and that it was in no way losing its trust in the Conference that remained the only multilateral instrument in charge of negotiating global disarmament treaties. Zimbabwe spoke as the G21 coordinator and reiterated the readiness to render all the support to the President for the successful finalization of the annual report, and stressed that Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure, which defined that the Presidency “shall rotate among all its members”, should not be questioned.

The Conference then heard the statements on the conclusions of the British investigation into the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury and Amesbury and the findings of the technical secretariat of Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Russia said that the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had confirmed the British findings on the nature of the toxic chemical that had poisoned two British citizens in Amesbury, and that the same substance had been found in samples collected in the Skripal case in Salisbury, but – critically - it did not mention the source of the nerve agent nor the term “Novichok”. The United Kingdom noted that, typically, rather than engaging with the fact and the evidence, Russia preferred to play a legalistic and linguistic game designed to deflect attention from their reckless and blatant actions.

Ukraine said that the conclusions of the British investigation were yet another confirmation of Russia’s continued aggressive policy aimed against States’ sovereignty and undermining international law and order. The use of the nerve agent Novichok in Salisbury, noted the United States, substantiated its conclusion that by failing to destroy all of its chemical weapons, Russia had not met its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. The facts were clear, said France: the results of the British investigation, combined with the investigation of the technical secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, confirmed the initial conclusion and the absence of any other plausible explanations rather than the involvement of Russia.

Syria reiterated its full solidarity with Russia in the “British campaign against Russia in the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal” and was concerned about the continued discussions on the use of chemical weapons in the Conference on Disarmament as it did not have a role in the supervision of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The parties involved had so far failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, China noticed and urged all to seek cooperation instead of confrontation and to avoid politicizing or further exacerbating the issue.

Australia said that the British investigation had confirmed Russia’s culpability for the heinous attack against the Skripals in March 2018, in clear violation of international law, and that it was in lockstep with the United Kingdom in holding Russia to account. Canada expressed outrage concerning the use of chemical weapons in the Salisbury attack and urged Russia to provide full disclosure of its Novichok programme. Netherlands was shocked by the reckless attack with a military-grade nerve agent on the British soil, thus the issuing of criminal charges was an important step closer to establishing the full truth.

Germany expressed full confidence in the United Kingdom’s assessment that the two agents involved in the attack were officers from the Russian military intelligence service and that the attack had most certainly been approved at the senior level of the Russian Government. New Zealand underscored its belief that the United Kingdom’s investigation had been robust and thorough and that it had every confidence in its conclusions.

The United States recalled that today was the seventeenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Mourning the loss of its citizens and those from other countries, the United States remained resolute to continue to fight terrorism in all its forms and wherever it took place.


The next public plenary of the Conference on Disarmament will be held at 3 p.m. today, 11 September.


Statements

BELIZ CELASIN RENDE, Chargé d’Affaires a.i., Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations Office at Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament, said in her opening remarks that, after this public plenary, the Conference would hold an informal meeting to continue the work on the adoption of the revised and amended draft annual report, which had already been shared with the delegations.

France recalled that it was a party to all the current arms control and disarmament instruments and was deeply committed to the current processes aiming to regulate arms in the global and regional fora. Committed to strengthening international peace and security, and because of its unwavering belief in multilateralism, France would continue to work to ensure that those processes produced agreements which were necessary for the security of all. Regardless of the difficulties and constant blockages, and even the retreat of the norms on which the security architecture was based, the force of multilateralism could not be replaced. France was deeply committed to ensuring that there was no proliferation crisis, be they chemical or nuclear in nature, and was in no way losing its trust in this Conference, which remained the only multilateral instrument in charge of negotiating global disarmament treaties. Disarmament was not something that was built by a decree, France stressed, but it was constructed, step by step, with objectives of stability, in a gradual and realistic manner.

Zimbabwe speaking as a coordinator of the G21, said that the Group stand ready to render all the support to the President for the successful discharge of the mandate, especially on the finalization and submission of the Conference’s annual report to the United Nations General Assembly, including the reports of the subsidiary bodies in accordance with the decision CD/2119. Zimbabwe then re-stated some principles and rules which should guide the work of the Conference in this work, namely the fundamental principles of upholding the Rules of Procedure and the office of the Presidency. Zimbabwe recalled Rule 3 which stated that “all member States of the Conference shall take part in its work in conditions of full equality as independent States, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations”. Zimbabwe also stressed that Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure, which defined that the Presidency “shall rotate among all its members”, should not be questioned.

Russia noted that the Conference, with the “mostly successful adoption of the final reports of the subsidiary bodies”, had demonstrated that it could do its work and make decisions based on consensus, and regretted that some delegations continued to drag it into the politicized discussions. Such was, Russia said, the United Kingdom’s statement on 5 September about the state of investigations into the incidents in Salisbury and Amesbury. The report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons technical secretariat had confirmed the British findings on the nature of the toxic chemical that had poisoned two British citizens in Amesbury and that the same substance had been found in samples collected in the Skripal case in Salisbury. However, Russia stressed, the report did not mention the source of the nerve agent nor had it mention the term “Novichok”.

But for the United Kingdom this was not an important – what was important was to link, in every way possible, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to the conclusions of the military chemical experts and the unfounded accusations about the Russia’s involvement in the incident. Neither the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons nor the Porton Down Laboratory were in a position to identify the country of origin of the poisonous substance from Salisbury and Amesbury, Russia insisted, noting that the Porton Down was one facility where the work was going on with the substance that the West knew as “Novichok”.

Russia further noted that it was the United Kingdom - and not Russia - that was avoiding any contacts, bilateral or in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and remarked that the way in which the United Kingdom had requested Russia to provide answers was not in any way diplomatic or civilized, but was rather an ultimatum. In conclusion, Russia said that the materials outlining its position in the Skripal case were being distributed to the delegations.

United Kingdom noted that, typically, rather than engaging with the fact and the evidence laid before everyone to see, Russia preferred to play legalistic and linguistic game designed to deflect attention from their reckless and blatant actions. The United Kingdom cared about the Chemical Weapons Convention, and it was precisely for this reason that it was determined to challenge the use of chemical weapons weather in Syria or Salisbury. Because it cared, the United Kingdom and the overwhelming majority of States parties to that Convention had agreed to strengthen the Convention and end impunity for chemical weapons use at the Special Conference of the States parties held in June 2018 at The Hague.

Ukraine expressed its full solidarity with the United Kingdom regarding its conclusions on the use of chemical weapons by Russia in Salisbury and Amesbury. This was yet another confirmation of Russia’s continued aggressive policy aimed against States’ sovereignty and undermining international law and order. Those responsible for such violations must be held accountable, stressed Ukraine, noting that only international solidarity could offer an effective response to the constant provocations by Russia and put pressure on Kremlin to refrain from aggressive actions.

United States stand in solidarity with the United Kingdom in its efforts to bring to justice two Russian intelligence officers for the “brazen use of Russian military-grade nerve agent Novichok” in the attempted assassination of Sergei and Yulia Skripal on March 4. The evidence presented on September 6 had been yet another proof of Russia’s responsibility for this insidious attack which had endangered the lives of thousands of lives, continued the United States. While Russia had eliminated its declared chemical stockpiles, the use of this chemical weapon in Salisbury had substantiated the United States’ conclusion that by failing to destroy all of its chemical weapons, Russia had not met its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia’s reckless contempt for international norms against chemical weapons use must stop.

France expressed solidarity with its British friends who had suffered from the use of chemical weapons and praised the transparency in handling the investigation. The facts were clear: the results of the British investigation combined with the investigation of the technical secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirmed the initial conclusion and the absence of any other plausible explanations rather than the involvement of Russia. Such an act, continued France, could only be conducted with the support of the highest authorities in Russia. Firmly condemning such unacceptable acts, France urged Russia to ensure its full involvement in protecting the Chemical Weapons Convention. In reference to the Special Conference of the States parties this Convention, France stressed the critical importance of endowing the international community with an investigation mechanism into any use of chemical weapons.

Syria, in reference to the “British campaign against Russia in the case of Sergei and Yulia Skripal” reiterated its full solidarity with Russia. It was a matter of concern that some delegations discussed the use of chemical weapons in the Conference on Disarmament, as was the “insistence of directing the accusation on flimsy pretexts that are unconvincing and are not based on a legal premise”. Syria believed that those “fake accusations are not the best way to reach the truth”. The politicized methods of the United Kingdom and the United States rejected all forms of constructive cooperation with a State party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, Syria said, noting that some States parties had resorted to measures that were “contrary to the diplomatic core”. In the past few years, Syria had always followed the diplomatic path and believed that such sensitive matters of paramount importance must be dealt with all the seriousness they deserved, and with refraining from “accusations as a pretext to launch attacks on other States on the basis of hypocrisy”.

China firmly opposed any use of chemical weapons for any purposes and stressed the importance of constructive and objective investigations in their use that would reach clear conclusions supported by indisputable facts, able to stand the test of time. The Salisbury incident in March 2018 should be handled in accordance with the procedures of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the rules and methods of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. China noticed that the parties involved had so far failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement and urged all to seek cooperation instead of confrontation, and to avoid politicizing or further exacerbating the issue.

Australia strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere and in any circumstances and said that the results of the United Kingdom investigation had confirmed Russia’s culpability for the heinous attack against the Skripals in March 2018, in clear violation of international law. Australia shared the United Kingdom’s anger and outrage at this dangerous and deliberate act by Russia which had also put at risk the British public, police and first responders, and said it was in a lockstep with the United Kingdom in holding Russia to account. Russia should fully disclose the extent of its chemical weapons programme, said Australia, reiterating that it remained committed to acting with its allies and partners to deter further violations of international security by Russia.

Canada expressed outrage at the use of chemical weapons in the Salisbury attack and urged Russia to fully disclose its Novichok programme. Canada reiterated its full confidence in the United Kingdom’s analysis of the events surrounding the attack, including that the two suspects had been from the Russia military intelligence service.

United States, responding to the charges made by Syria, said that Syria continued to refute, once again, the very clear and indisputable evidence put forward about its use of chemical weapons against its own people. Syria’s use of chemical weapons was not in question. The Chemical Weapons Convention had been negotiated by this Conference thus it could engage on the use of chemical weapons by its Member States.

Netherlands stand in full solidarity with the United Kingdom, its friend and ally, and was shocked by the reckless attack with a military-grade nerve agent on the British soil that had exposed civilians to great risks. The issuing of criminal charges was an important step in getting closer to establishing the full truth, the Netherlands said and reiterated its full confidence in the investigation carried out by the British authorities and in the fairness and impartiality of the British justice system. Now that the perpetrators of this horrendous act have been identified, they must also be brought to justice; therefore, all States should cooperate to bring the full truth to light about how this attack had been carried out. Those who bore responsibility must be held to account.

Syria, responding to the United States, refuted its unilateral accusations which were not based on tangible elements and did not enjoy a consensus in the necessary fora including in the Security Council. Those accusations had been based on investigations that were far from perfect in nature and had not meet the conditions set down by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The Conference on Disarmament had indeed negotiated the Chemical Weapons Convention, but that Convention had not clearly identified the role of the Conference particularly in its supervision. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons was in charge of monitoring the Convention, while the Security Council was there to address any violations. All allegations made pertaining to chemical weapons were simply motivated by political reasons, Syria stressed, and urged all to accept the initiative by Russia which had called for a proper discussion on the role of terrorist groups and their use of chemical weapons.

Germany expressed condolences for the civilian victims of the military-grade nerve agent in the United Kingdom and urged Russia to fully disclose its Novichok programme. Germany had full confidence in the United Kingdom’s investigation and its assessment that the two agents were officers from the Russian military intelligence service and that the attack had most certainly been approved at the senior Government level. It was paramount to uphold the integrity of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Germany continued and reiterated its full confidence in the analysis provided by the technical secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Russia should engage in the substantive exchange on the use of that military-grade chemical agent instead of making procedural arguments in order to deflect from the real issue - the death of innocent civilians and the violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Russia said that it was unfortunate that some countries closed their eyes to the fact that there was “really no proof” as to the use of poisonous substance in the United Kingdom. Russia had nothing to do with what had taken place in Salisbury and Amesbury and had already offered, on a number of occasions, its cooperation in the investigations. London did not have anything to justify its claims, the speaker continued, noting that “all the accusations against Russia have been fabricated” to paint a picture of a public enemy by fanning the anti-Russian sentiments. What was needed, Russia continued, was to join efforts to address common threats, first and foremost, international terrorism.

New Zealand underscored its belief that the United Kingdom’s investigation had been robust and thorough and said New Zealand had every confidence in its conclusions. Given the clear chain of evidence produced by the United Kingdom, New Zealand supported the United Kingdom and the international community in bringing this matter to court. New Zealand condemned any use of chemical weapons whether in Syria or the streets in the United Kingdom and believed that all States must adhere to their obligations under international law.

United States recalled that today was the seventeenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The United States was mourning the loss of its citizens and those from other countries and would continue to fight terrorism in all its forms and wherever it took place.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC18/43E