UNITED KINGDOM TELLS CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT IT OFFICIALLY NOTIFIED THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS THAT A CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACK TOOK PLACE ON ITS SOIL ON 4 MARCH

The Conference on Disarmament this afternoon heard an update by the United Kingdom on the 4 March incident in Salisbury in which the United Kingdom said a military-grade nerve agent Novichok developed by Russia had been used. It also heard farewell remarks by its Swedish President who urged the Conference to build upon the decision CD/2119, under the coming presidency of Switzerland.

In its update to the Conference, the United Kingdom confirmed that its investigation into the 4 March incident in Salisbury had established that a military-grade nerve agent Novichok of a type developed by Russia had been used, and that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless act. Russia’s response had shown contempt for the gravity of the issue as it sought to obfuscate and distract from the main point: the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe, said the United Kingdom, informing the Conference of the measures it was talking to respond including to dismantle Russia’s espionage network on its territory. Russia failed to declare the Novichok agent or the facilities required to produce this nerve gas and was therefore in serious breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Russia, in its right of reply, urged the United Kingdom to provide concrete evidence and facts on which it was basing its accusations. Denying the existence of the Novichok programme, Russia stressed that this issue should be discussed in a different forum.

Numerous delegations condemned this horrendous and illegal act and expressed their solidarity with the people and the Government of the United Kingdom. They called for the accountability of those responsible, and urged Russia to - also as a permanent member of United Nations Security Council - account for its actions and to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

In her last address to the Conference on Disarmament as its President, Veronika Bard, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations Office at Geneva, reflected on the four weeks of the Swedish Presidency and noted that the Conference had agreed on the five coordinators to lead the work of the subsidiary bodies established by the decision CD/2119 of 16 February. The President remarked that some delegations had a different interpretation of the 2119 decision, whose successful adoption could to a degree be attributed to ambiguity, and their request for more clarity on the composition of the subsidiary bodies opened the Pandora’s box, and the mutual trust had been replaced by demands of clarity on different issues. The President had tried to reconcile different views but some of the issues that had paralyzed the Conference for over twenty years had not been solved. “We came close, but not close enough,” remarked Ambassador Bard, noting that, on the positive side, the decision 2119 stand and could be built upon by the incoming presidencies, including by Switzerland, which would take over on 19 March.

Speakers saluted the efforts of the Swedish Presidency towards finding a compromise and a solution to implement the decision CD/2119, noting that achieving consensus in multilateral diplomacy was not easy. It was regrettable that the time had run out before the various propositions and assurances been offered in the intensive consultation process, could be tested. This work was not in vain as a preliminary consensus on which the Conference could build on had indeed been achieved, and the positions of different parties were not beyond bridging.

Taking the floor in the Conference on Disarmament today were United States, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, China, Canada, Netherlands, and Ireland. The following delegations spoke on the subject of the reported use of military-grade nerve agent in the territory of the United Kingdom: United Kingdom, Bulgaria on behalf of the European Union, France, United States, Australia, Germany, Ukraine, Belgium, Poland, Canada, Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, China, Spain, Austria, Latvia, Estonia, and Ireland. Russia spoke in the right of reply.


The Conference on Disarmament would next meet in public on Tuesday, 20 March at 10 a.m. under the Swiss Presidency.


Statements

United States saluted the efforts of the Swedish Presidency towards finding a compromise and a solution.

Brazil regretted that the time had run out and the Conference had not been able to test various propositions and assurances that had been offered in the process. Brazil hoped that the good work would continue under the Swiss Presidency, and that the Conference would find a way out of the impasse.

Mexico expressed appreciation for the efforts of Sweden to move things forward, which had resulted in the identification of five coordinators, but had run out of time. Noting that the Conference had come very close to adopting the President’s proposal, Mexico reiterated its will to work with the next Presidency.

Turkey commended the exemplary performance of Sweden and noted that achieving consensus in multilateral diplomacy was not easy. Turkey hoped that the initiatives Sweden had started would soon be successfully completed.

China commended the rich diplomatic experience and patience that Ambassador Bard demonstrated which had contributed to the preliminary consensus of the five coordinators. This was a solid foundation to push forward the work of the Conference as the positions of different parties were not beyond bridging.

Canada deeply appreciated what Sweden had achieved during its Presidency and Canada was looking forward to working with Switzerland.

Netherlands thanked the President and her team for their hard work and stressed that intensive consultations had not been in vain as all participants learned more about their respective positions. There was a preliminary consensus on which the Conference could build on. The Netherlands was fully confident that Switzerland would bring the work to fruition.

Ireland noted that the Conference had started on a very high note, but it had not arrived close enough. The baton was passing to Switzerland and Ireland would continue to work together with vision, flexibility and openness.

Statements on the Incident in the United Kingdom Involving the use of a Nerve Agent

United Kingdom in its update to the Conference on Disarmament, said that a wide-scale investigation into the 4 March incident in Salisbury had established that a military-grade nerve agent Novichok of a type developed by Russia had been used. This was not a weapon that could be manufactured by a non-State agent, said the United Kingdom, as it was so dangerous that it required the highest-grade state laboratories and expertise. Based on the knowledge that Russia had previously produced this agent, combined with Russia’s record of conducting State-sponsored assassinations including against its former intelligence officers, the United Kingdom had concluded that it was highly likely Russia that was responsible for this reckless act. The United Kingdom had requested Russia to provide an explanation on how this nerve agent could have been deployed in Salisbury but had received no credible explanation; Russia’s response had shown contempt for the gravity of the issue as it sought to obfuscate and distract from the main point: the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe. The United Kingdom had no alternative but to conclude that the Russian State was responsible for the attempted murder of Mr. Skripal and his daughter and for threatening the lives of British citizens in Salisbury. Its response included immediate actions to dismantle Russia’s espionage network and the expulsion of 23 intelligence officers from the United Kingdom; urgent work to develop new powers to tackle all forms of hostile State activity, ensure that all those seeking to carry out such activity could not enter the United Kingdom, and to act against those responsible for the sort of human rights violations abuses suffered by Sergei Magnitsky. All high-level contacts between Russia and the United Kingdom had been suspended.

The United Kingdom had played an integral role in drafting the Chemical Weapons Convention and was dismayed that Russia had suggested that its response failed to meet the requirements of that Convention. The United Kingdom had enacted the Chemical Weapons Act to fully integrate the Convention in its law; this legislation, together with the relevant criminal law, were guiding the United Kingdom’s response to this incident. This was an attack on the United Kingdom soil, and the Convention gave the United Kingdom the right to lead its response; on 8 March, the United Kingdom had officially notified the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that a chemical attack had taken place on its soil. Having failed to provide answers as requested by the United Kingdom, it was in fact Russia that was failing to comply with the provisions of the Convention; further, Russia remained silent on the obligation of State parties to this Convention to declare its chemical weapons stocks and production facilities. Russia had never declared the Novichok agent or the facilities required to produce this nerve gas developed by the Soviet Union and inherited by the Russian Federation, and was therefore in serious breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

On 4 March, a weapon so horrific that it had been banned from the use in war, had been used on the United Kingdom’s soil, in a reckless act carried out by people who disregarded the sanctity of human life. The United Kingdom had not jumped to conclusion but was carrying out a thorough and careful investigation and was asking the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to independently verify the nerve agent use. The United Kingdom had concluded that the Russian State was involved, and had taken adequate measures, which were not directed against the people of Russia but were in objection to reckless acts of its Government.

Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, reiterated its solidarity with the people and the Government of the United Kingdom in dealing with the consequences of the horrendous use of a military-grade nerve agent in Salisbury on 4 March, and condemned it in strongest terms. The European Union had full confidence in the United Kingdom’s investigation and took very seriously its assessment that it was highly likely that the Russian Federation was responsible.

France expressed full support to its ally, United Kingdom, with which it shared the commitment to the rule of law and the foundations of peace and security. The incident involving the use of military-grade nerve agent represented an attack of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and France agreed with this country’s assessment that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack. Russia should respond to respond to all the questions concerning the attack on Salisbury and it should fully declare its Novichok programme to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. A new dimension had been reached, that of the use of a never-declared prohibited chemical substance, in a public place, in a European country. France was committed to see no impunity.

United States stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom and believed that Russia was responsible for the attack using the military-grade nerve agent. This was not an isolated incident, noted the United States, stressing that Russia must stop the use of chemical weapons to assassinate its enemies; declare all its chemical weapons to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; and cooperate with the United Kingdom. As a member of the Security Council, Russia must account for its actions. If no steps were taken now, Salisbury would not be the last place where the nerve agent would be used.

Australia condemned the use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, and under any circumstances. Australia stand with the United Kingdom in full solidarity and supported its commitment to ensure full investigation and bring those responsible to justice. It was important for the international community not to tolerate the use of chemical weapons and allowing this use to become the new norm.

Germany stand with the United Kingdom in this difficult moment in full solidarity and stressed that perpetrators of this gruesome act must be held accountable. It was disappointing that Russia refused to cooperate in the investigation and respond to the legitimate requests by the United Kingdom.

Ukraine stressed that the recent events in the United Kingdom were extremely worrying, and agreed that the Russian authorities were most likely responsible. Ukraine joined the United Kingdom in pressing for the strong response by the rule-respecting community. The intended holding of the Russian presidential elections in the illegally occupied territories on 18 March were in violation of domestic and international laws, and also a violation of United Nations Security Council resolution on territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia must feel the consequences of its actions, stressed Ukraine.

Belgium expressed its grave concern over the heinous attack in the United Kingdom and expressed its solidarity with the Government and people of this country. Belgium attached greatest importance to the respect of the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention and stressed that combatting the use of chemical weapons was one of its highest priority. The attack in the United Kingdom and the use of chemical weapons in Syria were a clear evidence that the fight against chemical weapons was not over.

Poland was gravely concerned by the information on the use of nerve agent against Mr. Skripal and condemned this unprecedented attack on the territory of the United Kingdom which represented a clear violation of international law. Stressing its solidarity with the United Kingdom, Poland called upon Russia to respond to the United Kingdom’s questions, and urged accountability for those responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

Canada reiterated that the United Kingdom could count on Canada’s full assistance in holding Russia accountable for this act.

Netherlands emphasized that no State could or should tolerate attacks taking place in its territory, as it was a violation of national sovereignty. The Netherlands was gravely concerned by the choice of weapon in the attack, the military-grade nerve agent. This was another warning to the world that it must step up the efforts to eliminate chemical weapons. There must be no impunity for this crime. Russia must cooperate with the United Kingdom and with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Japan said that the use of chemical weapons challenged international norms, which Japan strongly condemned.

New Zealand was deeply disturbed by the use of chemical weapons by any actor, and under any circumstances. Russia must answer how this nerve agent had been transported from Russia and used abroad.

Republic of Korea said that any use of chemical weapons, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances was unacceptable and that there must be accountability for those responsible for their use.

China hoped that the relevant parties would proceed on the basis of fact and follow relevant international norms, and conduct a comprehensive, independent and impartial investigation of the incidents, and draw conclusions which would stand the test of time and history.

Spain joined others in condemning the attack in Salisbury and voiced its deep solidarity with the United Kingdom, its friend, partner and ally. This serious event must be investigated in detail, and those responsible must be identified and brought to justice.

Austria condemned in the strongest terms the use of the nerve agent and reiterated its solidarity with the United Kingdom. Austria had full trust in the ability of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to investigate this incident.

Latvia reiterated solidarity with the people and the Government of the United Kingdom and condemned in the strongest terms the use of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom. Those who planned and carried attacks on the territory of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Member States must be held accountable. The incident confirmed the need to step up the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Estonia was deeply disturbed by the reported use of military-grade nerve agent in the territory of the United Kingdom, which was a brutal violation of international law. Russia should reassure the international community that it had indeed fully destroyed its chemical weapons stockpiles and should give full account of its Novichok programme to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Ireland stressed that the perpetrators if this abhorrent crime must be held accountable. The incident in Salisbury represented a violation of international law and went against the long-established international norms. Russia must swiftly respond to the United Kingdom’s legitimate questions and cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Russia, in its right of reply, remarked that Russia had learned of the use of the military-grade nerve agent and said that the United Kingdom should provide concrete evidence and facts on which it was basing its accusations. The investigation was still continuing, and yet the responsibilities had already been established, noted the delegate, stressing that it was Russia which was being accused. Denying the existence of the Novichok programme, Russia stressed that this issue should be discussed in a different forum and remarked that its requests to the United Kingdom for information sharing remained unanswered. Objecting to the very public handling of the situation, which was not conducive to international cooperation, Russia reiterated its interest in finding the truth, more than anyone else.

United Kingdom said that denial, distraction and threats was what Russia did – it denied the role in killing civilians in Syria, in occupying Crimea or having a hand in the downing of the MH17 flight. Russian’s was a behaviour of a country that had something to hide.

Russia, in its right of reply, stressed the readiness of Russia to cooperate professionally and insisted that accusations against another State must be supported by bullet-proof facts, which the United Kingdom did not provide. This public diplomacy must stop and continued professionally in specialized agencies.

United Kingdom insisted on its proper handling of the situation and the following due process, and emphasized that it was Russia which had refused to respond to request for information that would assist with the investigation. The United Kingdom was working with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and would also continue its criminal investigation.



For use of the information media; not an official record

DC18.021E