Skripal Skulduggery

Whether it's true or not, popular opinion has it that the alternate meaning of 'crisis' in Chinese is opportunity. This should be at the forefront of our minds as we cast a critical eye over the Skripal poisoning affair, for what we have seen happen these last couple of weeks less a conspiracy (though sometimes mainstream politics can appear as if it is) and more a case study in the sort of opportunism the Conservative Party and its leading figures revel in.

You might recall the howls of outrage that greeted Labour's response to Theresa May's statement in the Commons. As she condemned Russia for state-sponsored (attempted) assassination, Jeremy Corbyn tried lowering the temperature by suggesting, quite sensibly, that we should wait for the evidence and not jump to conclusions. Yes, how outrageous it is to suggest the government should comply with legal norms before pointing the finger. So unconventional in fact a number of Labour backbenchers let the world know they were prepared to believe what the Prime Minister was saying - it takes a strange mindset to believe the Tories play politics on all things apart from international relations and national security. Of course, it could be that May was and is in receipt of intelligence pointing to suspects linked with or part of Putin's mafia state, but we don't know. And neither does the Leader of the Opposition because the Tories denied him access to the same information on spurious security grounds. It was part of a piece. By refusing to give May a blank cheque the government, particularly the fatuous fool Boris Johnson and their media, spun Jeremy's sensible positioning as weakness. Because it was Russia, wait-and-see was distorted and contorted until it could be presented as reticence, reinforced by the lingering trace of recent Cold War slurs, and the government's decision to withhold evidence dog whistled the tune of disloyalty the Tories have long tried implicating Jeremy with.

This is not the first time - far from the first time - the Tories have spun a "security issue" this way. On the occasion of the London Bridge attack shortly before last year's general election, and despite the immediate suspension of campaigning in respect of the victims, Theresa May responded with a highly political speech. As well as offering a counter-terrorism strategy not worth a hill of beans, she argued Britain was "too tolerant". We needed to be tougher and, implicitly, more authoritarian. In the context of narrowing polls and a campaign opposing the "strong and stable" Prime Minister to the "weak" alternative, this was an intervention deliberately calibrated to reap votes. It failed.

Consider then the right wing rhetoric attending the coverage of the Skripal case. As a nerve agent, Novichok could only possibly be deployed by a state entity. And to reinforce the impression, it was dubbed "military grade", strongly implying this meant an extra layer of deadly compared to the common or garden Novichok you can buy over the counter with your Strepsils at the local Tesco. Not many people know a great deal about nerve agents either, though down the years we've heard tell of how these weapons can easily kill if they come in contact with the skin. Naturally, the tin foil hat brigade have accepted this interpretation of what Novichok is and have seized on the apparent recovery of the Skripals as evidence of a put up job by the government. As Dan Kazseta makes clear however, nerve agents don't quite live up to their fearsome reputation. Provided they're not ingested, in some cases merely washing the exposed area with soap and water can prevent serious harm. You can therefore forgive the conspiracy theorists for their ignorance (conspiranoids are going to conspiranoid), but not the government who have talked up the seriousness of the agent to ramp up the fear and cultivate some political gain - incidentally enabling our conspiracist friends. And there was, of course, Johnson's usual bluster and lies. His comments on German television - that Porton Down had categorically proven the nerve agent was Russian - was spectacularly contradicted by the chief executive of the facility itself. Once again, a truth was "finessed" for an express political purposes.

Is Russia responsible? I don't know. It seems plausible enough given its past history of skulduggery, espionage and assassination, but factoring in the fractured character of the state itself it could also possibly be someone acting autonomously from the government, or a third actor who was able to acquire Novichok. Getting hold of such stuff, particularly in the decade after the USSR fell would not have proven too difficult for determined criminals, weapons dealers and the like. Whatever the case, the government's willingness to exploit this sorry affair for a few polls and Westminster points not only reflects poorly on what is an already desperately incompetent crew, their investment in their official narrative makes the truth much harder to come out.