Deterring statesponsored murder
TWO major stories in the international news in 2018 are the apparent attempted murder of a former Russia agent and his daughter in Salisbury, England, and the presumed murder of a Saudi journalist in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Both paint pictures of authoritarian regimes dealing with issues by seemingly killing or attempting to kill people. Both have provoked outrage, and both have hurt the reputations of the states said to be behind the actions and their leaders.
No doubt exspies are killed in various places beyond the purview of free, or at least reasonably free, media. Much of the world is also brutal and deadly for journalists endeavouring to uncover corruption and malfeasance, whether by criminal elements or, on occasions, the state. Sometimes, too, the crooks and the government are interwoven.
Even in traditionally safe Europe, journalist safety has deteriorated. The murder of journalists this year in Malta and Slovakia has shocked. It is yet to be established whether the killing of a Bulgarian television presenter and journalist last week was because of her crusading efforts.
British and United States connections add weight to the prominence of the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent, and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, and the disappearance of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
The first took place in Britain itself, and the subsequent death of a citizen who also came into contact with the nerve agent, Novichok, has added to the horror. Mr Khashoggi, meanwhile, had based himself in the United States and wrote columns for the Washington Post.
These connections amplify the indignation and concern, and contribute to the political pressure and repercussions.
The incidents also set themselves up for ongoing publicity because of the intrigue involved. They could well have been from a spy novel or film but are ‘‘real’’.
The coming together of these strands is positive. The countries affected, as well as others, should be appalled. The media and the public should be interested and horrified.
That is important because such reactions are an essential deterrence to the spread of state murder. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin might control the media at home. And Russia during the Fifa World Cup of football might have presented success fully a positive image. But, especially as the evidence continues to grow stronger and the inconsistencies in the Russian stories more implausible, the Novichok matter undercuts attempts to rehabilitate Russia’s reputation.
Because Russia and Mr Putin have regard for how the rest of the world views them, the international indignation might make Russia think twice next time. Would the risks of the next proposed murder of an exspy be worth the trouble?
The same principle applies to Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. A dissident who was willing to criticise him might be silenced. But that opposition was insignificant com pared to the current condemnation. His reputation as an ‘‘enlightened’’ reformer, already well worn, is now threadbare.
New Zealand, of course, had its own experience of state terrorism on its territory when the French blew up and sunk the Rainbow Warrior at Marsden Wharf, Auckland, in 1985, killing a crew member. Again, the mission was supposed to be secret. But, again, it was exposed. No doubt, France’s secret service would have been more wary after that debacle. The backlash was years of bad publicity and far more focus on France’s nuclear programme in the Pacific.
If international consequences of such operations are serious, even if just to reputation and image, that can help deter similar actions in the future. It is right there should be an uproar, and that perpetrating countries and their leaders should face fierce opprobrium.