Trump: ‘We stand in solidarity with Britain over spy poisoning’
Britain does not have the resources to guard itself against a biological or chemical weapons atrocity
DONALD TRUMP yesterday pledged “solidarity” with Britain over the Salisbury spy poisoning and demanded “unambiguous answers” from Russia over its involvement.
The US president offered the UK “any assistance” needed in its investigation in a phone call with Theresa May, according to the White House.
Both leaders said there should be “consequences” for whoever attacked Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia on British soil. The pair also agreed it amounted to a “flagrant violation of international norms” – a hint of more serious diplomatic action to come.
A White House source told The Daily Telegraph the offer of investigative help was the first in a series of US moves expected in the coming weeks.
The call came as America’s stance was plunged into doubt when Rex Tillerson was sacked as secretary of state after publicly blaming Russia.
Mr Tillerson had said on Monday that Russia was “clearly” linked to the attack, going further than the White House. Yesterday morning it was announced he had been fired.
Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, talked to Mr Tillerson for 20 minutes about the poisoning on Monday evening and was not told of his impending departure, adding to the confusion.
Amid shifting US statements, Mr Trump further muddied the waters yesterday by initially saying he would “condemn Russia or whoever it may be” once the facts become clear.
However, after a call with Mrs May, the White House issued its strongest statement yet on the poisoning, including a direct challenge to Russia.
“President Trump stated the United States stands in solidarity with its closest ally and is ready to provide any assistance the United Kingdom requests for its investigation,” a White House spokesman said of the call. “President Trump agreed with Prime Minister May that the government of the Russian Federation must provide unambiguous answers regarding how this chemical weapon, developed in Russia, came to be used in the UK.
“The two leaders agreed on the need for consequences for those who use these heinous weapons in flagrant violation of international norms.”
A Downing Street spokesman said: “President Trump said the US was with the UK all the way.”
Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, also told Mrs May “she stood in full solidarity” with Britain in a call on Monday, according to No10.
Mr Tillerson will be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the director of the CIA, providing his appointment is confirmed by the US Senate.
There has been speculation for months that Mr Trump wanted Mr Tillerson gone after clashing publicly over North Korea and other policies.
Mr Tillerson also repeatedly refused to deny he called Mr Trump “a f-----moron” last year. Mr Tillerson’s sacking triggered a war of words between the State Department and the White House over how he was informed.
Steve Goldstein, the under secretary of state, released a statement saying Mr Tillerson “did not speak” to the president before being fired and was “unaware” of the reasons for his dismissal.
There were even reports that Mr Tillerson only learnt of his sacking when Mr Trump tweeted it yesterday morning. However, White House officials insisted John Kelly, Mr Trump’s chief of staff, suggested to Mr Tillerson on Friday and Saturday that the president would act soon.
Mr Goldstein was fired yesterday over his statement. It later emerged Mr Tillerson received a phone call from Mr Trump more than three hours after his sacking was announced.
Nothing better illustrates the Government’s muddled thinking on national security than its confused response to the use of a deadly nerve agent in an attempt to assassinate former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter. In a world where dictators are increasingly resorting to chemical and biological weapons to defeat their enemies, it was surely only a question of time before we were required to deal with such an attack on British soil.
Senior military and intelligence officers have been warning of the very real threat we face from such weapons for a decade or more. Mainly, this referred to the possibility of terror groups such as al-qaeda or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) getting their hands on them, causing mass casualties in crowded places such as the London Underground.
Terrorist masterminds like Osama bin Laden certainly made no secret of their desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons, hoping to stage a repeat of the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo’s attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995 using the deadly nerve agent sarin, which killed 12 people and injured more than 4,000.
Britain’s military and emergency services stage regular exercises to prepare for just such an eventuality, closing Tube stations at the weekend while they practise and refine their response procedures. And yet, when confronted by a real-time attack in a the heart of a famous English cathedral city, we find the response has been anything but convincing.
Much of the criticism has focused on the failure of Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, to provide the public with adequate warnings about the risks associated with the nerve agent. Among the latest developments, investigators sealed off a ticket machine in the Salisbury car park where the poisoning is believed to have taken place.
But the longer the inquiry continues, the more attention will focus on other, more alarming shortcomings in the Government’s emergency response procedures – not least its decision back in 2011 to reduce radically our ability to respond to chemical and biological weapon attacks.
I refer to the then-government’s decision, as part of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, to disband the Army’s Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment (CBRN) on the grounds that it was a Cold War relic and therefore had no relevant role to play in defending the country against modern-day threats. The cut was implemented despite the government’s national security strategy – which is supposed to inform how our Armed Forces are structured – placing the possibility of the country suffering a chemical or biological attack on a par with the threat posed by cyber warfare.
Consequently, rather than having a fully resourced military unit to deal with the Salisbury attack, the most the Armed Forces have been able to contribute is a few dozen specialists. As one senior officer said to me this week: “What you see in terms of our military response in Salisbury is the sum total of what we have available.”
This is a sorry state of affairs indeed, one where the Government’s failure to grasp the significance of the threat environment is entirely to blame.
Chemical and biological weapons are not a relic of the Cold War: they are a vital component of modern warfare, regarded as a highly valued weapon for rogue states such as Syria and Russia, which do not feel obliged to conform to internationally recognised laws. Forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-assad are using chemical weapons on an almost daily basis as they attempt to crush rebel enclaves in Eastern Ghouta, while the Russian military values the weapons so highly that they are said to feature prominently in its order of battle.
Add to this the determination of Islamist-inspired terror groups to acquire the ability to cause mass civilian casualties by using chemical and biological devices, as well as nuclear “dirty” bombs, and it is pretty obvious that Britain needs to upgrade its ability to deal with such threats.
There are, it is true, efforts underway to restructure the military to embrace the next generation of warfare technology. The Army’s 77th Brigade has been structured specifically to develop Britain’s ability to mount offensive operations in the spheres of cyber and information technology. There has even been speculation that the Government might authorise a cyber attack against Russia if it is proved that Moscow was directly responsible for the Salisbury nerve agent attack.
These and the other technological improvements taking place in Britain’s war-fighting capabilities are welcome, as they are likely to play a vital role in any future offensive operations the UK might be required to undertake.
But you cannot win wars unless you can defend yourself properly. The Salisbury attack has demonstrated the potency of modern chemical and biological weapons, and the Government must now make sure we have the resources available to defend ourselves against them.