OPCW 'corrects' director's claim that 50-100g of novichock were used in Skripal poisoning

Patrick Wintour
The Guardian
Fri, 04 May 2018 18:16 UTC

© Bas Czerwinski/EPA

Ahmet Üzümcü, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The international chemical weapons watchdog has amended a claim made by its director general that as much as 50-100 grams of liquid nerve agent was used in the attack on the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.

On Thursday the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Ahmet Üzümcü, said the amount of novichok - a military-grade nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union - used in the attack on 4 March was significantly more than needed for research purposes and indicated it was likely to have been created for use as a weapon.

He told the New York Times: "That quantity - a range from slightly less than a quarter-cup to a half-cup of liquid - is significantly larger than the amount that would be created in a laboratory for research purposes, meaning that it was almost certainly created for use as a weapon."

Within hours of the report, however, startled chemical weapons experts were challenging the figure, insisting a miscommunication had occurred. A statement from the OPCW on Friday said the organisation "would not be able to estimate or determine the amount of the nerve agent that was used".

It added: "The quantity should nonetheless probably be characterised in milligrams."

It is not clear how Üzümcü made his error.

Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, had reacted with incredulity to the the initial OPCW claim, saying: "Üzümcü has made a sensational statement that 50-100g of some substance was allegedly used to poison the Skripals.

"According to expert estimations, 50-100g of a toxic agent such as the one Great Britain has been referring to would be enough to poison not just two people but everyone in the surrounding neighbourhood. However, the two people in question managed to survive and recover, the British authorities say."

In the interview Üzümcü also described new measures to monitor production of the nerve agent. He said countries that are signatories to the chemical weapons convention, such as Russia, the US and the UK, would be required to declare production or stockpiling of the agent.

However, he said countries producing the chemical for research purposes would produce about a tenth the amount used in the attack.

Comment: Unless Uzumcu is an idiot (which he does not appear to be), it might be worth taking a closer look at his statement. As Rob Slane points out, here's what he actually said:

"For research activities or protection you would need, for instance, five to 10 grams or so, but even in Salisbury it looks like they may have used more than that, without knowing the exact quantity, I am told it may be 50, 100 grams or so, which goes beyond research activities for protection".

It doesn't make sense for Uzumcu to say on the one hand that the OPCW cannot make an estimate, and then proceed to do exactly that. Slane wonders if perhaps Uzumcu was simply relating what he has "been told":

I can't be sure, but my hunch is that he does know his grams from his milligrams; that he is well aware that 50-100 grams of the stuff would be enough to have killed the Skripals outright, along with hundreds or possibly thousands of others in the surrounding area; and also that he understands full well that the current multi-million pound clean up operation in Salisbury, which is precisely intended to give the impression that there was so much of the stuff that it might make up half a cupful, or perhaps even a whole bucketful, is something of a farce.

And so even though his original statement at first seems absurd, I'm fairly convinced that it was not a display of incompetence on his part. Rather, together with the subsequent clarification, it was very likely a signal that he believes his source for the claim to be either incompetent or - shall we say - economical with the actualité. And it may be that his real aim was - as diplomatically as possible - to let certain folks in Britain know that he's not as convinced by some of their claims as they might like him to be.