© Sputnik International
The British delegation to the OPCW has admitted that international chemical weapons inspectors did not confirm the origin of the nerve agent used in the Salisbury ex-spy poisoning.
The UK's representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Peter Wilson, said identifying the nerve agent is an "essential part of the investigation," and that
the OPCW has identified neither its origin nor the laboratory where it was produced.
"But of course, while the identification of the nerve agent used is an essential piece of technical evidence in our investigation, neither DSTL's analysis, nor the OPCW's report, identifies the country or laboratory of origin of the agent used in this attack," he said.
The British government claims a Soviet-era nerve agent that has become known as Novichok was used against Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia and accused Russia of producing and deploying it.
However, the claims of Russian involvement have not been backed up by either Britain's own scientists at the Porton Down laboratories or the OPCW, both of which say it's not their job to apportion blame or identify the origin, but only the type of substance involved.
Wilson was speaking at a meeting of the OPCW in The Hague, which was called by Britain.
The UK delegation reportedly said it would soon give some long-awaited answers posed by Moscow concerning the Skripal case.
Comment: In related news, OPCW director general Ahmet Uzumcu has
denied Russian claims that Spiez lab found BZ in the Skripal samples:
"The precursor of BZ that is referred to in the public statements, commonly known as 3Q, was contained in the control sample prepared by the OPCW Lab in accordance with the existing quality control procedures," the OPCW director general said. "Otherwise it has nothing to do with the samples collected by the OPCW Team in Salisbury. This chemical was reported back to the OPCW by the two designated labs and the findings are duly reflected in the report."
Uzumcu called on OPCW members to put their trust in the "tried-and-true" system of labs accredited by the organization. He also said that while some of the details in the reports produced by the labs for the OPCW don't make it to the final documents released to member states, this process is "aimed at protecting the identity of the labs which conduct off-site analysis of samples."
...
The OPCW has since confirmed the accuracy of the British identification of the toxin which the UK gave to it, but stressed that the samples it studied were almost devoid of impurities. Impurities are what allows the origin of a chemical compound to be traced. British chemical experts at the Porton Down lab said they didn't identify who produced the toxic agent, contradicting statements by some senior UK politicians.
The Spiez lab is barred by OPCW confidentiality from commenting on the BZ, so they will not be able to confirm or deny the OPCW's official statement. But it is very odd that whereas OPCW denies the presence of BZ, the Skripals' symptoms, and the decontamination procedures recommended in the wake of the attack, match more closely to BZ than they do to Novichock:
Twenty more Skripal questions: Spies, Novichock, BZ and BS
Comment: If the US-UK-F had solid, irrefutable evidence of 1) the attack and 2) the attacker, they would have presented it globally. That revelation would have strengthened their positions and proven their leadership. They did not. Assad, under irrefutable proof he gassed his people, would have prudently refrained from further attacks in order to promote the idea of his innocence. Instead, there is no evidence of the alleged attack or of Assad's involvement. The arguments presented by Nauert are a sham.