Russia expels 23 UK diplomats

1 / 2
British ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow arrives at the Russian Foreign Ministry headquarters in Moscow on Tuesday. (AFP)
2 / 2
British Ambassador to Russia Laurie Bristow leaves the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow, Russia, March 14, 2018. (Reuters)
Updated 18 March 2018
Follow

Russia expels 23 UK diplomats

MOSCOW: Russia expelled 23 British diplomats on Saturday in a carefully calibrated retaliatory move against London, which has accused the Kremlin of orchestrating a nerve toxin attack on a former Russian double agent and his daughter in southern England.
Escalating a crisis in relations, Russia said it was also shutting down the activities of the British Council, which fosters cultural links between the two countries, and Britain’s Consulate in St. Petersburg.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said it was giving the 23 British diplomats one week to leave the country.
The move, which was tougher than expected, followed Britain’s decision on Wednesday to expel 23 Russian diplomats over the attack in the English city of Salisbury which left former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia Skripal, 33, critically ill in hospital.
Moscow announced the measures on the eve of a presidential election which incumbent Vladimir Putin should comfortably win. Putin has cast his country as a fortress besieged by hostile Western powers with him as its defender, and state media is likely to portray the anti-British move in that context.
The Foreign Ministry said Moscow’s measures were a response to what it called Britain’s “provocative actions and groundless accusations.” It warned London it stood ready to take further measures in the event of more “unfriendly steps.”
Relations between London and Moscow have crashed to a post-Cold War low over the Salisbury attack, the first known offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since World War Two.
The Russian Foreign Ministry summoned the British ambassador, Laurie Bristow, to a meeting on Saturday morning in central Moscow at its Stalin-era headquarters during which he was informed of the retaliatory measures.
Bristow told reporters afterwards that Britain had only expelled the Russian diplomats after Moscow had failed to explain how the nerve toxin had got to Salisbury.
“We will always do what is necessary to defend ourselves,” the ambassador told reporters.
Britain’s Foreign Ministry said it had anticipated Russia’s response and the National Security Council would meet early next week to consider next steps.
“Our priority today is looking after our staff in Russia and assisting those that will return to the UK,” it said in a statement.
“Russia’s response doesn’t change the facts of the matter — the attempted assassination of two people on British soil, for which there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable.”
Russia’s response was more robust than expected. The closure of the British Council’s Moscow office will sever cultural ties, while that of the consulate-general in St. Petersburg will end Britain’s diplomatic presence in Russia’s second city.
Russian news agencies cited politicians in Russia’s upper house of Parliament as welcoming the move to close the British Council, alleging it had been used as a cover by British spies.
British lawmaker Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said the move to close the organization’s office would hurt the Russian people.
“It’s a great shame for the Russian people that they’re closing the British Council which has done an awful lot to educate Russian people in the English language and to help them get jobs and opportunities around the world,” he told the BBC.
Amid calls from British politicians across the spectrum to take further action against Russia, former British ambassador to Russia, Sir Roderic Lyne, told the BBC that Britain should avoid getting dragged into a prolonged showdown with Russia.
“I don’t think it would be sensible to get dragged down into a mud wrestling battle with a gorilla,” Lyne said.
Russia has complained that Britain has failed to provide any evidence of its involvement in the Salisbury attack and has said it is shocked and bemused by the allegations.
Britain has escalated a war of words with Russia over the incident in recent days. On Friday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said it was overwhelmingly likely that Putin himself had made the decision to use a military-grade nerve toxin to strike down Skripal.

 


US Catholic cardinals urge Trump administration to embrace a moral compass in foreign policy

(From L): Cardinal Blase Cupich, cardinal Robert McElroy and cardinal Joseph Tobin. (AP file photo)
Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

US Catholic cardinals urge Trump administration to embrace a moral compass in foreign policy

  • The three cardinals, who are prominent figures in the more progressive wing of the US church, took as a starting point a major foreign policy address that Pope Leo XIV delivered Jan. 9 to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See

ROME: Three US Catholic cardinals urged the Trump administration on Monday to use a moral compass in pursuing its foreign policy, saying US military action in Venezuela, threats of acquiring Greenland and cuts in foreign aid risk bringing vast suffering instead of promoting peace.
In a joint statement, Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington and Joseph Tobin of Newark, N.J., warned that without a moral vision, the current debate over Washington’s foreign policy was mired in “polarization, partisanship, and narrow economic and social interests.”
“Most of the United States and the world are adrift morally in terms of foreign policy,” McElroy told The Associated Press. “I still believe the United States has a tremendous impact upon the world.”
The statement was unusual and marked the second time in as many months that members of the US Catholic hierarchy have asserted their voice against a Trump administration many believe isn’t upholding the basic tenets of human dignity. In November, the entire US conference of Catholic bishops condemned the administration’s mass deportation of migrants and “vilification” of them in the public discourse.
The three cardinals, who are prominent figures in the more progressive wing of the US church, took as a starting point a major foreign policy address that Pope Leo XIV delivered Jan. 9 to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See.
The speech, delivered almost entirely in English, amounted to Leo’s most substantial critique of US foreign policy. History’s first US-born pope denounced how nations were using force to assert their dominion worldwide, “completely undermining” peace and the post-World War II international legal order.
Leo didn’t name individual countries, but his speech came against the backdrop of the then-recent US military operation in Venezuela to remove Nicolás Maduro from power, US threats to take Greenland as well as Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops was consulted on the statement, and its president, Archbishop Paul Coakley, “supports the emphasis placed by the cardinals on Pope Leo’s teaching in these times,” said spokesperson Chieko Noguchi.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to the AP’s request for comment on Monday.
Cardinals question the use of force
The three cardinals cited Venezuela, Greenland and Ukraine in their statement — saying they “raised basic questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace” — as well as the cuts to foreign aid that US President Donald Trump’s administration initiated last year.
“Our country’s moral role in confronting evil around the world, sustaining the right to life and human dignity, and supporting religious liberty are all under examination,” they warned.
“We renounce war as an instrument for narrow national interests and proclaim that military action must be seen only as a last resort in extreme situations, not a normal instrument of national policy,” they wrote. “We seek a foreign policy that respects and advances the right to human life, religious liberty, and the enhancement of human dignity throughout the world, especially through economic assistance.”
Tobin described the moral compass the cardinals wish the US would use globally.
“It can’t be that my prosperity is predicated on inhuman treatment of others,” he told the AP. “The real argument isn’t just my right or individual rights, but what is the common good.”
Cardinals expand on their statement in interviews with AP
In interviews, Cupich and McElroy said the signatories were inspired to issue a statement after hearing from several fellow cardinals during a Jan. 7-8 meeting at the Vatican. These other cardinals expressed alarm about the US action in Venezuela, its cuts in foreign aid and its threats to acquire Greenland, Cupich said.
A day later, Leo’s nearly 45-minute-long speech to the diplomatic corps gave the Americans the language they needed, allowing them to “piggyback on” the pope’s words, Cupich said.
Cupich acknowledged that Maduro’s prosecution could be seen positively, but not the way it was done via a US military incursion into a sovereign country.
“When we go ahead and do it in such a way that is portrayed as saying, ‘Because we can do it, we’re going to do it, that might makes right’ — that’s a troublesome development,” he said. “There’s the rule of law that should be followed.”
Trump has insisted that capturing Maduro was legal. On Greenland, Trump has argued repeatedly that the US needs control of the resource-rich island, a semiautonomous region of NATO ally Denmark. for its national security.
The Trump administration last year significantly gutted the US Agency for International Development, saying its projects advance a liberal agenda and were a waste of money.
Tobin, who ministered in more than 70 countries as a Redemptorist priest and the order’s superior general, lamented the retreat in USAID assistance, saying US philanthropy makes a big difference in everything from hunger to health.
The three cardinals said their key aim wasn’t to criticize the administration, but rather to encourage the US to regain is moral standing in the world by pursuing a foreign policy that is ethically guided and seeks the common good.
“We’re not endorsing a political party or a political movement,” Tobin said. The faithful in the pews and all people of good will have a role to play, he said.
“They can make an argument of basic human decency,” he said.