To find who poisoned the Salisbury spy, ask ‘who benefits?’
Re: “Another sign US has stepped down from global leadership”, Have Your Say, March 20.
Chavalit Wannawijitr claims President Donald Trump was weak in failing to stand with US allies after UK PM Theresa May condemned Russia for poisoning a spy on British soil.
Since when has a mere statement from a national leader been enough to establish truth? Conventional investigation followed by due process of justice is what enables us to uncover the truth. Often the saying “qui bono?” – who benefits [from the crime]? – gets us closer to the solution. Trump is correct to say that we should wait for the facts before commenting. In 2003 the US invaded Iraq using false information about weapons of mass destruction. Shouldn’t we be a bit more careful before believing hasty statements just because they come from a politician?
As for “qui bono”, Russia would reap no benefits from committing this crime. For Britain, however, the poisoning of the Russian agent is a perfect diversion from the many controversies plaguing its own government, and would also serve the need to discredit Russia at election time.
Clara Holzer
