I’m speechless at the amount of paranoia - not to mention lack of knowledge - that this BBC reporter is showing about polonium radiation as he interviews London-based Chechen separatist spokesman Akhmed Zakayev:
I met Mr Zakayev at the Piccadilly offices of a public relations agency which is co-ordinating the media interest.
Our first handshake was a little tentative. I had not yet asked him if he had been tested for polonium, but it was one of my first questions.
“Yes,” was the delayed answer relayed to me by my Russian interpreter.
“Negative?” I asked, trying to convince myself I already knew the answer? “Yes.”
I relaxed, but still could not bring myself to drink from the glass of water offered to me by office staff.
Chalk up another victory for terrorism.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
I have to say, I’m a bit speechless that you would condemn this article with such strong language without explaining more clearly what you think the author’s errors were.
Is it really “paranoid” to be afraid of contact with a person who’s a known target of the Kremlin and who’s just been in close contact with a person who’s likely been killed by the Kremlin? Hasn’t radioactive poison been spread all around London, a small amount of which could be fatal? Perhaps you think he was overreacting to the danger, but is “paranoid” really fair?
And what knowledge of Polonium did the writer fail to have that you have? Wouldn’t it be useful to educate us about what we don’t know rather than allow us to languish in ignorance or try to work it out for ourselves?
I do find interesting, though, your characterization of the denizens of the Kremlin as “terrorists.” I think this topic is ripe for exploration, namely that the Kremlin is quite weak and can’t use conventional military power effectively, just like OBL, so maybe it is going to resort to terror, and be even better at it than he is. And if so, what do we do about it?
December 19th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
The concern that radiation poisoning from polonium could be passed by handshake, for one thing, which reminds me of the equally absurd 1980s paranoia over HIV being transferred by sitting next to someone on the bus.
I tend to quite a broad definition of terrorism, and am happy to include states as actors who can use terror as a weapon, and to define large scale intimidation of a population as terrorism (for example, large scale bombing campaigns directed at civilians). I agree that it is an under-discussed area, and could certainly do with more investigation and analysis.
As to whether it shows weakness, I’m not entirely sure. Yes, Russia is militarily quite weak, but I don’t think that military strength would have been particularly useful in dealing with someone such as Litvinenko anyway. I can envisage a number of situations where the most powerful states would see terrorism as an attractive weapon.
Terror is really one of a number of weapons that states can use in their arsenal (albeit a morally unethical one). If any state were to make the decision to use terror as a weapon, I’d imagine that the decision would most likely be made on a case by case basis as to what is the most appropriate weapon to use in a that particular circumstance.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
As far as I know, Polonium can be passed by handshake (though you’d have to then touch your lips or nose and ingest it, like a virus) and isn’t anything remotely like AIDS, which requires bodily fluids to propagate. Please cite some published evidence that Polonium can’t be passed by handshake, or you’re guilty of exactly what you accuse this reporter of, making judgments not based on fact. This information should have been in your original post.
I think the decision was made to use terror in this case; but it’s also possible the Kremlin was simply ham-handed in the execution, as it has been many times in the past.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Kim, you might want to check out the British Chief Medical Officer’s advice to health professionals, particularly the paragraph on how individuals might be exposed.
The chances of transferring enough polonium to cause illness by handshake, I understand, are roughly equivalent to those of being infected by HIV by the same route. And considerably lower than the chances of being run down while crossing a London road.