Interview with Tony Halpin
Tony Halpin, the Moscow Bureau Chief of Britain's Times newspaper, joined Russia Today to share his views on recent developments in the Litvinenko case.
Russia Today: In your opinion, has this story influenced how Russia is perceived in the British media?
Tony Halpin: Well, I think we have to appreciate the impact of this story in London. A British citizen was murdered on the streets of London with a substance, that had never been heard of before, which left a wide trail across much of the centre of London and it affected hundreds of people. I think the British media reacted as you would expect perhaps the Russian media to respond in Moscow if something similar happened here. They would demand explanations of how this happened and who was responsible. Well, clearly this has been a massive fascination among the public to learn more about this case. And as to whether it affected perceptions of Russia – I think some people may have their negative perceptions confirmed, others have been equally swift to say: well, the Kremlin in particular has little interest in a case of this nature that would only damage the Russian reputation. You have heard the full spectrum of opinion discussed in Britain.
RT: Well, nevertheless the Russian authorities do believe that the coverage of the Litvinenko case was biased in the Western media against Russia. Do you completely disagree with this or is there an aspect of truth to this statement?
T.H: Well, things are very sweeping. Conclusions really are repeated. If something similar happened in Moscow – what would have been the reaction of the authorities and the media here? I suspect it would have been very similar. They would have demanded action and a thorough investigation and those responsible to be found. In this case, I think if you look at what was said by the British Crown Prosecution Service yesterday, they were very careful to limit the allegation to the very specific individual, there was no mention of suspicion of any state involvement. They followed the evidence to where it led and they believe that this has led them to an allegation of murder against an individual, Mr Lugovoy.
RT: If we go to where we have been before, the actual verdict of the Crown Prosecution saying that Andrey Lugovoy is accused of murder, a lot of fingers were pointed to the Kremlin. They were saying the Kremlin did it.
T.H: I think the allegation is that he is accused of murder. It is for court, obviously, to decide whether the evidence in support of the allegation is sufficient to convict Mr Logovoy where ever be put on trial. The difficulty now is that Britain has requested his extradition and Russia has equally firmly said it will not happen. It is hard to see which side is going to move and how we might move forward from this impasse. It is just a fascinating story to watch and see unfold before us.
RT: So you do not believe that, as many people here in Russia believe, that Russia has been a victim of previously old and evil Soviet stereotype in the Western media?
T.H: Well, you are going to get some of that, obviously because people have a memory of the Soviet Union for more than 50 years ago, but you have to remember that much of Europe was divided into two camps at that time. But I think that the overwhelming fascination with this story is its unique circumstances. Nobody before has been poisoned with radioactive substance in the centre of London and assassinated in this way. People want to know how this happened. It happened to involve a Russian. If it would have involved somebody from a third country, I think there will be an equal level of fascination in how this happened, who did it, why and who is responsible. The questions being asked most insistently I think are not did the Kremlin do it – that is clearly one question. But why would the Kremlin do it is an equally important question, if they did? And that question had been asked equally insistently. Equally the suspicion, if it is proved to be so, that an individual did it leads to the questions on why would this individual do it and how did he acquire this substance?
RT: And how did it get there.
T.H: Well, clearly, I mean polonium-210 is such an unusual substance to use to kill somebody.
RT: You cannot buy it around the corner.
T.H: Well, clearly, you cannot buy it around the corner. I am not an expert in radioactive substances but for all we know it is a substance exclusively produced by state structures.
RT: How would you assess Russian public's reaction to this story?
T.H: You have to separate it out. If you mean the Russian government I think it has been fairly forthright in asserting a denial of involvement.
RT: In terms of media and the reactions we are getting from it?
T.H: I think that in many ways it has been mirror images somewhat as of what had happened in Britain. People here, papers here in particular, reacted rather defensively, they insisted “it has nothing to do with us” and raised this question of stereotypes of Russia been viewed as the Big Bad wolf in all of this. What is lacking, I think, sometimes, is an examination of what happened and what evidence there is and where it points. And I think Scotland Yard in particular was quite careful to limit itself to those particular issues. What evidence could they found, where did it point to and what conclusions did it lead them to and to present the information to the Crime Prosecution Service. I think in Russia there was a fascination with the Scotland Yard inquiry, there is a long history of interest in British detectives in the Russian culture. But some of the commentary has been rather swift, I think, in jumping to the conclusion that this was an interstate contest of good versus evil. Well, in fact it is about one man who was murdered and why.
