The UK government’s decision to authorize the export to Syria last year of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent embodies London’s hypocrisy in the ongoing conflict, Angus Robertson, MP from the Scottish National Party, told RT.

The alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria on August 21 was the  basis of a UK parliamentary vote which failed to support British  military intervention.

Members of all major parties defied Prime Minister David Cameron  on Thursday in rejecting action against the Assad regime in  Syria. However a British company was granted export licenses for  the dual-use substances potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride  for six months in 2012 which underscores London’s confused policy  towards Syria, Robertson argues.

RT: So what steps do you want to see happen to ensure  this matter is investigated further?

Angus Robertson: The British government has given an  explanation that an export license was granted for the export of  chemicals which were supposedly bound for a company based in  Syria that was involved in manufacturing processes which would  require chemicals like that. I’m still concerned, however,  because of course the export licenses were issued at a time when  the situation in Syria had already deteriorated, and this issue  has just been raised in the House of Parliament, which your  viewers will be able to see behind me, during defense questions,  where defense ministers had to explain why it was that the UK  would even consider granting an export license.

There’s also a parallel development to this, which is that  ministers are having to acknowledge that the UK trained senior  Assad military officers in the UK over a number of years. Now,  both of these cases show, to me, and utter inconsistency on the  basis of decisions that have been taken here in London. I think  it’s quite right here to draw attention to the appalling record  of the Assad government, however, UK government decisions over  the years show that they have been willing to work with that  government. I think that frankly smacks of hypocrisy.  

A woman mourning over a body wrapped in shrouds laid out in a line on the ground with other victims which Syrian rebels claim were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013.

RT: We've just seen a statement which the Department  for Business, Skills and Innovation sent us. They say the  recipient proved the chemicals were for civilian use - and  licenses were revoked when sanctions hit Syria. So how would you  comment on that?

Angus Robertson: We comment on the fact that the UK rescinded the  export licenses when the European Union told the UK to do it. So  thank goodness for the European Union intervening. Frankly, the  problem is that the UK was prepared to grant an export license in  the first place. Of course the UK has form in this sort of thing,  being prepared to sell military hardware and other things that  can be used for the production of weapons and in this case,  chemicals which could in circumstances be used to produce  chemical weapons. And we do have to ask ourselves why, with a  situation having already deteriorated so badly, was even prepared  to grant an export license where these chemicals do have the  potential [for] dual use; yes, for manufacturing purposes, but  also for the production of chemical weapons.

RT: We don't know who actually received these  chemicals. Could the Syrian rebels have got hold of them and used  them to make the sarin gas themselves?

Angus Robertson: Goodness me, it is impossible to tell from this  distance but I think in this particular case, I think the UK  government has confirmed the circumstances in which the export  license was issued, but have also said that the export itself did  not take place. So the chemicals themselves did not make their  way to Syria, that is, at least what we’re being told and I have  no reason to doubt that. I think it is important to get to the  bottom of this, that’s why these questions are being asked, and  their being asked from good people in different political  parties. My party, for what it’s worth, is one of those  reflecting the great majority of opinion, both in Scotland and  the rest of the UK who are deeply skeptical about involving  ourselves in the dreadful situation on the ground in Syria and  exacerbating the situation. I think we are very focused on  wanting to ensure that there should be an initiative that brings  all of the belligerents to the negotiating table, and in this  regard it really is down to all countries that are able to  exercise influence on the differences sides in the conflict and  of course, the United States and the UK are on that list, but so  is Russia and so is Iran. So I would use this opportunity on to appeal to all countries that have influence  to focus on trying to move things forward on a diplomatic and  agreed basis and also work even harder to try and ameliorate the  awful humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and in the neighboring  countries for so many of the literally hundreds of thousands of  displaced people who’ve had to leave this terrible war.

SOURCE: RT