Official: 'Reckless' to sail in international waters Britain’s foreign secretary David Miliband - or rather, a henchman on his behalf – has written to me about the government’s response to Israel’s hijacking of the mercy ship Spirit of Humanity on the high seas and the outrageous treatment of six peace-loving British citizens (including the skipper), en route to Gaza not Israel, who had their gear stolen or damaged and were thrown into Israeli jails. The letter contains the usual wet and meaningless expressions like deplore and press and raise the issue, which are the familiar hallmark of Foreign Office mentality.
And I’m told it is "reckless" to travel in international waters. It should, of course, be safe – and would be if the high and mighty Western allies, always talking big against terror, were to enforce maritime law and rid the Eastern Mediterranean of marauding Israeli pirates.
Miliband’s spokesman says: "The Israeli Navy took control of the Spirit of Humanity on 30 June, diverting it to Ashdod port in Israel. All those on board, including six British nationals, were handed over to Israeli immigration officials. British consular officials had good access to the British detainees and established that they were treated well. The Israeli authorities deported the detainees on 6 July."
Treated well? That’s not what the peaceful seafarers say. They were assaulted, put in fear of their lives and deprived of their liberty for fully a week - a long time in a stinking Israeli jail.
Miliband’s spokesman: "The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons on 30 June that it was 'vital that all states respect international law, including the law of the sea. It is also important to say that we deplore the interference by the Israeli navy in the activities of Gazan fishermen'."
Such fine words. Where is the action to back them up? Gaza’s fishermen suffer increasingly unjust restrictions and are still fired on.
Miliband’s spokesman: "When the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on 1 July he raised the issue with him and asked for clarification about whether or not the Spirit of Humanity had been intercepted in international waters. We will continue to press the Israeli authorities for clarification."
It's well over a week and Lieberman hasn't clarified anything. There’s a surprise! Was the Israeli ambassador in London summoned and given a dressing down? Has London demanded compensation for the Britishers’ losses and damage? Has the boat and its cargo been returned? Have arrangements been made for the aid to be delivered? Our Zionist-leaning government apparently takes pleasure in Britain’s repeated humiliation. Not long ago the British consul-general in Tel Aviv (a woman) was strip-searched by Israeli security perverts.
Miliband’s spokesman: "We regularly remind the Israeli government of its obligations under international law on a variety of issues, including with respect to humanitarian access to Gaza as well as Israel's control of Gazan waters and the effect this has on Gaza's fishing industry."
Ever get the feeling they've switched off their collective hearing aid? What is the point of obligations if they never have to be met? Miliband and the rest should hang their heads in shame, particularly over the Gaza fishing scandal.
Miliband’s spokesman: "As I said on the phone, our Travel Advice makes clear that we advise against all travel to Gaza, including its offshore waters; that it is reckless to travel to Gaza at this time; and that medical and other essential specialist staff needing to travel to Gaza should coordinate their entry to Gaza with the major international humanitarian organisations already on the ground."
Why does London perpetuate the blockade of Gaza by colluding in Israel’s unlawful conduct? Where are the consequences and penalties for breaching international law and all codes of human decency?
On the other point, Gaza's Ministry of Health is surely best placed to know what's needed.
Miliband’s spokesman: "Our Embassy in Tel Aviv and our Consulate General in Jerusalem have also similarly advised those wishing to deliver humanitarian assistance to Gaza to do so through existing humanitarian organisations which can advise, particularly with regards to medicines, [and] which items if any are currently required."
Private suppliers should be free to deliver aid through whatever channels they wish.
Miliband’s spokesman: "The UK has been unequivocal in its calls for Israel to lessen restrictions at the Gaza crossings, allowing the legitimate flow of humanitarian aid, trade and reconstruction goods and the movement of people. This is essential not only for the people of Gaza, but also for the wider stability of the region."
“Unequivocal”? “Essential”? More splendid but empty words. The needs of the crushed and devastated and half-starved people of Gaza have been urgent for 3 years, ever since Britain ganged up with the Zionist axis to bring Gaza to its knees.
Miliband’s spokesman: "Recent events in Gaza are a tragic reminder of the importance of progress on the peace process."
No kidding....... They are also a tragic reminder of the West's perverse failure in its duty to enforce compliance with international law, human rights and UN resolutions.
Miliband’s spokesman: "The UK, with the support of our international allies, will continue to pursue vigorously a comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution, involving a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state."
But never vigorously enough. The world is still waiting after sixty-one years. And let's change those worn-out words around. How does a secure Palestine alongside a viable Israel sound?
Britain and its allies need to try a new tack… like first establishing the rule of international law and forcibly breaking the siege. It’s so blindingly obvious.
Meanwhile, doesn’t the gut-churning, cowardly shambles that is Gaza make you proud to be British? Or American? Or European?
Iraq: The dirty 'racket' of petro-politicsA speech made 75 years ago by a U.S. Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler, helps put today’s belated Iraq war inquiry, promised by the British government, into proper context.
”There are only two things we should fight for,” said Butler. “One is the defence of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket…
“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service… I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
"I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
For nearly a hundred years the West has had designs on Iraq’s oil, the U.S. State Department describing the oil deposits in the Middle East as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history”. So anyone who still thinks the Iraq war had nothing to do with the oil “racket” hasn’t been paying attention.
First in was Britain. In 1912 the Turkish Petroleum Company was set up. Owned 50 per cent by Anglo-Persian Oil (in which the British Government had a controlling interest) and 25 per cent by Shell, it secured concessions in the Ottoman Provinces of Baghdad and Mosul – later to become part of Iraq.
When Turkey sided with Germany in 1914, the British Army moved to protect these potential oilfields, occupying Basra and capturing Baghdad. At close of play in 1918 our forces occupied most of the region, and the League of Nations subsequently granted Britain the mandate for Iraq and Palestine.
The world’s second largest oil reserves were practically in our pocket. But we couldn’t resist double-crossing the Arabs…and in the end lost everything.
When the Kurds of northern Iraq showed resentment at being part of ‘British Mesopotamia’ the RAF bombed them. Wing-Commander Arthur Harris – ‘Bomber’ Harris, who later fire-bombed Dresden and other German cities – boasted: “The Arab and the Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within 45 minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”
In crushing the ‘Revolution of 1920’ we killed or wounded 9,000 Iraqis. Villages were destroyed by British artillery and rebel suspects shot without trial. Our methods earned undying hatred. But who cared with all that oil in the offing?
In 1921 Britain set up a sham constitutional monarchy and imported Feisal to sit on the throne. We pulled the strings. Then we OK’d the dropping of bombs and gas to quell the Kurds again. Lord Thompson described the effects as “appalling”.
Turkish Petroleum’s first well, near Kirkup, came on stream in 1927. America demanded a piece of the action, and by 1928 the shareholders consisted of Anglo-Persian (later BP), Shell (largely British), CFP (French) and the Near East Development Corporation (representing five large American oil companies), each with 23.7 per cent. Mr ‘Five Percent’ Gulbenkian held the rest.
The Iraqis, guaranteed a 20 per cent stake, were cheated. Their attempts to participate in their own oil business were successfully resisted by greedy western oilmen who didn’t want any interference. Turkish Petroleum, re-named the Iraq Petroleum Company and with two subsidiaries, Mosul Petroleum and Basra Petroleum, had stitched up a monopoly of the country’s oil and the Brits were in the happy position of controlling nearly half of it.
The Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 1930 paved the way for “independence” on condition that Britain retained air bases and influence over Iraq’s affairs. But it wasn’t long before such meddling outlived its welcome and everything started going downhill.
Resentment boiled for many long years. In 1958 things turned very nasty when the ’14 July Revolution’ swept away the despised monarchy in a vicious army revolt. The royal family were shot and a republic was declared, headed by General Qasim who had received some of his training in Britain.
The U.S.-British response was to plan a joint invasion, but it was called off because “nobody could be found in Iraq to collaborate with”.
The Ba’ath party and other extremists formed assassination squads. Conditions would soon be ripe for the emergence of a psychopathic hoodlum like Saddam, and the first we hear of him is his botched attempt to bump off Qasim.
After a series of murderous coups and counter-coups, Qasim’s government was out and the Ba’athists were in. For the timebeing they strengthened links with America, which was suspected of backing the coups. The CIA supplied intelligence on Communists and radicals to be rounded up. 149 were officially executed and up to 5,000 murdered.
Now second-in-command, Saddam created a sinister state apparatus that would eliminate all opposition and keep the Ba’athists in power.
Iraqi oil was nationalized in 1973, a move that marked the end of the road for UK and U.S. companies, which together had held a three-quarters share in oil production. From now on the Iraqis would turn to French and Russian partners.
Saddam became president in 1979 and immediately launched a war on neighbouring Iran that lasted eight years. He used poison gas against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians and there wasn’t a murmur of protest from Western governments. Afterwards John Kelly, the U.S. assistant secretary of sate, visited Baghdad to tell Saddam: “You are a force of moderation in the region, and the U.S. wants to broaden her relationship with Iraq.”
Did the U.S. simply want Iraq as a friendly buffer against Iran, which had ousted the American-backed Shah and was no longer susceptible to the usual diplomatic pressures? Hardly. In 1999 General Anthony Zinni, chief of the U.S. Central Command, testified to Congress that the huge oil reserves in the Gulf region were a “vital interest” for the United States, and the U.S. “must have free access to the region’s resources”.
Free access means, of course, military and economic control. In other words, America would stop at nothing to secure future energy resources and strategic leverage.
Faced with Iraq insiders like France and Russia, as well as hopeful onlookers like China, Germany and Japan, what could the U.S. and Britain do to tip the balance and scoop the pool? Answer: resort to military intervention in pursuit of regime change, provided that a plausible excuse could be found.
Prime minister Gordon Brown initially said the inquiry into the Iraq war would not point the finger of blame. Now, after accusations of a whitewash, it may do so if it wishes. The angry public want it to. They wish to see the vile racketeers dangling from the lamp-posts on London Bridge.
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন