Mission & Name
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
Britain's Mad-House, Israel-Controlled Foreign
By Stuart Littlewood
PIC, Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, April 9, 2012
Hague’s threats are costing us dear
Stuart Littlewood highlights Britain’s double standards and
contradictory policies in the Middle East: on the one hand irrational
belligerence and warmongering towards Iran even though this is contrary to
British national interests, and on the other cosying up to and taking its
cue from Israel, a criminal, aggressive state whose behaviour contradicts
British values and interests.
My local MP, Henry Bellingham, is
a Foreign Office minister whose responsibilities include the United Nations,
the International Criminal Court (ICC) and conflict resolution.
take this to mean he's tasked with keeping the British government on the
straight-and-narrow as regards international law, with ensuring dutiful
conformity with the UN's Charter and numerous resolutions, with saving our
warmongering hotheads from the calaboose in The Hague and with treading the
path of peace at all times.
The International Criminal Court is, to
say the least, challenging. The world is crawling with high-ranking war
criminals but the ICC in its 10 year history has delivered only one verdict.
As if to underline the court’s utter uselessness as an instrument of
justice, the ICC prosecutor has just rejected a bid by the Palestinian
Authority to have the war crimes tribunal investigate Israel’s conduct
during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
His excuse is that the status
granted to Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is that
of “observer”, not a “non-member state”. The fact that more than 130
governments and certain international organizations, including United Nation
bodies, recognize Palestine as a state makes no difference.
how quickly the UNGA, with Mr Bellingham’s help, can get their skates on and
straighten out the simple matter of Palestine’s status so that Israel’s
strutting psychopaths can finally be brought to book.
A recent Reuters
sanctions bring unintended, unwanted results”, by their Political Risk
Correspondent Peter Apps, points to Western sanctions against Iran having so
far failed to deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme and
generating instead unexpected side-effects and posing new problems.
In a legal quagmire
It seems to me the consequences of sanctions were entirely predictable.
The expected loss of Iranian crude production has helped push oil prices
to levels seen as threatening the global economy. And expert opinion seems
to be saying that the ratcheting-up of economic pressure is not having the
desired effect but simply increasing Tehran's determination. "While Iranians
may bear the brunt of the economic pain, people around the world are also
feeling the knock-on effects of rising fuel prices that also drive food and
The message received is that whether sanctions work
or not, "it may now be far from easy for Western states to significantly
alter course to reduce or remove the restrictions, even if they want to".
And Rosemary Hollis, head of the Middle Eastern studies programme at
London's City University, is quoted as saying: "The terrible thing is that
this is the moment there might be a possibility to at least begin to make
progress. But we are going to miss it."
The other day NASDAQ carried
a Dow Jones report
saying the head of the US Energy Information Administration had joined a
panel of energy experts in dismissing the idea that a "quick fix" could
reduce US gasoline prices, suggesting instead that rising demand for oil
around the world and supply concerns stemming from Iran sanctions were
driving prices at the pump.
The sanctions, coupled with other
geopolitical events such as Libya's civil war, are a source of "grave
concern" for the oil markets, said Dan Yergin, the chairman of the energy
research organization IHS CERA.
Hague led the charge on oil sanctions
and the imposition of other measures to make economic life a misery. They
are backfiring. So that’s another fine mess the Cameron-Hague foreign policy
mad-house has got us into.
The International Association of
Democratic Lawyers (IADL), in a statement issued 26 November 2011, said it
was deeply concerned about the threats against Iran by Israel, the United
States and the United Kingdom.
Referring to the most recent report of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), IADL stated that:
(1) The threats by Israel, the United States,and the United Kingdom are
unacceptable, and are dangerous not only for all the region but for the
whole of humanity.
(2) Article 2.4 of UN Charter forbids not only the
use of force but also the threat of force in international relations, and
that the right of defence settled by the charter does not include
(3) While Israel is quick to denounce the
possible possession of nuclear weapons by others, it
illegally has had nuclear weapons for many years; and
danger to world peace caused by nuclear weapons is so great as to require
the global eradication of all nuclear weapons, and to immediately declare
the Middle East a nuclear free zone and a zone free of all weapons of mass
destruction, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 687.
What do UN Charter Articles 2.3 and 2.4 actually say?
- All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful
means in such a manner that international peace and security, and
justice, are not endangered", and
- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations".
It sounds crystal clear. What is it about this that Messrs Hague and
Cameron don't understand?
Let's look a little closer at the
settlement of disputes, one of Mr Bellingham’s specialisms. Article 33 of
the UN Charter requires that "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of
which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to
regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means..."
asked the government repeatedly, through Mr Bellingham, what efforts the
foreign secretary made to meet and discuss with Iran's ministers before
resorting to economic “terror’ tactics.
- How many times has a British foreign secretary visited Tehran in the
32 years since the Islamic Revolution?
- Did Mr Hague go and talk before embarking on punitive sanctions?
He remains silent. Communication doesn’t seem to be Mr Hague’s strong
point, except when lecturing. It was Mr Hague's decision to shut down the
British embassy in Tehran and eject the Iranians from London. He had not in
any case maintained a full diplomatic presence in Tehran and the embassy
operated at chargé d'affaires level for several months after the previous
ambassador left. Now we talk to Iran through a third-party country, Germany.
Negotiations in bad faith
So much for his stated desire to improve relations, reach out and
I'm indebted to Dr David
reminding me that in 2003 the foreign ministers of the UK, France and
Germany visited Tehran and initiated discussions with Iran on its nuclear
programme. This of course was pre-Hague. In a statement issued at the time,
the three European Union states said they "recognize the right of Iran to
enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the NPT [Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty]” – i.e. Iran had a right to uranium enrichment on
its own soil like other parties to the NPT. This was repeated and confirmed
at the Paris Agreement in 2004. Iran agreed “on a voluntary basis” to
suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. The three EU
states recognized the suspension as "a voluntary confidence-building measure
and not a legal obligation”.
Still rewarding evil in our name
However, proposals published by the UK,
France and Germany the following year demanded that all enrichment and
related activities on Iranian soil cease for good. In other words, Iran's
voluntary suspension of these activities was to be permanent. What had
happened to the trio's earlier commitment to “recognize the right of Iran to
enjoy peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the NPT”? Was Iran
to be the only party to the NPT forbidden to have uranium enrichment on its
Yes. The West's aim was to halt all enrichment in Iran.
From now on Iran would be treated as a second-class party to the NPT, with
fewer rights than the others.
As for the British
government’s enslavement to Israel, the following statement appears on the
Foreign Office website:
Israel is an important
strategic partner and friend for the UK. The UK and Israel hold a number
of important shared objectives across a broad range of policy areas and
These include: shared regional security concerns,
including diplomatic efforts to deter Iran from pursuing nuclear
weapons; international work to counter anti-Semitism; bilateral defence
cooperation; academic, scientific and cultural partnership; the
promotion of democratic governance, judicial independence and media
freedom; and building and maintaining strong trade and financial links.
Regional security concerns? This cosiness with a rogue military power in
the most explosive region of the world actually undermines our national
Israel’s illegal and murderous blockade of Gaza, its
closure of the West Bank, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the relentless
Judaization of the Holy City, the building of the Apartheid Wall, the
demolition of Palestinian homes and the illegality of the settlements – all
demonstrate the lawlessness of the Israeli regime. In recent months, three
internal EU reports by the EU Heads of Missions in the occupied territories
have detailed shocking human rights violations committed by Israel
for “democratic governance”, the Foreign Office surely knows that Israel
pursues deeply racist policies and there is no such thing as justice for
Palestinians who come before Israeli courts on trumped up charges, or are
detained on no charges at all.
I have visited Holy Land several times
and seen for myself the brutality of the illegal occupation and the human
rights abuses inflicted daily on the Palestinian people. Yet Britain fails
to hold the state of Israel to the same standards of human conduct expected
of the rest of the international community.
“We do not hesitate to
express disagreement to Israel where we feel necessary,” says the Foreign
Office. “Although we do not agree on everything, we enjoy a close and
productive relationship. It is this very relationship that allows us to have
the frank discussions often necessary between friends.” What claptrap. The
UK government takes no action whatever to hold the Israelis to account. On
the contrary, it continues rewarding their endless crime-sprees and recently
relaxed our Universal Jurisdiction laws to protect
Israel’s war criminals from arrest.
It is an outrage that the
British government, which is supposed to work for us the British people,
aligns itself in our name with such evil. This revolting intimacy
with the thugs of the Israeli regime is the scandal of our times. Since 1948
what exactly have those “frank discussions” achieved? Has Israel ended its
illegal occupation and stopped its murderous assaults? No. Has it lifted its
blockade of Gaza and closure of the West Bank? No. Has Israel brought its
huge nuclear arsenal and other weapons of mass destruction under
international inspection and safeguards? No. Is Israel nice to its
And what are the government’s sanctions against Iran
going to achieve? The cruel starvation of another half-a-million children
like before, in Iraq?
In the last 24 hours there has been uproar in
the UK over government plans to snoop on every household’s emails, website
visits and other private online activity. This sneaky intrusion by
officialdom is said to be necessary to the war on terror.
best and cheapest way of protecting our national security is simply to eject
the madmen from the Foreign Office and stop pimping for the US and its