Britain, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Among the rubble seize the chance of peace in Aleppo

SYRIA

aleppo-rubble

Rubble from destroyed buildings blocks a street in Aleppo. The scene is all too common across the country.

Intro: As Aleppo has been subjected to Russian bombardment over the past two weeks, the city has been left in a condition that can only be described as inhumane and beyond belief

RUSSIA has said that forces loyal to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad are in possession and are controlling a third of the city of Aleppo.

What in fact they are in possession of is a lot of rubble from the devastation that the fighting has caused. The city is almost destroyed and is horrendous for the inhabitants that remain in this besieged city. In Aleppo, very little is left.

The situation has undoubtedly been made far worse since Putin’s forces have stepped in, with their military fighter jets and bombers and their boots on the ground. Russian intervention in Syria has been decisive, hard though it may be for the West to accept. The near annihilation and stomach wrenching images being beamed back from Aleppo is a very clear signal that we have been backing the losing side. That backing was only ever partial and delicately targeted to specific anti-Assad militant groups. There is no political appetite in the West – or in the UK – to increase our military resources that would inevitably lead to a face-off with Russia and Assad’s well equipped forces. We must now accept that the Syrian tyrant has won.

The best we can now do is to persuade the groups who we do back to call a ceasefire and try to end this brutal and destructive war. It has been raging now for more than five years.

As Aleppo has been subjected to Russian bombardment over the past two weeks, the city has been left in a condition that can only be described as inhumane and beyond belief. Hospitals have been flattened, babies have been taken out of their incubators as doctors desperately try to protect them, and aid agencies have been blocked in their task of reaching those most in need with medical and food stocks. About 250,000 people have been left without vital supplies; more than 450,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict to date.

As much as the West may detest the idea of Assad still being in power, we need to convince people to negotiate so that Syria can be rebuilt. This is essential not only for the besieged people of the country, who have had their lives disrupted for so long, but for the whole of Europe and other countries in the Middle East, many of which are struggling to cope with a huge influx of refugees.

This is all we can now hope for.

Standard
Arts, Books, Britain, History

Book Review: ‘The History Thieves’…

BOOK REVIEW

the-history-thieves

In this important new book, Ian Cobain offers a fresh appraisal of some of the key moments in British history since the end of WWII.

THIS carefully written and well-researched book takes deadly aim at the official version of modern British history. During our school years, we are taught that we are a decent and tolerant nation, and that the state does not assassinate its opponents, use torture or commit atrocities. Ian Cobain argues that this picture is both complacent and untrue, and he provides chilling evidence and testimony that the British state has routinely committed appalling crimes. Many of them, he argues, have been fought in wars well away from the public eye.

How many people know, for instance, that it was Britain – not the French or Americans – who launched the Vietnam conflict, airlifting the entire 20th Infantry Division of the British Indian Army to Indo-China in 1945 with orders to suppress a Vietnamese attempt to form their own government?

Who knows, too, about the four-year-long war fought by the British in Indonesia in the Sixties, or the decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Oman on the Arabian Peninsula?

Cobain methodically calculates that British forces have been engaged somewhere in the world every year since at least 1914. Between 1949 and 1970, Britain initiated 34 foreign interventions. No other country, not even Russia or the United States, has such a record.

Yet, for the most part, British people are blithely unaware of any of this. Cobain argues that the reason for their ignorance is a culture of national secrecy more thoroughgoing than that of France or the U.S. He shows that the brutal Oman war went unreported for many years. And when wars did get reported, it was by tame journalists passing on doctored version of events.

Many of these events and wars also remain a mystery to historians. Cobain proves the British authorities have arranged the suppression – or destruction – of documents that portray Britain in a bad light. Thousands of incriminating files have been incinerated or dumped at sea, while others remain hidden in secret archives.

Cobain calls this “an extraordinary ambitious act of history theft”. He maintains “the British state of the late 20th and early 21st century was attempting to protect the reputation of the British state of generations earlier, concealing and manipulating history – sculpting an official narrative – in a manner more associated with a dictatorship than a mature and confident democracy”.

The author explains that the problem is getting worse because of recent legislation pushed through by the Coalition enabling suspects to be tried in secret courts, meaning that defendants do not even know the charges being made against them. The real reason for much of this secrecy, suggests Cobain, is not to ensure justice, but rather to protect the reputation of intelligence officers complicit in crimes such as torture and rendition.

Cobain is an honest and accurate reporter, but there is one serious criticism of the book. It does not give enough voice to the Whitehall figures whose job it is to fight terrorism and make sensitive decisions about British foreign policy.

They have the grave and very difficult task of ensuring atrocities are not carried out on the streets of Britain – and, in recent years, they have been successful in this vital and largely thankless task. Their need to work in secret is all too understandable.

Whilst we have nothing in our recent history comparable to the appalling atrocities committed by the French in Algeria, or the Belgians in the Congo – let alone the mass murders of Stalin, Mao or Hitler – most Britons should continue to believe that we live in a fair and honest country.

Nevertheless, Ian Cobain has written an important book which deserves to change the way we see our recent past. It warns us against complacency, and exposes why we should challenge what we have been taught from a young age.

–     The History Thieves by Ian Cobain is published by Portobello for £20.

Standard
Government, Legal, Society, United Nations

Support for the International Criminal Court is dwindling

THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

icc

Established in 2002 the International Criminal Court has existed for pursuing individuals suspected of having committed serious war crimes. But, now, support for its authority is dwindling.

Intro: Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established in 2002. This became the first permanent institution to bring to book the genocidal warlords who would have previously evaded justice. Its creation was heralded as a bastion for those seeking redress for the most heinous of crimes against humanity.

From the outset, however, the ICC was beset with difficulties. Principle among them has been the refusal of many countries, including the United States and China, to recognise its legitimacy and jurisdiction. Notwithstanding, more than 120 states did sign up; and to date the ICC has issued 39 indictments and concluded proceedings against 17 individuals, of whom three have been convicted. Preliminary investigations are taking place over 10 other conflict situations.

Within the last few days Russia has withdrawn its support for the Rome Treaty that underpins the court’s writ. It has done so in protest at an investigation into alleged atrocities it is said to have committed in Georgia. Moscow’s move follows recent decisions by South Africa, Gambia and Burundi to pull out accusing the court of bias and prejudice in Africa. Russia’s decision could prove to be the high watermark for the ICC as its authority erodes and declines further. Born of a noble ideal, the ICC would appear to be facing serious difficulties. But equally, with Russia cranking up for further military action in Syria, its action cannot be an excuse to carry out war crimes there.

With support for the ICC crumbling, the rationale for pursuing British soldiers for spurious allegations of abuse committed in Iraq is also diminishing. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) was set up ostensibly to avoid an investigation by the ICC, which would step in only if there were clear evidence of systemic abuse. This has not materialised. Hunting war criminals for the barbarity they have left in their wake is one thing; pursuing soldiers for carrying out their duty based on unfounded and malicious allegations is quite another.

 

Standard