Category Archives: Britain

Afghanistan, Britain, Defence, Government, Human Rights, Military

Anger as RAF airmen gloat over dead bodies of Taliban fighters…

RAF POLICE & MILITARY INVESTIGATION

Two British servicemen from the RAF Regiment have been withdrawn from the frontline in Afghanistan and returned to Britain. Damning photographs apparently showing airmen posing in a glorified manner next to the bloodstained body of a Taliban fighter are now being investigated after images were brought to the attention of the Military Police.

In one graphic picture, a grinning serviceman gives a thumbs-up as he crouches beside a body. Trails of blood, seemingly from the man’s wounds, can be seen beside him.

Other photographs show more bodies of insurgents and there are concerns that the images could be used for recruitment and propaganda by the Taliban in the months leading up to the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan later this year.

Described by some as being grotesque, others have been quick in condemning the apparent ‘stupidity’ of the airmen which they say has handed the Taliban a tool to beat the remaining British troops with prior to their departure from this war-torn country.

The photographs were taken after a Taliban attack on the main British base at Camp Bastion in September 2012, while Prince Harry was deployed to fly Apache attack helicopters.

A group of 15 Taliban fighters wearing stolen US military uniforms crept towards the camp, which was ringed by a 30ft metal fence and barbed-wiring. They cut through the wire and destroyed aircraft situated on the ground inside the camp, vehicles and equipment.

A three-hour gun battle then raged involving 50 British troops, some of whom have been decorated for bravery. Two US Marines were killed and 16 troops – eight US and eight British – were injured. Of the 15 insurgents, 14 were killed and one captured.

It is two of these Taliban bodies and the actions of two members of the RAF Regiment that are now at the centre of the hugely sensitive inquiry. The airmen are from 51 Squadron RAF Regiment, currently based in Moray, Scotland.

The Ministry of Defence said the images came to its attention last month and that military police are now investigating.

Two of the photographs appear to show British airmen giving the thumbs-up but it is unclear whether it is the same man. Defence officials said there was no excuse for such behaviour. Contrary to all instructions, these appear to break military rules.

The RAF insists it has a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ on the mistreatment of deceased enemy personnel. The incident is now the subject of an ongoing RAF Police investigation.

A spokesperson for Amnesty International, said: ‘These pictures are appalling. They violate international humanitarian law standards, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the disrespectful and degrading treatment of the bodies of dead combatants.’

The photographs emerged following the conviction of Sergeant Alexander Blackman, a Royal Marine, for executing a seriously wounded Taliban prisoner. The 39-year-old shot the captive in the chest at close range with his 9mm pistol.

Controversially, Sergeant Blackman is serving a minimum of ten years in prison after becoming the first British serviceman to be found guilty of murder in a war zone since the Second World War.

Blackman killed the insurgent on September 15, 2011. Recordings from a helmet-mounted camera worn by a fellow Royal Marine captured the moments when Blackman shot the prisoner.

OPINION

The unedifying sight of a British airman doing the thumbs-up next to the dead corpse has understandably provoked widespread anger. For civilians the images offer an uncomfortable position between death and glee. Such actions fall short of the respect demanded in the articles of the Geneva Conventions for the bodies of enemy combatants.

Laid before you above are the events that transpired on the evening of September 14, 2012, in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. 15 Taliban fighters dressed in US Army uniforms started their attack at 10pm, cutting through the perimeter wire of the base and opened fire with assault rifles and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs). The firefight that ensued lasted for several hours and, by the end of it, six RAF Harrier jets were burnt out and destroyed, two Marines were dead, and a dozen more British and American soldiers were injured. All but one of the Taliban fighters was dead.

The attack that night was, undoubtedly, one of the most shocking incidents of the Afghan war since deployment began in 2001. The attack revealed culpable security lapses in the running of the camp, and the RAF airmen instantly caught up in it must have been terrified yet exhilarated to be alive. It is apt to point out that many defending the base that evening were decorated for bravery.

Two of them, however, did something in bad taste, by posing victoriously next to an enemy corpse. Such folly has been compounded and made much worse as the images have appeared online, provoking outrage as the pictures could be used as a propaganda weapon against Western forces as they prepare to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year. A ‘selfie’ type culture which has now stemmed into the battlefield seems certain to be at the centre of the military police investigation, and how it ever came to pass publicly.

Opinions will vary as to the extent of the damage caused and what action should be taken. We should trust, though, that a sense of proportion is retained. Young men have found themselves in extreme danger given the perilous circumstances of the moment and were sent there at the behest of our government.

But the difficulty will be in a matter of interpretation. Whilst Camp Bastion is not Abu Ghraib, in which US guards pictured themselves degrading Iraqi prisoners, the British authorities seem likely to draw parallels. Having survived the attack the airmen clearly would have felt euphoric, but the reality of war – including the rogue emotions that accompany killing and survival – does not always chime with civilian sensitivities.

  • The images concerned will not be posted on this site.
Standard
Britain, Economic, Europe, European Union, Financial Markets, G7, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine: Imposing tougher sanctions on Russia is needed…

UKRAINE

Intro: Sanctions, if stringent enough, could bring pressure to bear on Vladimir Putin

A strongly worded statement by the heads of the G7 leading nations condemning Russia for provoking civil unrest in eastern Ukraine was met with pro-Russian militias kidnapping eight international observers. The statement given, largely as a result of diplomatic protocol, said the G7 leaders ‘have now agreed that we will move swiftly to impose additional sanctions on Russia’. But the response of the pro-Russian activists and gunmen seems to be illustrating the clear ineffectiveness of applying any kind of western sanctions policy on the ground.

Some may well argue that to be the case. We should, however, be clear. Sanctions, if stringent enough, could bring pressure to bear on Vladimir Putin. Pragmatically, there is a limit to what the United States and the European Union can actually achieve.  The guarantors of Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity are not only down to the wishes of the western axis and what they hope for, but also of Russia given its close historical connections in so many different ways that it has with the country.

Travel bans on Russian officials and other minor irritations imposed on Russia are so far much weaker than they could have been, and on this a dichotomy of reasons has been laid bare. On the positive side, a reason for the less than tenuous sanctions applied will be that much of the EU, including Germany, is wholly dependent on Russian gas. Though there has been talk of the US diverting some of its rich supplies of shale gas to Europe in reducing this dependence, to instigate such an operation has neither been practical nor affordable.

On the downside, the reasons are perhaps cowardly. Governments, for instance, including our own, have been sensitive to business lobbying, particularly from those Russian oligarchs who would be severely punished if sanctions were tightened. Last month, a government document was caught on camera by a photographer as an official of the British government was about to enter Downing Street. It suggested that the UK should ‘not support, for now, trade sanctions … or close London’s financial centre to Russians.’

The G7 statement was notable for its absence to specify in detail what ‘additional sanctions’ might or could be. Yet, whilst not mere cowardice that has prompted EU governments to hold back from tougher measures, there is a principled argument, albeit slightly cynical, that Mr Putin is doing so much damage to the Russian economy through his own actions that he needs no help from the West in making it any worse. Mr Putin’s nationalist adventurism has certainly seriously eroded his country’s economic interests. Indeed, if trade and other financial sanctions were imposed, it would allow the Russian president to blame ‘the West’ for Russia’s hardship rather than his own folly.

The problem for Mr Putin now is whether he realises that he is biting off more than he can chew. If he tries to assimilate populations into Russia who do not want to be assimilated he will only add to Moscow’s predicament and costs. Although the West should not have accepted Crimea’s annexation without a fight, its population is mostly Russian. Eastern Ukraine is entirely different; the region is quite against Russia’s interest to incite separatism there.

The historical cynic would no-doubt quote Napoleon and say that the West should not interrupt their enemy when he is making a mistake of this magnitude. Financial markets, for example, have already downgraded Russia’s credit rating to just above junk status. Mr Putin’s assertion of Russian power may have won him the support of his domestic audience at home meantime, but this could well change once the bills start arriving.

Given that Mr Putin’s rhetoric is already turned-up against the West, blaming the fall of Ukraine’s government on US and NATO-backed ‘fascist elements’, the notion that Britain, the EU and the US should hold back for fear that the Russian leader would blame us fails to persuade. Sanctions do not always work, that’s true. But they can work, and there is no other option open to those protagonists who support Ukraine’s independence and integrity. Now that Moscow’s proxies have started to abduct and hold hostage international observers, harsher economic pressure remains the best hope of bringing Vladimir Putin to his senses. There is no good reason for not upping the ante on Russia.

Standard
Britain, European Union, Foreign Affairs, Government, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine: Any further acts of Russian aggression must be dealt with by the West…

FEARS OF AN ESCALATION IN UKRAINE

The warning by John Kerry, US Secretary of State, that Russia is actively seeking to destabilise yet more of Ukraine – with a view to staging another Crimea-style military intervention – increases significantly the prospects of a deeper escalation inside the country. Mr Kerry has directly accused the Kremlin of using provocateurs and undercover agents to encourage pro-Russian activists to seize control of key cities in the eastern part of the country. This is a view equally shared by William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, who claims the latest flare-up in violence bears ‘all the hallmarks of a Russian strategy to destabilise Ukraine’.

Given the evidence, these warnings need to be taken seriously. Pro-Moscow activists have attempted to occupy government buildings in eastern cities such as Donetsk, Kharkiv and Lugansk. Similar tactics were employed by Moscow in the build-up to last month’s illegal annexation of Crimea. It is also known that the FSB, Russia’s overseas intelligence service, is active in the region, with its agents encouraging ethnic Russians to revolt against the Ukrainian government. The interpretation by Secretary of State Kerry is that Vladimir Putin is no doubt seeking to lay the foundations for a broader intervention aimed at annexing more of Ukraine’s territory.

The West needs to make clear that it will not tolerate any further occupation of European soil by the Kremlin. The seizing of Crimea led to a fairly limited response from the US and EU, through the targeting of assets of a small group of government officials and oligarchs, due to accusations that they had orchestrated the operation. Any further acts of aggression, however, by Moscow towards its vulnerable neighbour should result in Western powers implementing a broad range of sanctions and penalties. That would not only inflict severe damage on the Russian economy, but deepen Moscow’s status as an international pariah.

Standard