Category Archives: Military

Britain, Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, National Security, Politics, Society, United States

Reconfiguring Defence for reasons of a changed world…

DEFENCE & FUTURE OVERSEAS PARTNERSHIPS

Over the course of the last half-century defence spending has attracted and been a hot issue of contention. This has been brought to the fore in recent times, through government rounds of budget and expenditure reductions. Most notably, the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review and the cuts to overall manning levels to the armed services have brought the issue into sharp focus. Critics argue this has seriously skewed our defence posture and capability towards mammoth (and massively expensive) commitments such as upgrading and maintaining Trident and the development of new aircraft carriers.

Last month, former US defence secretary, Robert Gates, asserted that defence cuts in Britain have left the UK unable to be a ‘full partner’ in future military operations with the United States. As a result of defence cuts, Mr Gates believes that the UK no longer has ‘full-spectrum capabilities’. This, he says, will affect the UK’s ability to be a full partner and will change the dynamics of how operations are conducted in the future. His comments came in the wake of remarks by General Sir Nicholas Houghton, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that manpower is increasingly being perceived as an ‘overhead’ and that Britain’s defence capabilities have been ‘hollowed out’.

It is right that these cuts have been questioned in the UK. The concerns over the knock-on direct and indirect effects on local economies, and the dangers of global military over-stretch, have been well aired. At the same time, however, many have long queried the need for such a large and over-bloated defence budget, particularly when our appetite for overseas engagements in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts has greatly diminished.

The world has changed, too. Britain is certainly not the global power she once was. There is perhaps room for debate on the reasons for this relative decline, but some truths are incontrovertible. The growing focus of global power and wealth from West to East, the profound change in the nature and structure of armed conflict and the threats that we face to our national security are all factors that must enter the equation if we are to explain and account for how the world has changed and how, as a consequence, our influence has declined. Our reduced military capabilities reflect in large part the need to bear down and address our massive budget deficit and public debt. Such considerations have, as Gates himself stated, also forced spending reductions in the US.

But what is also true is that Britain is less committed in performing the role of being an acquiescent subordinate to the United States in international affairs. Widespread disquiet has also stemmed from the ubiquitous relationship that US intelligence has with Britain’s intelligence services and the close links that have existed between America’s National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s communications and listening posts at GCHQ in Cheltenham. In light of these considerations, it is only right and proper that the UK’s military relationship with the US be subject to re-examination.

Public ambivalence is not likely to stop there, either. It should also lead in due course to a more searching examination of Britain’s future commitment to Trident and what justifications there are in keeping a nuclear deterrent. Particularly so, given the changing political landscape in the UK and the very real prospect of Scotland (where Trident and the nuclear deterrent is housed against its will) becoming an independent nation. The referendum for Scottish independence is to be held this year in September.

It may be tempting to compare our defence capacity with what the country was able to sustain in the past and no-doubt some will rue Britain’s reduced capabilities. But the fact remains that the world has changed and with it the shifting balance of global power. It is to the future, not the past, which we should now look in how our overseas partnerships are formed. Britain’s defence arrangements will become a reflection of these changed requirements.

 

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq war crimes denied by the British Government….

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Earlier this month, the human rights lawyers PIL (Public Interest Lawyers) lodged an application with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, said to represent more than 400 Iraqis who have called for an investigation into alleged war crimes carried out by the British Army. The application lodged with the ICC has been made under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

The legal dossier poses serious implications well above those allegations embedded within the document. For example, it seeks to know whether leading figures in the army and UK government should be called to account.

The submission to the ICC refers to ‘thousands of allegations of mistreatment amounting to war crimes of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’. The dossier also alleges that some ‘at the highest levels’ were mostly responsible, including head of the army General Sir Peter Wall and ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon.

Following the lodging of the document with the court Foreign Secretary William Hague was quick in responding with a firm statement that the allegations are either already under investigation or have been dealt with in previous government inquiries and rulings. Mr Hague insists that any bid to prosecute British politicians and senior military figures for alleged war crimes in Iraq should be rejected. The speed with which Mr Hague reacted and contested the claims is perhaps reflective over concerns the UK government has over the potential damage to Britain’s reputation.

Some 11 years on, the political sensitivity of the UK’s involvement makes the prospect of an international criminal court inquiry highly explosive. The government’s defence is that intensive inquiries have already been held at UK level. It says that some cases of abuse have been acknowledged with appropriate levels of compensation paid and apologies offered. An interim report on an extensive inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson was published last month. Rejecting the allegations of systematic abuses the Foreign Secretary said that the British armed forces ‘uphold high standards and they are the finest armed forces in the world’.

Related:

Yet, there are two problems here for the government. The first is the increasing importance accorded to human rights in international relations. While such investigations into military operations in theatres of war have been questioned on the premise that they would underestimate the intense dangers and pressures which troops were operating under, concerns over human rights abuses has grown. The UK is a signatory to international human rights conventions.

The second problem is that there is a long history of domestic inquiries into the conduct of military operations that were subsequently found to have been inadequately deficient or incomplete. Any external investigation by an international court would spark concern within the Ministry of Defence, which has presided over numerous errors and shortcomings.

What is more, a failure to enforce compliance with the rules of war would be a grave allegation for the MoD to face. But unless such compliance is enforced from the top down with the level of robustness needed, such charges are only likely to be repeated.

Standard
Britain, Government, Iraq, Legal, Military, Society

Iraq: ‘Single inquiry called for over British abuse allegations’…

Intro: On February 8, 2010, the writer penned an article that was visited several thousand times over by interested readers. That article is reproduced here:

ABUSE CLAIMS

A SENIOR JUDGE has told ministers to consider opening an independent inquiry into all allegations of abuse made by Iraqi civilians against the British Army. The move could lead to the biggest investigation into military malpractice ever heard in Britain.

Mr Justice Silbert, in a note written to counsel acting for Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, has told the Government:

… ‘My provisional view is that I am uncertain what is to be gained by the Secretary of State continuing to contest these claims for investigation.’

The judge, who is responsible for the management of claims before the court, says he is concerned about the cost to the taxpayer of hearing 46 outstanding individual cases, and the likely impact this would have on the resources of the High Court. It is estimated that the cases will take a decade to go through the courts at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer and warns that not holding an independent single inquiry could lead to a “further waste of valuable court time”.

Mr Justice Silber says the Ministry of Defence has already shown itself to be “unable to give proper disclosure” in the case of the Battle of Danny Boy in 2004 in southern Iraq, where it is alleged that British soldiers murdered Iraqi civilians.

The judge’s note emerged at the same time as the Government was served with the first claim of abuse brought by an Iraqi woman.

Samahir Abbas Hashim, (32), six months pregnant at the time of the alleged assault, claims she was so badly beaten by British soldiers that she lost her baby.

At 2am, on 21 June 2006, Mrs Hashim says she was sleeping with her children on the roof of her home in Al-Zubayr, Basra. Her husband was sleeping downstairs.

She alleges she awoke to the sound of a large explosion which blasted open the front door of her house and heard British soldiers running inside, shortly after. Some of them pinned her husband to the ground while others rushed to the roof top where she had been sleeping. Mrs Hashim says she was frightened and rushed to protect her youngest child. At this point, she declares, a female British soldier kicked her in the back. As a result, she says, she suffered a miscarriage the next day.

Lawyers acting for Mrs Hashim have written to the Ministry of Defence claiming that her case is clear evidence of “systematic and gratuitous abuse and degradation of Iraqi women by British forces”. Further allegations have been made in eight other cases brought by husbands and relatives of women who say they have been assaulted. The allegations include claims that British troops subjected Iraqi prisoners to rape, sexual humiliation and torture.

Public Interest Lawyers, a firm which is representing 66 Iraqis in 46 separate cases, argues that the Government must hold a single inquiry into the UK’s detention policy in south-eastern Iraq.

…’There are so many cases and so many have so much in common – similar allegations at similar facilities, often involving the same people. We can’t have these dragged out over 10 or 15 years. This is the only rational option.’

..

TWO public inquiries have already been launched. The first, into the death of hotel worker, Baha Mousa, (26), in British military custody in September 2003, began hearing evidence last July. It is looking specifically at how ‘prisoner-handling techniques’ banned by the Government in 1972 – including hooding, food and water deprivation and painful “stress positions” – came to be used in Iraq.

And, in November, the Ministry of Defence announced details of a second inquiry into allegations that Hamid Al-Sweady, (19), and up to 19 other Iraqis were unlawfully killed and others ill-treated at a British base in May 2004 after the Battle of Danny Boy.

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, has so far resisted calls for a public inquiry into the treatment of detainees by British forces. However, an MoD spokesperson said that Government lawyers were actively looking at complying with the wishes of the Iraqis.

On the claim being made by Mrs Hashim, Mr Rammell said:

… ‘The MoD recently received a letter alleging the abuse of an Iraqi woman, but has not yet been given any evidence. Abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated, as this one will be, and – where proven – those responsible are punished. However, these are allegations and must not be taken as fact.’

Standard