I was in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office for over 20 years and a member of its senior management structure for six years, I served in five countries and took part in 13 formal international negotiations, including the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and a whole series of maritime boundary treaties. I headed the FCO section of a multidepartmental organisation monitoring the arms embargo on Iraq.
I am an instinctively friendly, open but unassuming person who always found it easy to get on with people, I think because I make fun of myself a lot. I have in consequence a great many friends among ex-colleagues in both British and foregin diplomatic services, security services and militaries.
I lost very few friends when I left the FCO over torture and rendition. In fact I seemed to gain several degrees of warmth with a great many acquantances still on the inside. And I have become known as a reliable outlet for grumbles, who as an ex-insider knows how to handle a discreet and unintercepted conversation.
What I was being told last night was very interesting indeed. NATO HQ in Brussels is today a very unhappy place. There is a strong understanding among the various national militaries that an attack by Israel on a NATO member flagged ship in international waters is an event to which NATO is obliged – legally obliged, as a matter of treaty – to react.
I must be plain – nobody wants or expects military action against Israel. But there is an uneasy recognition that in theory that ought to be on the table, and that NATO is obliged to do something robust to defend Turkey.
Mutual military support of each other is the entire raison d’etre of NATO. You must also remember that to the NATO military the freedom of the high seas guaranteed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a vital alliance interest which officers have been conditioned to uphold their whole career.
That is why Turkey was extremely shrewd in reacting immediately to the Israeli attack by calling an emergency NATO meeting. It is why, after the appalling US reaction to the attack with its refusal to name Israel, President Obama has now made a point of phoning President Erdogan to condole.
But the unhappiness in NATO HQ runs much deeper than that, I spoke separately to two friends there, from two different nations. One of them said NATO HQ was “a very unhappy place”. The other described the situation as “Tense – much more strained than at the invasion of Iraq”.
Why? There is a tendency of outsiders to regard the senior workings of governments and international organisations as monolithic. In fact there are plenty of highly intelligent – and competitive – people and diverse interests involved.
There are already deep misgivings, especially amongst the military, over the Afghan mission. There is no sign of a diminution in Afghan resistance attacks and no evidence of a clear gameplan. The military are not stupid and they can see that the Karzai government is deeply corrupt and the Afghan “national” army comprised almost exclusively of tribal enemies of the Pashtuns.
You might be surprised by just how high in Nato scepticism runs at the line that in some way occupying Afghanistan helps protect the west, as opposed to stoking dangerous Islamic anger worldwide.
So this is what is causing frost and stress inside NATO. The organisation is tied up in a massive, expensive and ill-defined mission in Afghanistan that many whisper is counter-productive in terms of the alliance aim of mutual defence. Every European military is facing financial problems as a public deficit financing crisis sweeps the continent. The only glue holding the Afghan mission together is loyalty to and support for the United States.
But what kind of mutual support organisation is NATO when members must make decades long commitments, at huge expense and some loss of life, to support the Unted States, but cannot make even a gesture to support Turkey when Turkey is attacked by a non-member?
Even the Eastern Europeans have not been backing the US line on the Israeli attack. The atmosphere in NATO on the issue has been very much the US against the rest, with the US attitude inside NATO described to me by a senior NATO officer as “amazingly arrogant – they don’t seem to think it matters what anybody else thinks”.
Therefore what is troubling the hearts and souls of non-Americans in NATO HQ is this fundamental question. Is NATO genuinely a mutual defence organisation, or is it just an instrument to carry out US foreign policy? With its unthinking defence of Israel and military occupation of Afghanistan, is US foreign policy really defending Europe, or is it making the World less safe by causing Islamic militancy?
I leave the last word to one of the senior NATO officers – who incidentally is not British:
“Nobody but the Americans doubts the US position on the Gaza attack is wrong and insensitve. But everyone already quietly thought the same about wider American policy. This incident has allowed people to start saying that now privately to each other.”
Craig Murray is a former British Ambassador. He is also a former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK’s current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.
Reviews of Craig Murray’s War on Terror Memoir, “Murder in Samarkand” – published in the US as “Dirty Diplomacy”:
“It really is a magnificent achievement” – Noam Chomsky
“A fearless book by a fearless man. Craig Murray tells the truth whether the “authorities” like it or not. I salute a man of integrity” – Harold Pinter
“And I am no more of a conspiracy theorist than you with your unsubstantiated belief about 19 Muslims.”
So do you believe that the Jews did it, or was it George Bush and Dick Cheney and super-secret thermite paint?
What the hell is wrong with Britain that you people can’t seem to think cogently? Is it the religious schooling? Is it being told by the State about Abraham and Jesus and all that?
“amazingly arrogant – (The USA) don’t seem to think it matters what anybody else thinks”.
It doesn’t.
I never had any Doubt that Excellency Craig Murray belongs to the class of great Humanist. Yes he is 100% right. Can democratic value survive when people, societies, and governments do not care about the legality, ethics, public opinion? Can an Empire survive if it is not just in its international relations?
Can wrong be stronger than the right?
Many empires and civilizations have faded into the history and thus the system will keep on working. Israel already thing of the past and has only its nuisance value. The state is bound to fail. Because truth and right is always stronger than the Wrong and Lies.
I have shifted to Afghanistan and now have already started working for the welfare of the Afghan nation.
What is needed most is support for those Jews like Norman Finkelstein, who are willing to speak the truth. To often whimpish European Governments leave those within the Jewish community who are incensed by the behavior of the Israelis and Zionists out on a limb.
Redders, your blog is really fascinating – your life-story and all, I’ll check out more later. It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Yes, Glenn, I agree, the desperation is clear for everyone to see.
Alfred:
Obama wanted a freeze on Israeli building in Jerusalem. Netanyahu announced new building when Biden was visiting: that is a diplomatic slight. Obama responded (weakly) by slighting Bibi on the latter’s visit.
I’ve already said there’s a difference on Iran.
Even if US and Israeli foreign policy were literally indistinguishable (domestic policy is VERY distinguishable – Israel has state health care) that still wouldn’t be evidence that they are run by the same group. That would be a bizarre arrangement, unprecedented in world history and there is no mechanism for it. Exceptional ideas require exceptional evidence.
We already know why the US is so close to Israel:
1. Jewish American Zionist lobbyists
2. Christian Zionist lobbyists
3. Military industrial complex
4. Post Cold War inertia: Israel used to be an actual US asset
5. In-group bias: Israel is culturally much more like the US than its Islamic neighbours
6. The propaganda efficacy of the “Jews are always the victims” narrative based on centuries of persecution ending with the Holocaust, and the efficacy of screaming “anti-Semite!” at anyone who criticises a Jew.
There is no need to imagine an invisible hand. Remember Occam’s Razor?
You wrote this in your first post:
“Some people would distinguish between Jews and Zionists … Jews who don’t wish to be associated with Zionism should find another religion.
So I am sorry, but it is Jews who rule, although it is the Zionists who run the project, which works as follows.
The same Zionist power brokers control both Israel and the United States.”
So yes, you DID say Jews run the US and Israel.
Larry:
“I do a fair amount of related reading, and I’m still waiting to read a Jew exploiting the Holocaust as a reason to justify Israel’s existence or policies”
Anyone who screams “anti-Semite!” at any and all critics of Israel is exploiting the Holocaust. And that happens a lot. Even Jews like Finkelstein and Chomsky get that treatment.
Hey Suhayl Saadi & Redderes, the dear green place is my home town too, but now I live in Engerland, well sort of – Scouseland.
This blog is a great net meeting place.
Good on yer, Craig…….
“Anyone who screams “anti-Semite!” at any and all critics of Israel is exploiting the Holocaust.”
And when the fuck does that happen?
It’s more like this:
British left-wing nut / American right-wing nut: “The Jews did 911”
Me: “That’s just plain anti-Semitic”
Nut: “You see! You can’t criticize Israel without being called anti-Semitic!”
There are some very hateful things written at this blog about Jews and Israel. That’s a bit different from the extremely legitimate criticism of Israel that one encounters in places other than this blog.
“Is NATO genuinely a mutual defence organisation, or is it just an instrument to carry out US foreign policy?”
Clearly it is not a mutual defence organisation as its principle activity is offence. It is worth noting that NATO has not only been an instrument of US foreign policy but also of US domestic policy – Clinton found it useful to start a war to boost his electoral prospects at home.
Back to NATO, here’s an interesting piece;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19360
Larry,
Which other blogs do you inhabit?….
Please enlighten us to your net presence? (I never understood why you hang around here, what with all the stuff that agravates you so much…………)
Just keeping track here, so far in the past 24 hours we’ve had links from this blog to:
lewrockwell.com
infowars.com
globalresearch.ca
You people are just crazy.
Larry from St. Louis
you do know that ahmedinejad didnt say that iran does not have homosexuals but said that iran doesnt have homosexuals as they are in the usa.
israel acting as a rogue state makes it somewhat easier to attack iran .
the usa timetable is on track with 150000 forces (300 000 if one includes the mercenaries) and sanctions by june 21st.
the bbc yesterday was despreately linking the peace flotilla and the israeli reaction as the fault of iran.
the only game in town is iran, their minds have been made up .. just listen to cameron, hague and fox ..
“So do you believe that the Jews did it, or was it George Bush and Dick Cheney and super-secret thermite paint?”
do you think it really is plausible that one could fly and make a pin point hit flying a 757 with a few months training on a flight simulator.
i dont know who did it, i only know of the claims/allegations
Larry:
“”Anyone who screams “anti-Semite!” at any and all critics of Israel is exploiting the Holocaust.”
And when the fuck does that happen?”
You’re kidding, right? Richard Goldstein’s report was denounced as “anti-Semitic” in Congress.
“British left-wing nut / American right-wing nut”
A (literally) one-dimensional spectrum of political opinion is never going to accurately model the full real-world range of political views.
“you do know that ahmedinejad didnt say that iran does not have homosexuals but said that iran doesnt have homosexuals as they are in the usa.”
Wow Wendy – that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it!
Larry from St Loony
What do you know about USS Liberty and the Lavon Affair?
@ Redders,
I fully understand your question:-
” do you ever balance your desire, and requirement to represent your client against justice.”
I have done a significant amount of criminal defence work and also commercial, constitutional and human rights issues. I have a matter presently before the European Court of Human Rights. Next Monday I start a 10 day trial involving the police fatal shooting of a sixteen year old boy.
Now to your question. The law and justice are not the same thing. The legal system operatThe general theory is that the justice system is designed to dispense justice. Nowhere in the world does this obtain 100%, but the aspiration is that justice triumphs more often than it does not.
As regards personal representation:-
A. You give me an account of what happended.
B. I respond with a legal assessment, and tell you your best options if we go to trial.
C. Once I accept the brief, I am bound by my instructions, and do the absolute best I can for my client within those confines.
The standard question asked of me is if I would defend someone if I knew that he was guilty:-
i) If he does confirm guilt, then my duty is to advise him to enter a “guilty” plea; or
ii) If he denies guilt and has a good arguable defence, then my duty is to defend to the best of my ability.
To be quite frank, I don’t know if you are guilty – I was not there when the alleged crime was committed. I may believe or suspect something, but I do not ultimately truly know. I have found even an innocent person lie on themself. My profession exposes one to many facets of human nature.
So far as the lawyers who are politicos, that is true the world over. I have never desired to be elected to high office.
As for this:-
” …giving evidence for the prosecution, examined by lawyers for the defence who are on a hiding to nothing but persist in flogging a dead horse than I care to remember. No wonder a popular perception of lawyers is as money grabbers.”
I set out to be structred, puroseful and directed in my cross-examinations. I do not badger witnesses, nor do I seek to lose the Judge or Jury. You are not referring to me here. I have done so much pro bono work over the years, I have lost count. There is even an piece in the Times on me when my life was again threatened a couple years ago.
If you want to know what I think about the law, you can read my book ( see web site) – and Lord Denning gave a favourable review.
Within the context I have explained, then :-
” do you ever balance your desire, and requirement to represent your client against justice.”?
Not in the perfect way that you would like and prefer me to. But, I do conscionable things at times.
In short – not all lawyers are money grabbers.
“You’re kidding, right? Richard Goldstein’s report was denounced as “anti-Semitic” in Congress.”
What are you talking about?
*Richard Goldstone’s report
Oops
Sorry – here is the edited version:-
@ Redders,
I fully understand your question:-
” do you ever balance your desire, and requirement to represent your client against justice.”
I have done a significant amount of criminal defence work and also commercial, constitutional and human rights issues. I have a matter presently before the European Court of Human Rights. Next Monday I start a 10 day trial involving the police fatal shooting of a sixteen year old boy.
Now to your question. The law and justice are not the same thing. The legal system operates upon the general theory that the justice system is designed to dispense justice. Nowhere in the world does this obtain 100%, but the aspiration is that justice triumphs more often than it does not.
As regards personal representation:-
A. You give me an account of what happened.
B. I respond with a legal assessment, and tell you your best options if we go to trial.
C. Once I accept the brief, I am bound by my instructions, and do the absolute best I can for my client within those confines.
The standard question asked of me is if I would defend someone if I knew that he was guilty:-
i) If he does confirm guilt, then my duty is to advise him to enter a “guilty” plea; or
ii) If he denies guilt and has a good arguable defence, then my duty is to defend to the best of my ability.
To be quite frank, I don’t know if you are guilty – I was not there when the alleged crime was committed. I may believe or suspect something, but I do not ultimately truly know. I have found even an innocent person lie on himself. My profession exposes one to many facets of human nature.
So far as the lawyers who are politicos, that is true the world over. I have never desired to be elected to high office.
As for this:-
” …giving evidence for the prosecution, examined by lawyers for the defence who are on a hiding to nothing but persist in flogging a dead horse than I care to remember. No wonder a popular perception of lawyers is as money grabbers.”
I set out to be structured, purposeful and directed in my cross-examinations. I do not badger witnesses, nor do I seek to lose the Judge or Jury. You are not referring to me here. I have done so much pro bono work over the years, I have lost count. There is even a piece in the Times on me when my life was again threatened a couple years ago.
If you want to know what I think about the law, you can read my book ( see web site) – and Lord Denning gave a favourable review.
Within the context I have explained, then :-
” do you ever balance your desire, and requirement to represent your client against justice.”?
Not in the perfect way that you would like and prefer me to. But, I do conscionable things at times.
In short – not all lawyers are money grabbers.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/finance-minister-un-backing-of-goldstone-report-is-anti-semitic-1.5909
Israeli finance minister attacks Goldstone report as “anti-Semitic”.
Larry: “Just keeping track here…”
I thought as much
Answer me this, Larry, are there ‘provocateurs’ hanging around in the sorta blogs that you should inhabit (whatever these blogs are, you are yet to tell us), de-railing rational debate/discussion/dialogue?
We KNOW that there is a massive army of blog followers/distractors employed by Rendon & suchlike
“do you think it really is plausible that one could fly and make a pin point hit flying a 757 with a few months training on a flight simulator.”
So are you saying it’s possible that a computer guided the planes in?
Alternatively, do you believe that loyal members of the U.S. Armed Forces committed suicide by flying into the Towers and the Pentagon?
The criminal state of Israel should be disarmed of its nuclear weapons and the 3 nuclear submarines it extorted from the Germans, it has demonstrated
contempt for international law over and over, and ignores the current 66 UN resolutions against its actions. Their inhumanity to all others is dangerous.
I express an alternative opinion … so all of you think that I’m part of the Grand Conspiracy …
BWWWAAHHHAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
Poor Loser Larry. Always trying to goad people into anti-semitic statements and always failing. Look now how the pathetic loser tries to avoid discussion of Israel’s wanton brutality. Why don’t you address Craig’s points, foul-mouthed Loser Larry? Do you understand why no one talks to you? If your arguments were any threat, do you think the imaginary anti-semites who run this blog would allow you to post? Now go and put on your red nose and make-up and get back into the big tent where you belong.