UPDATE Perhaps you will forgive me for pointing out that the argument in the legal opinion by Professor Dapo Akande of Oxford University, published today by the Labour Party, is identical in every respect and in detail to the analysis I published yesterday. So for all the trolls who claimed I do not know international law…
I have published Prof Akande’s summary at the end of this post.
Theresa May has issued a long legal justification for UK participation in an attack on a sovereign state. This is so flawed as to be totally worthless. It specifically claims as customary international law practices which are rejected by a large majority of states and therefore cannot be customary international law. It is therefore secondary and of no consequence that the facts and interpretations the argument cites in this particular case are erroneous, but it so happens they are indeed absolutely erroneous.
Let me put before you the government’s legal case in full:
1.This is the Government’s position on the legality of UK military action to alleviate the extreme humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their further use, following the chemical weapons attack in Douma on 7 April 2018.
2.The Syrian regime has been killing its own people for seven years. Its use of chemical weapons, which has exacerbated the human suffering, is a serious crime of international concern, as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity.
3.The UK is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force is humanitarian intervention, which requires three conditions to be met:
(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).
4.The UK considers that military action met the requirements of humanitarian intervention in the circumstances of the present case:
(i) The Syrian regime has been using chemical weapons since 2013. The attack in Eastern Damascus on 21 August 2013 left over 800 people dead. The Syrian regime failed to implement its commitment in 2013 to ensure the destruction of its chemical weapons capability. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April 2017 killed approximately 80 people and left hundreds more injured. The recent attack in Douma has killed up to 75 people, and injured over 500 people. Over 400,000 people have now died over the course of the conflict in Syria, the vast majority civilians. Over half of the Syrian population has been displaced, with over 13 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. The repeated, lethal use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity. On the basis of what we know about the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons to date, it was highly likely that the regime would seek to use chemical weapons again, leading to further suffering and loss of civilian life as well as the continued displacement of the civilian population.
(ii) Actions by the UK and its international partners to alleviate the humanitarian suffering caused by the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime at the UN Security Council have been repeatedly blocked by the regime’s and its allies’ disregard for international norms, including the international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. This last week, Russia vetoed yet another resolution in the Security Council, thwarting the establishment of an impartial investigative mechanism. Since 2013, neither diplomatic action, tough sanctions, nor the US strikes against the Shayrat airbase in April 2017 have sufficiently degraded Syrian chemical weapons capability or deterred the Syrian regime from causing extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale through its persistent use of chemical weapons. There was no practicable alternative to the truly exceptional use of force to degrade the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their further use by the Syrian regime in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering.
(iii) In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention to strike carefully considered, specifically identified targets in order effectively to alleviate humanitarian distress by degrading the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring further chemical weapons attacks was necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable. Such an intervention was directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe caused by the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, and the action was the minimum judged necessary for that purpose.
14 April 2018
The first thing to note is that this “legal argument” cites no authority. It does not quote the UN Charter, any Security Council Resolution or any international treaty or agreement of any kind which justifies this action. This is because there is absolutely nothing which can be quoted – all the relevant texts say that an attack on another state is illegal without authorisation of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Nor does the government quote any judgement of the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court or any other international legal authority. This is important because rather than any treatment, the government makes a specific claim its actions are justified by customary international law, which means accepted state practice. But the existence of such state practice is usually proven through existing court judgements, and there are no judgements that endorse the approach taken by the government in its argument.
The three “tests” set out under para 3 as to what is permitted under international law are not in fact a statement of anything other than the UK’s own position. These “tests” are specifically quoted by Ola Engdahl in Bailliet and Larsen (ed) “Promoting Peace Through International Law” (Oxford University Press 2015). Engdahl notes:
The UK position, that it is permitted to take coercive action under a doctrine of humanitarian intervention when certain conditions are met, is a minority view and does not reflect lex data on the prohibition of the use of force in international relations as expressed in article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
That is undeniably true, and as it is equally undeniably true that a minority view cannot be customary international law, the British government position is utterly devoid of merit.
The Government argument is a classic statement of the doctrine of “liberal intervention”, which is of course the mantra adopted by neo-conservatives over the last 30 years to justify resource grabs. It is not in any way accepted as customary international law. It is a doctrine opposed by a very large number of states, and certainly by the great majority of African, South American and Asian states. (African states have occasionally advocated the idea that UN Security Council authorisation may be replaced by the endorsement of a UN recognised regional authority such as ECOWAS or the African Union. This was the Nigerian position over Liberia 20 years ago. The Security Council authorised ECOWAS action anyway, so no discord arose. The current Nigerian government does not support intervention without security council authorisation).
The examples of “liberal intervention” most commonly used by its advocates are Sierra Leone and Libya. My book “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo” details my experiences as UK Representative at the Sierra Leone peace talks, and I hope will convince you that the accepted story of that war is a lie. Libya too has been a disaster, and it is not a precedent for the government’s legal argument as the western forces employed were operating under cover of a UN Security Council Resolution authorising force, albeit only to enforce a no fly zone.
In fact, if the British government were to offer examples of state practice to attempt to prove that the doctrine it outlines is indeed customary international law, the most appropriate recent examples are Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Georgia. I oppose those Russian interventions as I oppose the UK/US/French actions now. It is not a question of “sides” it is a question of the illegality of military action against other states.
The rest of the government’s argument is entirely hypothetical, because as the liberal intervention doctrine is not customary international law these arguments cannot justify intervention.
But the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against Douma is non-existent, and the OPCW did not conclude that the Assad government was responsible for the attack on Khan Sheikhoun. There is no evidence whatsoever that military action was urgently required to avert another such “immediate” attack. Nor is it true that the UK’s analysis of the situation is “generally accepted” by the international community, as witness China and Russia voting together in the Security Council yesterday to condemn the attack.
So the British government sets up its own “three tests” which have no legal standing and are entirely a British concoction, yet still manages to fail them.
Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law, Oxford University, gave this opinion for the Labour Party…
In the opinion I reach the following conclusions:
1. Contrary to the position of the government, neither the UN charter nor customary international law permits military action on the basis of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. There is very little support by states for such an exception to the prohibition of the use of force. The UK is one of very few states that advocates for such a legal principle but the vast majority of states have explicitly rejected it.
2. The legal position advanced by the government ignores the structure of the international law rules relating to the use of force, in particular, because a customary international law rule does not prevail over the rule in the United Nations charter prohibiting the use of force. To accept the position advocated by the government would be to undermine the supremacy of the UN charter.
3. Even if there was a doctrine of humanitarian intervention in international law, the strikes against Syria would not appear to meet the tests set out by the government. The action taken by the government was not directed at bringing “immediate and urgent relief” with regard to the specific evil it sought to prevent, and was taken before the inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were able to reach the affected area.
4. If the position taken by the government were to be accepted by states globally, it would allow for individual assessments of when force was necessary to achieve humanitarian ends, with the risk of abuse. It is because of the humanitarian suffering that will ensue from such abusive uses of force, that other states and many scholars have been reluctant to endorse the doctrine of humanitarian action.
[Mod: You are banned from this blog, Habbabkuk, and your trolling and sock puppeting is pathetic – do go away.]
Comment deleted.
This story is being reported on several sites today. Being as May more or less cited the Skripal case in her reasoning for the Syrian attack I’m wondering about it’s authenticity. Anyone got any knowledge about this apart from what it says in the article?
http://govtslaves.info/2018/04/independent-swiss-lab-says-bz-toxin-used-in-skripal-poisoning-us-uk-produced-not-russian/
A conundrum wrapped in a Nenigma
1. Its in the secret part of the OPCW report, so until somebody publishes that report, we don’t really know
2. Actually, it’s not in the secret part of the OPCW report, and that’s the problem
3. Apparently the Swiss lab also found the 234 toxin and referred to it as ‘Novichok’, but there is some additional noise surrounding the significance of it being in a ‘virgin’ state
4. We don’t (yet) know which other labs were involved and what they said
5. Anyhow, it’s like so ‘last week’ and Skirpal schmirkal nobody cares about that any more, tweetie pie – do please try to keep up – Chlorine is the New Black apparently, at least until the next chemical du jour comes along
Yulia says ‘Hi’ by the way and could somebody please remember to feed the cat…..
(see how fazt THAT one had slipped down the Memory Hole! I bet you forgot those vicious Palestinisn infants too, didn’t you, and hush, hush, whisper who dares about DS Nick Bailey, Dr Stephen Bailey and the other Russian guy who strangled himself in SW London).
Stephen Davies, sorry
I’ve never read it, but this brings to mind the title of a play and novel by James Kirkwood Jr.: P.S. Your Cat Is Dead. 😉
If you listen to Lavrov’s speech carefully it’s all there.
https://youtu.be/iNw5TjS63-w ( start at 9.50)
I posted this on the last Skripol post:-
It seems to me that what Lavrov actually said was that there were two agents identified. The first was a nerve agent identified by chemical formula – A234, presumably what has been referred to as Novichok – and this was found in very high quantities. The second was BZ which is an incapacitator. It is used to incapacitate temporarily and works within 60 minutes and lasts for up to 4 days. BZ has been used by the U.K., the US and NATO countries – not by Russia.
His points were (i) if Novichok had been administered in such high quantities then, given its volatility and the time passed by the time the samples were taken, both victims would be dead and (ii) why was BZ not mentioned at all in the official findings.
His conclusion was that BZ was the agent used to temporarily incapacitate the Skripols – and presumably ( though this was not stated) that the A234 was a plant because no one died as they would have, had it been present in such large quantities..
If this is true – and Lavrov quoted directly from the report from the Swiss lab – then this is explosive. It is evidence of a set up – a false flag by the UK- to justify war against Syria and to exacerbate tensions against Russia.
Babs – that is my understanding too
the problem is that we don’t know what was said in the rest of the OPCW report, and until someone publishes it, it all just “Russian Propaganda / Fake News / Distractions / Aggression / Refusal to Abide by International Norms” etc
The key point is that the caravan has moved on; who gives a flying frat about the Skripals any more? – the popular meme is that Putin dunnit, and because he’s a Bad Guy, we had to punish him
Right, wrong, Law, Morality, due process – nobody is listening
Thanks, RAC, for an interesting link. Of course I have no idea if this is true, but if it is, surely no surprise?
Something new on OffGuardian:
“More on the Skripal/Douma false flag connection”
https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/15/46325/
Very interesting thanks.
I remember that story from Voltaire.
Very interesting article – thanks for posting. From today’s statements by Nikki Hayley, stating they’re in Syria until the US “goals are accomplished” (what their actual ‘goals’ are, we can pretty much guess), this will probably escalate.
A precident has been set – social media reports from US / UK backed terrorist provocateurs is enough to launch military action, with no regard for facts, opinions from the population, international law, or morality. I expect another staged ‘chemical’ attack and this to escalate.
Anyone in Syria who puts salt on his dinner is a chemicals terrorist, because it’s got chloride in it.
That’s my reading of this; influential elements in England, the US, Israel, and elsewhere, want to go to war with Russia and show who is boss.
I’m not prepared to lower myself to use terms like “globalists” or buy into talk of pipelines through Syria, population control, or any ‘project for a new American century’. I have no idea what the motivation is, it could be just their idea of fun.
But this Syria thing isn’t over by a long shot. There’s an armada on the way there for a reason.
And the idea that Trump is some sort of victim in all this, getting his strings yanked or merely responding to pressure doesn’t wash with me either.
I could explain why I think this is going to escalate massively but it would be a horribly lengthy post. I think the French position is highly significant though and there’s more to it than offers of deals with Saudi Arabia.
“That’s my reading of this; influential elements in England, the US, Israel, and elsewhere, want to go to war with Russia and show who is boss. ”
No, England, the US and Israel don’t want to go to war with Russia and Putin knows it that’s the problem. It means he can engage in asymmetric warfare, pushing and provoking the west even though Russia is far weaker. This makes him popular with Russians, it restores a sense of pride to the Russian people.
Well, the view you’ve just expounded is basically the mainstream media standpoint. Call me cynical, but if the mainstream media is saying one thing, you can basically discount it for something else. Even the Pentagon was keen to stress that they don’t want to antagonise Russia.
If they were secretly intending to pick a fight with Russia, I think you’d agree they’d go out of their way to say that was the last thing they wanted. They have form on that sort of thing, allowing them to play the innocent victim card down the line.
Spot on.
How about to protect the worthless petrodollar? China and Russia are now trading in oil using the Yuan, and trains from China are arriving in France and England.
Is it really a conspiracy theory to believe that the U.S. economy would collapse without countries using the petrodollar to trade in oil?
Qaddafi didn’t last very long when he tried to launch a pan African currency based on real gold.
Yep the $ as a reserve currency is starting to fade. Will take a few more years no doubt but the rot has set in. China also have a trillion or two in US bonds. God forbid they dump them and push up the interest rate on $20 trillion of debt
Actually I don’t think being the world’s country of choice when it comes to trade is the bed of roses you and others suggest it is. I’m not an economist but as I understand it it relinquishes control since you are automatically in a position where more of your currency is outside your borders than inside.
I’m not saying any of those ideas about what motivated the Syria attack are conspiracy theories, although they obviously are. I just think our leaders are more short termist than they imply — I see politics in the US and UK, with different administrations coming and going, as a sort of game of smash and grab. They scheme for sure but the goals are usually quite immediate.
Saddam Hussein was talking of the same thing–selling Iraqi oil in currencies other than the dollar. Come to think of it that was one of the few things he shared with Iran, another Official Enemy for the nightly two minutes of hate.
Well said Mike, Kiza and Hatuey, Saddam had the same problem, after his lost war with Iran he was starved of funds and the petro dollar was well down, so he told the US that he would walk into Kuwait and help himself.
The US did not answer his official message and a day later, he did what he wanted to do announcing that in future he would want to trade oil in a basket of currencies, he did mention the Euro as one of them.
That sealed his end. The whole axis of destruction planned for the ME in 2003/4 is now coming to a culminating end with a certain state without declared borders waiting in the wing to do the attack dog for the US, providing the precedence to act.
They did it Saturday and very likely last night and at one point in time, when Syria is finished in Idlib and finally sent the terror clique’s swimming, they will have to give back the Gholan to its rightful owner Syria.
BDS BDS BDS and some more BDS, maybe this form of public sanctions could provide a part mechanism/push for these two rogue chemical weapons countries to be ushered to the table to sign the OPCW treaty.
“You can’t understand the conflict without talking about natural gas
By Maj. Rob Taylor
Much of the media coverage suggests that the conflict in Syria is a civil war, in which the Alawite (Shia) Bashar al Assad regime is defending itself (and committing atrocities) against Sunni rebel factions (who are also committing atrocities). The real explanation is simpler: it is about money.
In 2009, Qatar proposed to run a natural gas pipeline through Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, Assad forged a pact with Iraq and Iran to run a pipeline eastward, allowing those Shia-dominated countries access to the European natural gas market while denying access to Sunni Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latter states, it appears, are now attempting to remove Assad so they can control Syria and run their own pipeline through Turkey.”
http://armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/
This is a fantastic introduction to what’s really going on in Syria, and why. Well worth sending on to those that don’t know the history or buy into the MSM propaganda.
https://youtu.be/jNhdy7VuSZ0
Within the next 8 months:
1. US, UK and other Western-aligned nations declare that the UN is defunct: they declare en bloc that they are no longer constrained by its Charter, Resolutions or organisations which, they will assert, have been “abused” by Russia
2. A “new” United Nations is established with a constitution enshrining US hegemony: all Nations are invited to join as ‘ordinary’ i.e. non-Exceptional Members, and any who donl’t are self-declared as rogue states, cur off from SWIFT and subject to sanctions
3. That’s it.
They indeed may try if they destroy UN. But the new institutuin has no chances to become global. Many counties will not join it on unequal righs basis. Especially the bigger ones. And it will be useless and lame . SWIFT is not something that cannot be replaced, it’s just another messenger. I don’t believe this can happen as this will extreemely polarize global relationships and will eventually bring to a real war.
Actually, I have seen the inverse proposition floated: that China, Russia spearhead the formation of an alt-UN that seeks to remedy the obvious flaws / corruption of the current one. Financial transaction tax on all foreign exchange transactions, so the thing can be self-financing, escalating punitive tariffs and sanctions on rogue members (in breach of agreements and conventions–climate, chemical weapons, tax havens, etc.) A world government with the power to police transnational capital…
Joking apart, the current UN setup is surely past its sell-by date, and your seriously have to question why the UK and France still have vetoes in the Security Council
During my lifetime Britain’s role in the World has changed, but its own perception of that role has not. Myths & Legends of Biggles and Doulgas Bader, the 1966 World Cup, the Dambusters, even the Falklands might have brought a warm glow to our hearts, but the writing was on the wall with the 3-Day week, the ERM crisis and, ultimately, the humiliation of the Financial Crisis when it became clear that all this new-found “Loadsa money” wealth was just smoke & mirrors
What are we now? Peddling Gibraltar to the Americans, Northern Ireland to the EU, and apparently about to face a serious in-yer-face challenge about the Falklands. Rudderless post-Brexit, internally riven with the Scots seeking a second independence vote, and with a political class typified by end-of-pier comedy duo Johnson and Boychild Williams or Williamson or whatever his name is
These island rose without trace in the late Renaissance period, and we can do it again during the Goetterdaemmerung of western civilisational decline, but not by allowing ourselves to be America’s lacky and Europe’s laughing stock. China – at several stages in history the largest, richest, most culturally and technologically advanced nation on earth – has not been too proud or arrogant to learn from others (notably Singapore), and the sooner we can find some core principles, a sense of unifying identity, and a role in this uncertain and acutely dangerous world. My stab would be to declare ourselves a politically neutral and non-aligned entrepot, a terminus for the Chinese OBOR, a transhipment hub for both Russian and American gas, and a low-cost low-regulation place to do business. It isn’t going to happen in my lifetime, and I see us as a nation following our national football team into the annals of history as one of those tricky pub quiz questions most likely to be answered with “Rekyavik” or “to get to the Other Side”
The issue is that most of the states in the world have lost their ability to act and position themselves independently. Russia is trying, but it’s obviously unenviable fate with unknown result.
“Joking apart, the current UN setup is surely past its sell-by date, and your seriously have to question why the UK and France still have vetoes in the Security Council”
The UN has been weaponised by the US, but I doubt there is much one can do about it.. At least Russia and China still have a veto in the SC.
An alternative organisation would not have US agreement.
The people
The people suggesting that Russia should lose its veto are, whether they are aware of it or not, raising the same question about Britain and France.
Ophelia, for your interest, from a GlobalTimes (more or less official Chinese politburo) editorial, April 15:
However, the stronger a country is, the greater the responsibility it has to maintain world peace and order. The military actions of the US and its allies have breached the framework of the United Nations and violated the foundation of modern international relations. If the will of Washington and the West represents the will of all mankind and they can punish whoever they want, why do we need the UN, or international law?
Without UN authorization, the US, UK and France behaved like rogues. No matter how touching the excuses they find for themselves, they cannot change the fact that they were lynching Syria without due evidence…
Forgot to add the quotation marks from today’s Global Times editorial (for the above posting about Western damage to UN). Now if you could get that out of them in the UNSC…
Ophelia, This is brilliant. Oh how I wish our Government would implement your eminently sensible and workable proposals. I can dream I guess
Just one problem. It doesn’t make sense.
http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2018/03/16/terrorist-capabilities-laid-bare-in-an-eastern-ghouta-chemical-lab/
Terrorist capabilities laid bare in an Eastern Ghouta chemical lab
insania 4 weeks ago News Comments Off on Terrorist capabilities laid bare in an Eastern Ghouta chemical lab 231 Views
March 16, 2018, RT Question More – Sharmine Narwani
thanks sam.. i was looking for a link to that, the last week without success.. i remember reading this when it came out over a month ago… this needs much wider exposure then it has gotten..
Whether or not one believes the Russian claim that most of the missiles were shot down, evidently denied (I do believe it, but that’s not the point), it is self-evident that the assault two nights ago was a massive failure from a military point of view. Cruise missiles carry large conventional warheads (the expense wouldn’t be justified otherwise), 100 of them, and someone earlier calculated 34.3 metric tonnes of explosive. Yet the damage done was what could have been done by maximum six (to judge by the post-attack satellite imagery). Western military planners must be much concerned, even if they were firing off outdated Tomahawks to get rid of the stock.
This poem (on Dissident Voice today) reminded me that Thatcher went to war with Argentina in April 1982. In April, do the minds of female Tory PMs turn to thoughts of war when the rest of us think of Spring?
frozen spring
(a historical poem: April 6, 1982)
by Paul Cech / April 15th, 2018
the tulips lay frozen amidst an april snow
the hyacinth
the daffodil
are suspended in a cryogenic void
the lilac’s green no longer seems bright
as spring’s warm presence turns cold
blue skies turn grey
and my mind is mournful this winter teased day
the morning paper boasts
“Britain Prepares for War”
the tulip
the hyacinth
the daffodils
the lilac and
the frozen spring are soon forgotten
https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/04/frozen-spring/
Also in Dissident Voice –
Canada: Justin Trudeau Supported the Illegal Bombing of Syria by the US and Friends
by Yves Engler / April 14th, 2018
The US has once again flagrantly violated international law. Without UN approval, they launched dozens of airstrikes on Syria.
Ottawa immediately supported the US bombing. In a statement Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said: “Canada supports the decision by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to take action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against its own people.”
Over the past week the Trudeau government has helped lay the foundation for the US led attack. Twenty-four hours after the alleged April 7 attack foreign minister Chrystia Freeland put out a statement claiming:
‘The repeated and morally reprehensible use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in the past has been confirmed by independent international investigators…. Canada condemns the Assad regime—and its backers, Russia and Iran—for its repeated, gross violations of human rights and continued, deliberate targeting of civilians.’
/..
https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/04/canada-justin-trudeau-supported-the-illegal-bombing-of-syria-by-the-us-and-friends/
Trudeau may have said it, but if you look closely at the woman in red right behind him, you can see her lips moving.
great post craig.. thank you… the world needs more people like you to challenge all the lies and suggestions being made at present on the world stage..
As the saying goes, those who don’t know history are bound to repeat it… Homework: find out how Hitler justified invasion into Poland and what happened to that justification afterwards.
even the Germans realise that this charade has gone too far:
It appears – by the definition proscribed from America’s establishment – that Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the President of Germany, is a treasonous Russian troll. What other explanation is there for his remarks today, warning the United States (and the rest of the Western establishment) against demonizing Russia; and added that Germany had a particular role to play in maintaining dialogue with Moscow, given the nations’ history?
In an interview published on Sunday, Reuters reports that Steinmeier spoke out over fears that this weekend’s airstrikes by The West had dramatically increased the serious risk of a direct conflict between Russian and US forces.
“We are at the next step of escalation in the Russian-American relationship,” Steinmeier, who twice served as Germany’s foreign minister, told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.
While Steinmeier toed the party line that the evidence pointed clearly at Russia’s involvement – which was alarming – he warned that:
“The galloping alienation between Russia and the West must also concern us, with consequences that will go far beyond this case. There is practically no basis of trust any more.”
Steinmeier went on to urge diplomacy and for Western politicians to keep the door to dialog open:
“Regardless of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin, we cannot declare Russia as a whole, the country and its people, to be an enemy….. Our history speaks against it, and there is too much at stake.”
As a reminder, Germany – who recently (and controversially) backed the Nord Stream 2 project against Washington’s wishes – relies on Russia for about a third of the gas it uses.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-15/germany-warns-against-demonizing-russia-our-history-speaks-against-it
You wrote:
“Regardless of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin, we cannot declare Russia as a whole, the country and its people, to be an enemy….. Our history speaks against it, and there is too much at stake.
As a reminder, Germany – who recently (and controversially) backed the Nord Stream 2 project against Washington’s wishes – relies on Russia for about a third of the gas it uses.”
Et voila. There is a serious EU – US and EU – GB split here.
Russia needs to respond militarily or this is just going to go on and on until the US/UK/Saudi topple Assad and then retrain their sights on Iran, or maybe even Russia itself.
this just up on RT
The French president defended the lack of a UN resolution before conducting the strikes against Syria, saying that it was “the international community” that intervened.
“We have complete international legitimacy to act within this framework,” Macron said in the interview broadcast by BFMTV, RMC radio and Mediapart. “Three members of the Security Council have intervened.”
https://www.rt.com/news/424220-macron-strikes-syria-assad-putin/
The blatant lies and hypocrisy make me feel nauseous, to be brutally honest. Goodnight you lot.
Macron’s just making international law up as he goes along.
If three of the P5 do it, it must be mostly international-lawful.
yes, Goddammit! You’re right! that’s what the UN Charter says
oh no, hang on, no it isn’t. apparently the international relations are not a popularity contest, and there is a written constitution including specific prohibitions on ALL acts of aggression, no matter who perpetrates them
the alternative would be to allow a majority – let’s call them “Nazi Germans” – to exterminate a minority – let’s call them “non-Nazi Germans” and that would be ok, because it was “mostly” lawful. Or not, as the case may be
Russia has invoked up its Stavka (War Cabinet). They have snap readiness drills of major force groups. It is prepared for a NATO strike. It is also pro-active on dissemination of ISIS terrorists into its southern flanks.
Syria did all the actual military work in the Syria attack, possibly aided by the integrated Syrian-Russian air defence systems. Russia could help by supplying Syria with S-300 systems. This was considered before but Russia held off as a result of concerns from unnamed ‘partners’. Israel is shreying about the possibility of S-300s entering Israel. It is also strikes Syria whenever it needs a distraction. It has pissed off Russia by informing the US alone about the previous strike. I suspect Russia is now very open to supplying the S-300 to Syria.
Sorry about the typo. I meant
Israel is shreying about the possibility of S-300s entering Syria.
“Russia needs to respond militarily or this is just going to go on and on until the US/UK/Saudi topple Assad”
Absolutely not, there’s no need to do anything.
It should also be pointed out that, whilst the government is correct in its assertion “This last week, Russia vetoed yet another resolution in the Security Council, thwarting the establishment of an impartial investigative mechanism.”, that is not the full truth, there were in fact two resolutions to setup an impartial investigative mechanism, both were vetoed:
S/2018/321 http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/321
Multi Nation resolution: Vetoed by Russia
S/2018/175 http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2018/175
Russian resolution: Vetoed by UK & USA
Why were both vetoed? Perhaps because both seek to insure influence over the results of any such mechanism, in there own way.
Nobody is really listening to them anymore. It is time to overthrow them by force.
Are you deliberately omitting the third one proposed by Russia as well, or just out of ignorance?
“The Council rejected a third text – also proposed by Russia – which concerned the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM).” — https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/04/1006991
IM, hopefully neither!
The two i referred to were about setting up a replacement to the ‘JIM’ and the was what the UK government specifically referred to in there legal justification.
As you rightly point out the 3rd resolution was on the work of the OPCW FFM, so was in my view not directly about a new JIM so i did not include it in the original post.
This may sound nuts, but I’m starting to worry that the UK cabal are more influential in today’s geopolitics that we realise. I’ve always felt that the UK is a vassal to the US, and we follow their lead in illegimate millitary action, but what if the UK was the brains, and the US just carried the might? It feels like the Skripal affair, the rush to bomb Syria, the ‘evidence’ to justify the Iraq and Syria debacles all came from the UK. Thoughts? Or do I just need a good nights sleep?
«but what if the UK was the brains, and the US just carried the might?»
That was Chuchill’s delusion of “grandeur”, the “we Greece they Rome” idea.
It is completely ridiculous — in USA politics the UK counts less than a small midwestern state, as the latter sends 2 senators and some representatives to Washington, and often has businesses that pay lobbyists. Conversely the Likud lobby, the japanese lobby, the Saudi lobby are far more influential because they donate massive amounts to USA politicians.
«the Skripal affair, the rush to bomb Syria, the ‘evidence’ to justify the Iraq and Syria debacles all came from the UK»
When it comes to foreign policy decisions the USA currently is split 3-ways: isolationists (right wing libertarians, alt-right, mostly Trump), “bomb bomb bomb Moscow” (most Republicans, Dominionists, clintonites, the “deep state”), and “bomb bomb bomb Teheran” (Likud lobby, Saudi lobby, some evangelical Republicans, partly Trump).
Note: Trump is the first USA president in a long while that is not influenced that much by the Likud lobby, while being very filo-jewish, because his family is nearer the orthodox/hasidic/Chabadi lobby. But “it’s complicated”.
When there is a split there is an opportunity for the Likud lobby, the Saudi lobby and even the otherwise ignored european governments to make a pitch for a plan.
Suez taught the UK and France that an initiative without USA authorization won’t work; but like in Libya if the USA authorize it the UK and France are allowed to dig themselves into a deep one.
In the recent mess it looks like from Trump’s wavering that different lobbies worked on him pretty hard, and eventually he decided to act opportunistically.
Strangely enough, that thought has also occurred to me.
I agree, it does sound nuts. It shows that you are also in the UK and emersed in propaganda. Let me assure you that plenty of people outside the UK see its pathetic running dog role for what it is.
How anyone after the debacle of Brexit can think the UK is the brains is quite staggering when you look at basic stuff like the dependency of the UK finance sector on EU access. I could churn out several volumes in support of the case that the UK is led not only by suicidal idiots but people who are straight forwardly twisted and cruel.
See me after class.
If these are the actions of the West’s brainiacs, then we should be grateful the dumb ones are busy playing at something else.
The only reason(s) I can see that this clown car is still careering on its little Salisbury / Syria transit are equal parts intimidation, corruption and the most appallingly uniform MSM sock puppetry.
Apologies if this has been posted before, some BBC propaganda
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-43776015/syria-chemical-attack-girl-seen-in-hospital-video-speaks
Can someone explain to me how a child in a basement could possibly know a barrel was dropped let alone went pfft?
The BBC are the White Helmets.
“The BBC are the White Helmets.”
Can I use this? You nailed it in just 6 words. Thank you.
You can sir. I’m often shamed as being a Brit and it gets worse day by day
A pithier version, as it were. Both essentially the creatures of MI5/6.
“Syria Opposition Video” i.e. “Jaysh al-Islam Video”
Bits of that looked like she had been coached and was happy because some off-camera white helmet headchopper was smiling at her because she was getting it right.
Still waiting for the BBC to report “Salisbury chemical attack girl not seen in any video speaks”
That thought crossed my mind as well but the line about ‘the martyrs’ was the clincher.
Exactly, now and then she was looking towards her mum, as if waiting for her to nod approvingly, as if she was saying ‘did I say that right mum’.
Many thanks for all the great links provided by you all.
OMG! The girl is giving so many clues of deception- it’s clearly rehearsed and her subconsciousness knows she’s lying and she’s not adult enough to control macro-expressions let alone micro-expressions [1]. On top of that she constantly looks to the side for a queue of approval just look at her face post-side-glance (turn off sound it makes it even more pronounced)!
1. https://www.scienceofpeople.com/guide-reading-microexpressions/
The 2 main supposed CW sites at Barzah and Jamrayah were inspected by OPCW in late November 2017. They were declared in compliance in terms of the presence of scheduled components (presumably dual use chemicals) and lack of diversion of materials. The results were formally published by OPCW in late February 2018. Both sites are subject to repeated examination by OPCW. All governments involved are members of the OPCW and would be aware of this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dawj1AkW0AcBuGn.jpg
Videos of the aftermath show fire teams and others working on the sites with no CW protection in any way whatsoever. One of the sites produced anti-venom drugs for snake and insect bites.
This images shows the impact locations for a set of 8 cruise missiles targetting one site. Only 4 (green) hit the target. The rest (red) were up to 100s of metres off.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/80fede961cddccb026067ef2faf7c30a7735d07d9293ca4e0993e671cea1f29a.png
Oh my, “legal justification” in the age or uni-lateralism and and in-your-face “realpolitik”, and 2,000 after the Roman Empire propaganda of “justum bellum”.
An author and MP of the later English Empire age, H Belloc, wrote the all-time best “legal justification” in a poem, these verses:
“Whatever happens we have got
the Maxim gun and they have not.”
Replace “the Maxim gun” with “cruise missiles” etc.
Might is always right .. even when it nukes and chemical weapons civilians itself.
I wonder how Julian Assange is doing.
bj I, too, wonder how Julian Assange is doing. No natural light, no sun, no fresh air, no visitors, no phone, no internet. I wrote to my federal MP (Australia) about Julian’s plight but the MP hasn’t bothered to respond – not even an acknowledgement of my inquiry.
Words fail me I am so ashamed of the actions of the UK government and would support Scotland in an independence referendum now .
Another good post, Craig. The “liberal intervention” doctrine which you mention has been much abused to justify recent imperial wars, despite their record of making things far worse for the recipients of the west’s “humanitarian assistance”.
I suspect that something like the Thomasine “doctrine of double effect” is also being abused by the perpetrators to justify their actions psychologically and so allow them to sleep at night. I have often thought that was the trick played by Tony Blair to kid himself about his own motives and the strategic goals of his co-conspirators and war beneficiaries, both in the run up to, and the aftermath following, Iraq. After all, unless an individual is actually a psychopath, the first person they have to persuade in order to tell serious lies is usually themselves. Although how Mr. Blair can believe that his motives were humanitarian and square that with the personal fortune he made from the humanitarian disaster he helped to create, I do not know. Doubtless, Teresa May is attempting similar moral acrobatics to allow herself to promote and justify attacking Syria.
On another note, I see that there have been more attempts from the British press to silence dissenting voices in our country: https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/attacked-by-the-times/
I hope that voices like Craig Murray’s and Tim Hayward’s will continue to speak up geard and be. We need to hear from them.
Thanks for your work, your research and for your courage and integrity.
I hope that voices like Craig Murray’s and Tim Hayward’s will continue to speak up geard and be. We need to hear from them.
That was supposed to say “speak up and be heard” but got mangled somehow.
This is supposedly the damage caused by 22 cruise missiles to the Him Shinshar alleged chemical weapons storage facility near Homs
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/80fede961cddccb026067ef2faf7c30a7735d07d9293ca4e0993e671cea1f29a.png
I count 4, maybe 5 hits and 4 apparent misses; where are the other 13 impact craters?
I have no experience in this kind of analysis – somebody please tell me if I am wrong, butotherwise I am calling the Pentagon out as liars in their claims of success in this missile strike
Here is the “before” photo
https://defence.pk/pdf/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fgraphics%2F2018%2Fworld%2Fsyria-strikes%2Fimg%2Fshinshar_storage_before.jpg%3Fc%3Dafbe269cefd435859915fac078d6a84d73a584be-1523746137&hash=e662a880fd214d11a7c9136c1c3aebdd
Does this really look like the results of 22 x 450kg of high explosive?
Apologies – try this link instead https://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5ad2a850146e7120008b4b23/before-the-him-shinshar-chemical-weapons-storage-site-on-april-13-2018.jpg
As a UK tax payer I want my money back on these cruise missiles. Over 30 per target and this is what we get ? Not much bang for your buck there.
“Former Pentagon Staffer: ‘Syria Gas Attack Was Staged!’
http://yournewswire.com/pentagon-syria-gas-attack-was-staged/
More from Postol and his debunking of that odious neocon cesspit that is Bellendcat (and the deluded but frankly dangerous fantasist Eliot Higgins. When May said the evidence she used forvthe attacks was “open source” I have a horrible feeling these were the scum she was using)
https://cryptome.org/2014/08/postol-debunks-kaszeta.pdf
Oh and this
http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542
And this
https://www.rt.com/usa/423741-eliot-higgins-debate-postol/
The article is dated April 2017.
Yes its about Khan Sheikhoun Fred. The last time the terrorists conned the world. I think it is relevant for that fact
And I think people skimming through the comments should be aware that the former Pentagon staffer wasn’t talking about the recent gas attack.
Fair point
Not really. What is important is that a highly credible expert has came out in public and said that he can prove US backed forces have staged gas attacks in Syria. It doesn’t matter if they did it last year, last week, last month, or whenever. He isn’t the type to use the word “prove” lightly. And, of course, they used the gas attack of last year that he was addressing to bolster the case for this most recent air strike on Syria.
As usual Britannia Waves the rules , a throw back to when England ruled the World they just cant get out of the habit its ingrained in the English upper class’s DNA .
Has anybody noticed that recent editions of George Galloway’s show (TMOATS) on YouTube have become more scarce since the last say 24 hours? I.e. it looks to me like a couple have been removed.
Empires first decide and then come up with an excuse.
“Illegal under international law!”? Might as well tell a robber “thou shalt not steal!”
Robbers care nothing for law and everything for enforcement.
An Iraqi doctor who reported to me during the Iraq war and who I can vouch for and affirm his integrity has told me that the Syrian American Medical Society, funded by USAID, has qualified doctors who ‘front’ the organisation and intelligence officers as part of ‘transition and development’ who direct certain operations. It is possible the British and French secret service directed an operation in Douma that turned smoke inhalation by civilians into a chemical attack ruse by persuading panicking people unable to breath properly they had been subjected to a chemical attack and must be treated as such.
In light of this medical subversion I intend to ask pointed questions to doctors and staff at Salisbury District Hospital who were on shift at 17:00 on the 4th March. I will remind them of their medical oath and that only truth must prevail going forward. I believe we can in unison and without fear put a stop to this terrible deceit that is being heaved upon a gullible and trusting British public.
Mark Golding
April 15, 2018 at 23:03 Mark interesting because in my past work in Particle Physics and later on in Hospitable biochemistry Lab I have come across pseudo radiation poisoning when the person believed they had been radiated by a gamma ray source.They then exhibited the symptoms such as hair falling out and being sick.In fact they had not been radiated but thought they had.When working in biochemistry I chanced to browse through Websters medical dictionary and I came across Rabies but also it mentioned false Rabies it stated if a person say had been bitten by a dog in a rabid area and yet the dog was not rabid the person could exhibit all the signs of rabies which is difficult to diagnose from the real thing.I have witnessed this phenomenon a number of times.The power of the human mind is fantastic.
Great Stuff Mark
Looking forward to how you get on with that.
So, in the face of this, will we rise? Will we just post and prevaricate. Where are we going?
Shame on the OPCW for allowing its science and scientists to be politicized.
Sometimes people get no choice, once you bend over, there’s no coming back up: https://www.rt.com/usa/423477-bolton-threat-opcw-iraq/
It’s funny how the legal advice given to the UK government always seems to say that whatever the UK government wants to do is totally legal, isn’t it? You want to bomb a foreign country for an invented reason? Go right ahead!
I assume that faking a nerve agent attack in Salisbury would also be judged to be perfectly legal.
One of the aspects of Exceptionalism.
Great post Craig, pointless but great nonetheless.
Russia did not invade Georgia or Ukraine.
The Georgians invaded Abkhazia and Ossetia, which were protectorates of Russia with peacemaker troops there. The Georgians under the proven corrupt US puppet Mikhaii Saakashavilli were kicked out in a matter of days and Russia returned to its borders.This was a US organised provacation when Russia was in a political shambles.
Russia did not invade Ukraine. The people of the Donbass ,declared Republics in Donetsk and Luhansk.both of which are majority ethnic Russian.They did not wish to be suppressed or discriminated by the racist ,NeoNazi illegal Govt ,who seized power in a US backed coup.(see the Odessa Trade Union building massacre).
Crimea was a part of Russsia since Catherine the Great drove out the Ottomans in 1768. Kruschev in 1954 signed it over to Ukraine in 1954 illeglly under the Soviet Union Constitution .
Russia had a 40 year old lease on the Navy base at Sevastopol , with permission for 25k Marines and sailors.
An Internationally supervised referendum was held and 96% voted to return to Russia, no one died in the hand-over Crimea is also majority ethnic Russian.
Good post though I’m not sure the referendum was internationally supervised. I stand to be corrected on that.
Frankly it doesn’t matter though – the population of Crimea is 70% plus ethnic Russian so the result was never in doubt. They saw facists violently overthrow their democratically elected President and Government and said fuck that we’re off
Salford Lad
April 15, 2018 at 23:49
“Russia did not invade Georgia or Ukraine.” Yes you are right and I believe there was a EU report laying 80% blame on Georgia yet the BBC and the rest of the TV and media keep regurgitating the lie in knowing most of the public will not research the truth.Operation Mocking Bird is alive and well and it is programming the public with spy thrillers that the Russians did it and they are using poison to assassinate their own double agents.They must have the general public so conditioned the cannot tell what reality is.It seems in the last few years on tv the Welrod is out and poison is in.They the Mocking Bird manipulators really are taking the piss.But its deadly and no laughing matter.
It was said by many at the time that BBC were showing video of Georgian missile batteries (some suggested this was actual footage of the Georgian suprise attack) for several days, claiming it was footage of Ossetian batteries, until they were called out and the clip was retired from the news cycle. Difficult to find discussion of that today. I remember the clip but had no way to verify the story.