Part 3: “Grotesque”. Despots and Druggies with Royal “relationships” at William’s wedding

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

28th April 2011

Previous posts on the Royal Wedding

• A right Royal spin around the missing Garter: Pt 2 “The Royals & Something Red”
• A right Royal snub for the People’s Prime Minister: Pt 1 “The People’s Princess”
• William’s Wedding, Poll: Should Blair & Brown have been invited?

GROTESQUE. SHOCKING. DISGRACEFUL.

A MONUMENTAL ERROR OF JUDGEMENT

The Daily Mail is finally on my wavelength.  For the last few days The Mail has been increasingly outraged about the failure to invite Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to William and Catherine’s wedding while a number of questionable characters or ambassadors from despotic regimes have had the compliment of an invitation.  If the Palace had not been stupid enough to fail to invite the two previous Prime Ministers there might have been little said or done about these questionables. But, despite squeals of “non-political” event the Palace and the Foreign Office and David Cameron have made it so by their combined naivety.

The Mail’s campaign seems to have been partially, but only partially successful. The Foreign Secretary has now uninvited the Syrian ambassador in light of current murderous rampages against citizens in Syria. So that’s one gone. The room for Blair & Brown is increasing. Can we lose the Bahraini, or the Zimbabwean, or the Iranian ambassador by the end of the day? All three and Cherie Blair and Sarah Brown could pop along too.

Aside: [See - Sharp rise in Iran executions]

Here are some of the characters The Mail has been watching:

THIS MAN WAS INVITED TO THE ROYAL WEDDING -

The Syrian ambassador Sami Khiyami received his invitation to the wedding a month ago. It has today been withdrawn.

Who is the man in the picture above? He is the ambassador for Syria. Yes, THAT Syria. This man was called to  the Foreign Office on Tuesday evening regarding his country’s vicious attacks on its citizens. And after the ticking off the wedding invitation still stood. Until today when William Hague saw the light.  UNBELIEVABLE!

You might ask – “William Hague?” So why didn’t the Foreign Secretary, if he had this sort of say, suggest Blair & Brown as invitees at an earlier stage in planning? Indeed. You might well ask.

Now, since the whole event has been politicised by excluding Blair & Brown, what about UNINVITING the Bahraini ambassador, the Iranian ambassador, the North Korean ambassador, the Zimbabwean ambassador and  envoys from other hard-line regimes including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Swaziland, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Abu Dhabi?

Hmmm?

Read more at The Mail:

_____

Syrian ambassador meets the Queen on an earlier occasion

Also at The Mail:  Labour MPs said the attendance of Dr Sami Khiyami – while former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been excluded – ‘bordered on the grotesque’.

The Syrian government has been warned it faces war crimes prosecutions and last night ordered in more tanks to crush an uprising said to have cost the lives of 400 peaceful protesters.

The presence of its ambassador at Westminster Abbey tomorrow has further stoked the anger of Labour MPs, already at loggerheads with palace aides over their decision to exclude Mr Blair and Mr Brown.

There are protests that seven more royal ‘tyrants’ or their envoys from around the world are on the guest list despite records of repression and torture.

Read more – Syria’s despots invited, but not our former PMs

THIS MAN HAS BEEN INVITED TO THE ROYAL WEDDING -

Who is he? Only the bride’s Uncle Gary!

Exclusive Pictures. 25/04/11. Gary Goldsmith, the controversial uncle of Kate Middleton getting a pre wedding fake tan near his Marylebone, North London home this morning. It has been confirmed that he has been invited to Kate and William's wedding this week. The self-made millionnaire has had many reported drug problems and been a huge embarrassment to the Middletons and the Royal family. He was also sporting the word 'Wills' on his T-shirt, an 'Aubin and Wills' designed T-shirt. He spent less than 15 minutes in the Electric Beach Tan Centre before heading home via his local Waitrose supermarket. Noble Draper Pictures. **BYLINE: NOBLE/DRAPER**

JESUS WEPT!

AND HE’S JUST AS CLASSY FROM THE BACK ….

More here on the black sheep of Catherine Middleton’s family who, nonetheless – he’s family y’know – deserved a place at her wedding far more than either of the country’s previous two prime ministers.

Also see – “Riffraff at the Royal Wedding  but no Tony Blair”

THIS MAN WAS INVITED TO THE ROYAL WEDDING

Mugabe's ambassador to Britain, Gabriel Machinga, will be at the Royal wedding. So far he has not been 'uninvited'.

See  – Mail:  “I’m no Tony Blair fan but this is an insult to democracy”

Also – reported at ‘Zimbabwe Situation’

‘Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will not be among the  1,900 invited  dignitaries filling the Westminster Abbey in London, but Gabriel Machinga will be at the wedding of  Prince  William and Kate Middleton.

“It is not merely unclear but mind-boggling that  Messrs Blair and  Brown should have had to yield to men such as Gabriel  Machinga,  Zimbabwean Ambassador to London, a loyal servant of President Robert  Mugabe’s murderous and kleptomaniac regime,” fumed Daily Mail columnist  Stephen  Glover.

Glover said  it was “highly regrettable” that Blair and Brown had  been overlooked while  “some pretty unsavoury foreign leaders, as well  as some rackety private  individuals” got invites.

Newspaper  reports are highly critical of invitations extended to  King Mswati III of  Swaziland, Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the Crown  Prince of Bahrain and Saudi  Arabia’s Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf bin  Abdulaziz and Princess Fadwa bint Khalid.  The Bahrain Crown Prince has,  however, declined the invite to escape controversy while  Libya’s  ambassador had his invitation rescinded.

In a news  report, The Independent newspaper said: “Despite Zimbabwe   having withdrawn from the Commonwealth in 2003, and Robert Mugabe being  subject  to a travel ban and sanctions, Zimbabwe’s ambassador to  London, Gabriel  Machinga, remains on the guest list because the two  countries retain ‘normal’  relations.”’

The Zimbabwe Vigil has written a letter of complaint about Mugabe’s ambassador’s invitation to the wedding

_____

Just in case you forgot – THESE TWO MAN HAVE NOT BEEN INVITED.

Former British prime ministers Tony Blair (R) and Gordon Brown chat before the arrival of Pope Benedict at Westminster Hall in London September 17, 2010. REUTERS/Christopher Furlong/POOL (BRITAIN - Tags: POLITICS RELIGION)

And they scrub up quite well, and don’t exactly look like they’re likely to cause any trouble.

Mail quote:

“What conceivable reason could there be for not inviting these former democratic leaders to a wedding which, though not an official state occasion, bears an awfully close relationship to one in its size as well as its splendour?”

Read more

_____

Toby Young suggests that Prince William himself would have decided not to invite Blair. Brown’s lack of invitation was, presumably an obvious, unfortunate side-effect. If so, the Prince has lost my respect. Mr Young suggests too that the Prince may come to regret this decision.

So far nothing has persuaded me that the exclusion was other than Prince Charles’ doing, for this reason (as I wrote about here with video, the other day) -

Tony Blair delivers his ‘people’s princess’ speech (Photo: PA)

In my humble opinion, and who knows what they were discussing at this event just before Blair left office, the facial expressions here are telling.

_____

Related News Items

Blair’s punishment for the fox-hunting ban? Something he regretted, and something hunters get round.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown royal wedding ‘snub’ row BBC News
Snubbed Cherie ‘will watch wedding on TV’ – although Guy will go (but who actually … The Daily Mail
Royals reject claims Blair and Brown snubbed by not making the guest list Irish Times
A butcher, barman and estate agent: But no room for Blair and Brown on the … The Daily Mail
Royal couple face rogue’s gallery of despots in Abbey’s front row The Independent

According to a poll here at The Spectator, Blair’s and Brown’s lack of invitation is supported. Different results from my poll, but it just goes to show how narrow is public perception and understanding of the complexities of this issue. And how far The Mail has to go in its campaign of understanding why Blair & Brown, love them or loathe them should have ben invited. It also show the success of the press campaign against both these former prime ministers. Way to go to undo the damage, The Mail. As to the question regarding the response if Mr Sami Khiyami name’s had been included, I imagine he would have received a positive view. The likely response? – “Who? OK, he’ll do.”

_____

Last thoughts on the reason for not inviting Blair & Brown.

Someone has just suggested to me that their exclusion may be an appeasement towards Muslims, especially since the  ‘Muslims Against Crusades’ group were going to demonstrate until they called it off the other day. If that is so it is very worrying. But then we are expecting the “Defender of All Faiths” to inherit the throne from his mother.

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!

Meanwhile Mr Blair has said this morning that his lack of invitation it “not an issue”.

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)
__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---

A right Royal spin around the missing Garter: Pt 2 “The Royals & Something Red”

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the BanBlair-Baiting petition

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

28th April 2011

Part 2: The Whys and Wherefores as to the failure to invite Blair and Brown to William and Kate’s wedding

Read Part 1 here

ORDER OF THE GARTER.  SOMETHING BLUE?

Edited pic of the 'Arms of the Most Noble Order of the Garter'

SOMETHING NOT BLUE – A PRICKLY PROBLEM?

The official explanation for omitting the two previous prime ministers from the guest list for William and Kate’s wedding is that neither holds the Order of the Garter. This is a shoddy excuse in more than one way.

Former Labour PMs Brown and Blair wait for the arrival of Pope Benedict XVI at Westminster Hall. Daily mail picture desk grab from BBC News 24

Being Scots-born both Blair [Edinburgh] and Brown [Glasgow] would be eligible for the Order of the Thistle, not the Order of the Garter. If Palace officials cannot get that little detail right, can we expect them to understand why it was SO wrong to exclude Messrs Blair & Brown from the family, sorry, national wedding of the decade/century/millennium?

Slighting the Labour party is dangerous enough from a supposedly non-political monarchy.

Slighting the Scots is asking for trouble!

You mean you didn't get an invite either?

THE BLAIR STORY

Before we try to get to the bottom of this garter/thistle, a little background political history.

To many of the Labour party faithful Tony Blair was never one of them. They put up with him because he was a winner. Three times a winner. And it took THIRTY THREE years for Labour to find one.  He was historically unique in their party. They just failed to understand WHY he was a winner. It was not a quirk of the voting system but the fact that Blair had changed perceptions of the ‘People’s Party’. Voters who had always steered clear of the collectivist party of the Trades Unions felt more comfortable from the day in 1995 when the New Labour leader Blair consigned Clause IV – COMMON OWNERSHIP (nationalisation) of the means and fruits of production – to history.

[Wikipedia, Clause IV]

Adopted in 1918 by the Labour party: “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

Clause IV was abolished in 1995. Tony Blair, Labour party manifesto, 1997:

‘Our case is simple: that Britain can and must be better’

‘The vision is one of national renewal, a country with drive, purpose and energy’

‘In each area of policy a new and distinctive approach has been mapped out, one that differs from the old left and the Conservative right. This is why new Labour is new’

‘New Labour is a party of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology. What counts is what works. The objectives are radical. The means will be modern’

‘ This is our contract with the people’

From 1994 Blair’s Labour party was to become what history will show to be the most progressive and reforming party for decades. I believe that is so even in its first term, contrary to much widespread opinion of a “slow start” . Devolution to Scotland and Wales, an elected Mayor for London, as well as working flat-out on the Northern Ireland issues (for 10 years) would be enough for most. But there was also the minimum wage, handing interest rate control to the Bank of England, and huge spending on Education and the Health Service.

It is questionable as to whether most of this, for good or ill, would have happened without Tony Blair. Now all of it is accepted and even developed by Cameron’s Conservative party.

Wintour & Watt in The Guardian often refer to Blair’s legacy. For instance here today -

‘The rule book was written by Tony Blair, regarded by Cameron as the “Master”, who said that public service reforms are always opposed when they are launched but end up being accepted.

Michael Gove, the education secretary who is close to Cameron, showed the influence of Blair when he interrupted an interview with myself and Patrick Wintour last year to read out the key passage on page 481 of Blair’s memoirs, A Journey. Blair wrote:

It is an object lesson in the progress of reform: the change is proposed; it is denounced as a disaster; it proceeds with vast chipping away and opposition; it is unpopular; it comes about; within a short space of time, it is as if it had always been so.

Cameron obviously believes the Blair approach is right. But there is one key difference between Cameron and Blair which Downing Street appears not to appreciate. Blair was a Labour prime minister. This meant that while he faced intense opposition from within the Labour movement to his health and schools reforms, the wider electorate never believed he was dismantling the NHS.’

Enough of the obvious. Blair was the changemaker. But was this “change ” too much for the royals?

WHO WEARS THE GARTER?

Most retired Prime Ministers have this order (or its Scots equivalent) bestowed on them by the Monarch. Usually some years after they retire, seldom less than 5 years afterwards. Blair will have been out of office for 4 years in June. Besides the reigning monarch and the Prince of Wales there are only ever permitted to be 24 Knights of the Garter. Right now there is only one vacancy. [According to John Rentoul here the Express says there are three vacancies.] Whichever is accurate, neither Mr Blair nor Mr Brown was knighted on Saturday, St George’s Day, the usual day for bestowing such honours. Perhaps it’ll be St Andrew’s Day instead, several months too late for the wedding.

SO IS THERE ANY TRUTH IN THIS ‘NO GARTER’ STORY?

Being as generous as I can, let’s just take as read the Palace’s explanation. Put aside for a moment that there is actually no particular written or practical protocol for this marriage, a non-official-state occasion.  Put aside that to some of us Brown and Blair’s omission seems unusually rude, inconsiderate and not the best public relations from the Palace or Clarence House, Charles’s residence. Put all that aside. It is always possible that the Garter argument has some merit.

It is always possible that the Royal family were not put out by Labour’s ending of most hereditary peers in the Lords. It is always possible that Charles wasn’t upset by Blair’s high praise of the deceased People’s Princess.  It is always possible that no-one minded when Britannia was decommissioned or when the Queen’s Flight was no more. It is always possible that none of the royal family ever felt threatened by Blair’s popularity, which eventually waned, and did not worry about the “president Blair” tag the press liked to hang on him.

If all of those possibilities are accurate what other reasons would the monarchy have for excluding Blair and Brown? Blair, for one, was and still is , unless he’s recently changed his mind, a strong monarchist.

Well, it could be that Prince William himself did not want them there. Perhaps he doesn’t like either, though I somehow find that hard to accept.  Nor do I believe that William would have had his doubts about the Iraq war, even though friends were killed in battle there.  Our once non-politicised monarchy, unlike such as Saudi Arabia (whose Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz will be at the wedding) does not permit political opinions to influence such decisions. Or at least it didn’t.

William and his brother Harry have also served in the forces in Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that the people there are largely grateful for allied help. That’s not something you read about much in our press, of course, but it’s true nonetheless.

THE ORDER OF THE BOOT

I am trying, I really am, but I have to conclude that this is an error of enormous proportions, even though many do not presently give a hoot. My own feeling, and that’s all that it can be, is that it is Charles’ doing, and primarily against Tony Blair. Clearly it would have been too obvious to have invited Brown while leaving Blair out of it.

Today it is Blair and Brown who have been given the Order of the Boot. Tomorrow, this precedent set, it could be David Cameron and his Tory successors.

__________

RELATED

Others’ thought on this -

• Silver Surfer Today
• New York Times
• Labour party complains of “vindictiveness” and even blame Number 10. Surely not, David?

India Times – Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist leaders invited but no Blair or Brown.

Excerpt:

“Leaders of Hindu, Muslim, Jain and Sikh religions in Britain are among nearly 2,000 people on Friday’s royal wedding guest list that has already generated controversy over the presence and absence on it of some individuals.

Among those invited to attend the high-profile wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton are Anil Bhanot, one of the founding members of Hindu Council UK; Natubhai Shah, President of the Jain Academy; and Indarjit Singh, Director of the Network Sikh Organisations (UK).

Other religious leaders invited include Imam Mohammad Raza, the Chief Rabbi (Lord Sacks); Bogoda Seelawimala, Acting Head Monk of the London Buddhist Vihara; and Maulana Syed Raza Shabbarm of the Muhammadi Trust.

Former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have not been invited to the royal wedding, while Margaret Thatcher and John Major figure prominently on the guest list.

However, Labour leader Ed Miliband and his partner Justine Thornton have been invited.

[...]

Human rights activists had pledged to disrupt Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa’s stay in Britain with a series of protests, alleging that he was the chief architect of the Saudi-backed security forces’ violent response to the demonstrators.

The Bahrain prince wrote to the Prince of Wales apologising for withdrawing, which he described as a matter of “deep regret”.

He said he had left the decision “for as long as possible in the sincere hope that ongoing events – resulting from recent unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain – might have improved, leaving me able to join the celebrations without being overshadowed by issues in Bahrain.”

The royal wedding event is likely to see some protests because of the presence of Saudi Arabia’s Prince Mohamed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz; Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the UK Gabriel Machinga; and the King of Swaziland Mswati III over human rights abuses in their countries.”

_____

You’d think they’d want to fill the empty spaces left by the Bahrain Prince and Dame Thatcher. The latter is not attending due to ill-health. If so, I have a couple of suggestions.

_____

Part 3 to follow: A right royal turnaround from which British newspaper?

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________

The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)

__________

Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---

A right Royal snub for the People’s Prime Minister: Pt 1 “The People’s Princess”

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

26th April 2011

Part 1: The Whys and Wherefores as to the failure to invite Blair and Brown to William and Kate’s wedding

Blair shunned as not “one of us” by the royal – you won’t get us we’re part of the union – family

Is this why the former Labour Prime Minister, the most successful election winner for his party ever, was not included on the tiny guest list of almost 2,000?

Tony Blair on the morning of Diana’s death: “You know how difficult things were for her from time to time, I’m sure we can only guess at. But, the people everywhere, not just here in Britain, everywhere, they kept faith with Princess Diana. They liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people. She was the people’s princess. And that’s how she will stay, how she will remain, in our hearts and in our memories, forever.”

This would not have gone down too well with the Royals, especially Prince Charles. Even if most of us saw the paparazzi as the main culprits in her difficulties, and even if that is what Tony Blair meant.

“That bally man! Who does he think he is?”, I can imagine Charles growl at his mother.

But yes, we did know how difficult things were for her.  Memories are short too as to how Blair rescued the royal family from itself in the days following Princess Diana’s death.  Charles also knows that some even reduce his and Diana’s marriage to this -

A pretty, young, innocent virgin had married a man who did not love her and who used her as little more than a trophy wife and the heir-bearing means to an end.

The People’s Prince is a moniker Charles will never have attached to his name, in life or afterwards. Something it seems he will always blame on the People’s Prime Minister.

__________

Related

• Julie has written on the “Royal Blunder”
• Wedding costs – likely to be £34m – that’s £34,000,000 Well!? Weddings are expensive things these days, garters or no.

Part 2  to follow – Something Blue? A Garter?

_____

Update: Julie has tweeted this -

JuliesThinkTank

The Daily Mail has done something I thought I would never witness in my lifetime. Scary. Really. Anyone knows if Paul Dacre is fine?!

Looks like the basis of Part 3 of The Whys & Wherefores of excluding Blair (and Brown) from the royal wedding.

_____

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________

The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)

__________

Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---

William’s Wedding, Poll: Should Blair & Brown have been invited?

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

26th April 2011

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________

The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)

__________

Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---

Is it a breach of international law to assist rebels in Libya?

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

21st April 2011

---

Article first published as Is it a Breach of International Law to Assist Rebels in Libya? on Blogcritics.

---

‘As the International Court of Justice has made clear on more than one occasion, the principle of non-intervention prohibits a state “to intervene, directly or indirectly, with or without armed force, in support of an internal opposition in another state”.

The merits or otherwise of the rebels’ cause is immaterial: whether they are fighting to depose a brutal tyrant or a model democratic regime, no state may legally assist them.’ (source Legality Blurred, The Australian)

So, even without regard to Cameron’s latest plan of sending, whisper – it just a few top military advisors to help train the rebels, something that yesterday France seemed not to agree with it sounds clear enough, doesn’t it? It’s simply illegal to help rebels. Besides, it will not be helpful for the cause of peace according to Abdul Ati al-Obeidi Libya’s foreign minister.  Meanwhile, in support of Britain, or not to be outdone, France has since said it too is sending its military advisers to Libya. And now Italy says it will send less than ten military liaison officers into Libya.

No military advisers from the USA. But even for bombing from on high in “protection” of Libyan citizens, it’s hard not to conclude that Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy and the rest of the coalition of the willing may be guilty of breaking international laws.

Or are they?

Well, yes and no.

It is a breach if any outside country or force intervenes in a civil war.  The NATO/UN argument is that there is NOT a civil war in Libya; there is a popular uprising against a dictatorial government which has brutally retaliated against its people.

The big fuss as the coalition of the willing sought UNSC (“legal”) approval regarding Libya was limited to establishing a “no-fly zone” and “protecting the population”. The biggest fuss was on flummoxing the opposition by showing that it was all “legal.”  Legal hangups or not, the main concern should be and should always have been victory. Victory is far from guaranteed.

It might be worth a glance at two earlier conflicts which recently engaged the British government. Both of them victorious, neither unquestionably “legal”.

SIERRA LEONE – CIVIL WAR?

Libya is not Sierra Leone where the Blair’s government intervened against brutal rebels (in a civil war) and thus ended the bloodshed after 11 years of the world, the UN and the rest leaving them alone. Even though the military action had no UN mandate to intervene militarily, that intervention is seldom described as “illegal”. Yet it clearly was illegal if outsiders are not permitted to intervene in a civil war.  A short history:  Tony Blair sent troops in to rescue British citizens from rebel attacks in 2000. He was then persuaded by his military chief on the ground that the rebels could be defeated as a useful side-effect of the rescue.  Blair agreed to this course of action. A few months later – end of story.

Wikipedia excerpt: “by May 2000 the rebels were advancing upon Freetown once again.^[8] The British intervened to save the flailing UN mission and the weak government of President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah. With help from a renewed UN mandate and Guinean air support, the British Operation Palliser finally defeated the RUF. On 18 January 2002, President Kabbah declared the Sierra Leone Civil War officially over.”

Although there had been 8 UN resolutions in 2000, 3 in 2001 and  4 in 2002, none of these permitted military intervention.

KOSOVO – CIVIL WAR?

The NATO action in Kosovo lasted less than three months in 1999, after a year or more of fighting between factions in the former Yugoslavia. As with Sierra Leone the United Nations was a foot dragger in this “civil war”, preferring to let NATO take the initiative – and the stick. Apart from the civil war element the reasons for UN inaction (umpteen resolutions - none to intervene until AFTER the NATO success) – were, as they are today, to do with the ever-so-high-minded resistance to action by such as Russia and China. This intervention was six years before the General Assembly amendment which gave outside states/bodies the responsibility to protect.  So Kosovo action too should have been illegal. Oddly enough we seldom hear how “legal/illegal” that intervention was.  Perhaps because the victors there were the interventionists, more particularly THAT  interventionist – Tony Blair.

Are legalities written in stone? Again, that intervention was successful, and so we seldom hear complaints about its legality or otherwise.

Excerpt, Wikipedia Reaction to the war in Kosovo

‘Perhaps more importantly NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council. NATO argued that their defiance of the Security Council was justified based on the claims of an “international humanitarian emergency”. Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defense of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO claimed that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter; however, the only NATO member country to which the instability was a direct threat was Greece, which opposed the bombing.’

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Due to – guess what? – the essence of Tony Blair’s Doctrine of the International Community, Chicago 1999 (Number 10 website) having been added in 2005 to the UN’s Charter we now have a responsibility to protect -

September 2005 – full text of High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly by the General Assembly of the United Nations at its fifty-ninth session – 2005 World Summit Outcome, adopted in full here. The General Assembly Adopts the following 2005 World Summit Outcome -

Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document

Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

140. We fully support the mission of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

So, is David Cameron the new interventionist, despite promising that he and his party would have a whole different approach to foreign affairs?  It certainly looks that way.

March 2nd this year, at Number 10′s morning press briefing:

Asked if the Government accepted Tony Blair’s ‘doctrine’ of humanitarian interventionism that was used to justify the military action in Kosovo, the PMS said that he thought that was a point about international law. Asked if the Prime Minister had consulted the Attorney General, the PMS said that we were doing some planning for various scenarios; we were working the phones and working with international partners to bring pressure on that regime. We were not consulting lawyers.

On whether the UK Government should be so involved in the situation, the PMS said that we thought it was right to be concerned about the situation in Libya and it was right that the international community should come together to put pressure on the regime.

If you were ever taken in by the myth that Tony Blair and his people spoke doublespeak or avoided answering the questions, you have being disabused of that by Cameron’s spokesman’s meanderings: evasion and no reasonable reply to the comparison with Kosovo; no admission that they were consulting lawyers, when they clearly were – still are, no doubt; evasion and no direct answer to the question as to whether his government should be “so involved” in the Libya situation.

BITING OFF MORE THAN IS CHEWABLE?

Legality/illegality arguments aside, I do not see those charges as anything like as important as do some, mainly because the UN itself stands charged with failing to protect. It is hardly an exemplar of principle over the big idea of “Uniting” Nations.

Mr Cameron’s intervention in Libya would be more likely to succeed and to cover  him in glory if the rest of the international community were truly signed up to Blair’s doctrine. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the rest of the world is not. And America is no longer willing or able to play the world’s policeman.

A few days ago I drafted a post on my doubts about this intervention in Libya. Before I’m accused of hindsight knowledge, I should get it online.

Meanwhile, this site reports that two acclaimed photojournalists have been killed in Misratah, Libya.  And Sky News reports that only the British photojournalist Tim Hetherington has died. Chris Hondros, a multiple award-winning photographer is reported to be in intensive care. Two other journalists were injured in the same incident.

[Update: It seems the first report above on the journalists was correct. Both died yesterday in Misratah. R.I.P.]

_____

Related

Blair Doctrine of Humanitarian/Liberal Interventionism

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________

The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)

__________

Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---

The desire for war in Iran

21st April, 2011

Cross-post from here – http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2011/04/21/146200.html

By Abdullah Iskandar

‘Does Iran wish to engage in war in the Gulf? We cannot give a decisive answer although all sorts of war drums are resonating in Tehran, and despite the ongoing preparations and military maneuvers by land, sea and air, the repeated announcements of new weapons and long range missiles and the development of the combat techniques.

But what is certain is that the Iranian leaders wish to try out military power in the Gulf, in light of the convergence of numerous factors pushing in that direction. ‘

More here

British Dirty Dozen climb on their HovPods for Libya – no boots on sand

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

Hovpods for Libya - "No boots on ground"

19th April 2011

UPDATE: Catch 22? France has announced it is sending a ten-strong military advisory team to Libya.

Military liaison advisory team (unarmed, natch!) don the right gear for the job

In the light of the decision by the British Prime Minister David Cameron to allow twelve senior military men to travel to Libya in order to train the rebels in how to beat the baddies, the senior soldiers have been polishing up their vehicles.

“There will be no (British) boots on the ground”, promised Mr Cameron. “We have commissioned a number of amazingly adaptable land, sea and sand hovpods.”

And France is sending the flip-flops for the British militia in Libya

“But”, added the Foreign Secretary William Hague, “just in case any of them falls off, they’ll all be wearing flip-flops. No boots on Libyan ground, as the Prime Minister says.”

“And we Britons are not alone in this venture”, assured the Entente Cordial Prime Minister, “the flip-flops have been specially imported from France.”

The flip-flopping prime minister added, “Since the military cutbacks, we’ve also managed to source spare pairs of this valuable footwear from a charity shop in Kings Road, so the quality and quantity are not in doubt.  Samantha always takes our old stuff there.”

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________

The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)

__________

Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---

Stalemate or Regime Change. You choose. Quelle surprise!

• Current Latest Page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• New blog – The Feral Press
• Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Comment at end

Or – Tweet this post

15th April 2011

A LITTLE NOTE ON REGIME CHANGING?  Or…

MOVING THE GOALPOSTS? Or…

P.R. VIA THE MEDIA?

On Libya. Obama: "I say little". Cameron: "I hear selectively". Sarkozy: "I see no contradictions"

Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama:

1. “Our duty and our mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power.”

2. “The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.”

3. “The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misratah and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and the pressure on the regime builds.”

4. “Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.”

_____

Deconstructing the above, taken from the full statement here, takes us to where we all knew we were several weeks ago.

• From item 1 – “… it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power.”  Who says? The Libyan people? A majority of them? How do we know? When was a vote taken?
• Item 2 – “It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.” As it has been unthinkable in numerous other dictatorships where our blind eye was turned? – Stalin, Hitler, Mao-Tse-Tung,  Kim Yong II, President Suharto, Babrak Kurmal, Omar-al-Bashir? Even Saddam Hussein until we finally acted, UN or not? Not to mention (to name but two) the present Syrian or Yemeni leaders? For me, for once ‘whataboutery’ keeps raising its ugly head.
• Item 3 – “The regime has to pull back from the cities it is besieging, including Ajdabiya, Misratah and Zintan, and return to their barracks. However, so long as Gaddafi is in power, Nato and its coalition partners must maintain…” So, even if Gaddafi DOES pull back, he still must be removed. Regime change, in other words.
• Item 4 – “Britain, France and the United States will not rest until the United Nations Security Council resolutions have been implemented and the Libyan people can choose their own future.” When will we know the UNSC resolutions have been ‘implemented’?  And how can we be sure that Libyans are choosing ‘their own future’ if we are removing Gaddafi? Whether we approve or not he seems still to have supporters in Libya.

REGIME CHANGE IS THE NAME OF THE GAME AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN

This regime change admission also leads us to these conclusions, some more palatable than others:

1. The UN is hardly ever “united”, thus usually in the end, it is almost useless.

2. Those intent on acting against Gaddafi PERSONALLY knew the UN was and is useless in such grand gestures.

3. Those leading the securing of resolution 1973 KNEW that resolution would prove insufficient.

4. David Cameron lied or at the very least “dissembled” to parliament, and knew he had lied/dissembled to parliament.

5. Our prime minister, similarly the USA’s president, did not even bother to ask Parliament’s (Congress’s) permission until after the bombing had started.  Even though, as seems likely, he/they actually MEANT “regime change” when he, Cameron, DID finally ask parliament. This in comparison to Tony Blair who won the Iraq vote in parliament before bombing commenced. “Lies”, “dissembling”, “American conspiracy”, “war crimes” anyone?

Regime Change letter. Three wise signatories?

Call the Libya Humanitarian Intervention a car crash if you like. Call it lies by any other name. “Regime Change” it clearly is and always has been.

But the leaders of the alliance to oust Gaddafi know they are not permitted to tell it like it is. They are not permitted by the seriously compromising strictures of international law and the UN Security Council and many of its members.  So all they can do it is to let the interested observer follow the press’s telling of the tale. Meanwhile they hope that that ‘telling’ remains a useful item on the agenda.

Beyond UNSC Resolution 1973

There will be no further resolution from the UNSC. They even failed to get Germany on board for 1973.  And Turkey, Russia and China abstained. Something they did not do over resolution 1441 used by Blair and Bush against Saddam.

There is literally no chance Obama/Cameron/Sarkozy alliance will achieve an even stronger UN resolution. They know it. We all know it. So they will not even try. Instead, with the help of the press (some with an agenda) they hope to show us all how bad the awful Gaddafi is. The hope then is that someone within Gaddafi’s circle will do away with him, so we don’t have to.

This is not to imply that Gaddafi is not Goddamn awful. It is but to point up the discrepancies that lie at the heart of what I still consider was a hasty rush to change a regime which is no worse than most of the others stewing away nicely in the Middle East boiling pot.

Wikipedia:

In 1971, Gaddafi offered to merge Libya with Sudan, but Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiry turned down that offer.^[39] Nimeiry said of Gaddafi: “He has a split personality—both parts evil.”^[40]

With respect to Libya’s neighbors, Gaddafi followed Gamal Abdel Nasser‘s ideas of pan-Arabism and became a fervent advocate of the unity of all Arab states into one Arab nation. He also supported pan-Islamism, the notion of a loose union of all Islamic countries and peoples. After Nasser’s death on 28 September 1970, Gaddafi attempted to take up the mantle of ideological leader of Arab nationalism. He proclaimed the “Federation of Arab Republics” (Libya, Egypt, and Syria) in 1972, hoping to create a pan-Arab state, but the three countries disagreed on merger terms (though all three did adopt the same flag).

As Obama points out that the no-fly zone and arms embargo agreement are still holding firm, he says that Gaddafi’s cash is running out and the noose is tightening around him. Time will tell. In the meantime, due to the absence of rebel-supporting western soldiers on the ground Gaddafi’s’ supporters and defenders will still be able to hold their own, and perhaps even gain position.

In summary, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy are struggling to re-interpret the meaning of “all necessary means”. I expect Menzies Campbell is delighted.  He should be relieved that the prime minister his party is in coalition with is now being honest.

_____

RELATED

• Tony Blair says “don’t underestimate Gaddafi”
• Video of dead Gaddai ‘fighters’, filmed in Misrata, March 2011. Are these enlisted soldiers or civilians, supposed to be under UN protection? It is not clear from this video. What is clear is that the way their dead bodies are treated, dangled like animals on the back of a farm truck – does not fill me with any assuredness regarding the mores of those who killed them.
• MPs call for parliament recall over “regime change” and “mission slip”

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________

The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)

__________

Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

---