Alphazebra

I had recently drawn the attention of my MP to the prior knowledge of Tony Blair about Israeli military plans in relation to the recent conflict. I'd also requested him to find out why the UK voted against the UN Human Rights Council resolution for investigating charges of war crimes. He responded by copying this recent memo from Kim Howells, intended to quell discontent among decent Labour MPs. (see links [1]..[8] below.)




















My response to my MP:


Dear David, thanks for this information. It's clearly intended to reduce discontent within the ranks of decent MPs within the Labour party. Unfortunately, UN negotiations are predictably protracted. And against a background of permitting weapons shipments to one of the combatants, previously described as committing war crimes against the civilian population by Kofi Annan, failing to call for an immediate cease-fire, prior knowledge of Israeli military plans and refusing MPs demands for a recall of parliament, it looks very much to me like an abuse of crown powers by the executive over parliament in order to aid and abet war crimes for larger strategic and political reasons. I realise that proving it is quite a different matter.

Yours sincerely, Peter Fainton

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1839280,00.html
[3] Human Rights Council Resolution
[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5236946.stm
[5] http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1112012006
[6] http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/66991.html
[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5986581,00.html
[8] http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm


Resolution

In a resolution (A/HRC/S-2/L.1), entitled the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, adopted as orally revised after a roll-call vote of 27 in favour, 11 against, and 8 abstentions, the Human Rights Council, among other things, strongly condemns the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law in Lebanon; also condemns massive bombardments of Lebanese civilian populations, especially the massacres in Qana, Marwaheen, Al Duweir, Al Bayadah, Al Qaa, Chiyah, Ghazieh and other towns of Lebanon and the displacement of one million civilians; further condemns the Israeli bombardment of vital civilian infrastructure resulting in extensive destruction and heavy damage to public and private properties; further condemns the Israeli bombardment of vital civilian infrastructure; calls upon Israel to observe the principle of proportionality and refrain from launching any attack that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life; calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by its obligations under human rights law, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; and calls upon Israel to immediately stop military operations against the civilian population and civilian objects resulting in death and destruction and serious violations of human rights.

The Council also decides to urgently establish and immediately dispatch a high-level inquiry commission comprising eminent experts of human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the possibility of inviting the relevant special procedures to be nominated to the commission to, among other things: investigate the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel; examine the types of weapons used by Israel and their conformity with international law; and assess the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and environment; also requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all administrative, technical and logistical assistance required to enable the Commission to fulfil its mandate promptly and efficiently; calls on the international community to provide urgently the Lebanese Government with humanitarian and financial assistance to enable it to deal with the worsening humanitarian disaster, rehabilitation of victims, return of displaced persons, and restoration of the essential infrastructure; and requests the Commission to report to the Council no later than 1 September 2006 on progress towards the fulfilment of its mandate.



The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (27):Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.

Against (11):Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

Abstentions (8):Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, and Switzerland.

When you don't want a debate in parliament over your failure to call for a cease-fire for the Israeli/Lebanon conflict and your patriotic propaganda involving the Royals has been exposed then the next best thing is to work on your main 'theme', in this case 'terror'. As Napoleon observed: "fear and interest are the levers for moving men."

Of course, if your security scare can neatly dovetail with preventing the means by which MPs could return from holiday then this is bound to be more effective in serving the interests of controlling elites.
















Accountability of power (unrepresentative democracy)

Email to BBC on News coverage























Tony Blair: taking Brtain's latest terror alert 'very seriously' in Barbados.

Once again establishment propagandists feed the media a Royal diversion to divert attention from the war crimes of ministers who demonstrate their leadership qualities by going on holiday.

This stuff is so de rigueur for establishment media outlets like the BBC, but I was surprised that google UK was listing this as a top story as well.

It's a shame they've missed an opportunity for some choice quotes from the trees in the gardens of Clarence House who are, of course, privy to Prince Charles's conversations.

Perhaps I should provide some clarification on the above. As Tony Benn pointed out in his book Common Sense: "Throughout history objections have been raised to the simple principle of democracy on the grounds that 'the people' are incapable of taking important decisions, that government should be left to the elite (even when on holiday), the experts, the technocrats.

"Edmund Burke referred to the populace as the 'swinish multitude', and a century later Walter Bagehot, the author of the once definitive text on the British Constitution, warned that 'vox populi would be vox diaboli', if sufferage was extended to minor English shop-keepers.

"Such objections conceal a range of powerful vested interests. They are an extension of the 'good king' aspect of British political culture that the people at the top are so rich and powerful and wise that they are incorruptible - the Whig and Tory principle.

"The surviving aristocratic element of modern Britain is the somewhat precarious peak of a pyramid of seniority and social rank, at the base of which is the labourer, and the top is the monarch with a multitude of ranks between the two.

"Through life we are expected to obey authority and are persuaded to believe that our 'betters' are actually better and know what is good for us. Education and work are organised around the notion of failure, the fate of the majority. The success of the few, via further education, funded by the state, relies on the rejection of the many.

"Deference at work and bowing and scraping are a part of most people's life experience, an experience which excludes any idea that there might be a better or fairer way of structuring our social relations.

"In the 1960s Prince Charles, then a schoolboy at Gordonstoun, concluded from his history books that: 'By entrusting the management of affairs chiefly to the upper classes a country is at least saved from some of the evil that may be produced in the lower classes by corruption. Although the upper classes may be lacking intelligence, biased by class interest and guilty of great corruption in political appointment, the honour of the class at least secures it from greater corruption when its members are permanently connected with the well-being of the country.' Presumably no master dared correct him." My italics in brackets.

So no surprise then that when ministers who've aided and abetted war crimes swan off on holiday, as civilians in Lebanon are pulverised, that the establishment media should remind us about those lacking intelligence who sit at the top of our deferential pyramid.





















Prince Charles: human totem pole, establishment symbol, and tool of establishment propagandists.

















Accountability of power in UK democracy