Why I will join the Labour Party

Being an independent has many advantages, especially for a centrist like myself. Most importantly, it lets you sit above the tribal fray and base your decisions purely on convictions and principles. You can speak your mind without caring what others might think about what you feel or have to say. But the downside to it is that people often call you a hypocrite and accuse you of not standing up for what you believe in – fighting a corner – and instead take the lazy way out.

It is a fair point.

As a result, I thought about joining a political party for several months – Labour or Conservatives. I was courted by the Tories much more than by Labour but both sides presented good and strong arguments, which made it immensely difficult for me.

I was impressed by Cameron’s leadership over Libya and I support many of the coalition’s cuts. But after all Cameron is not a neo-conservative and has probably only slightly more interventionist blood in his veins than Ed Miliband. The cuts are right but too fast and too deep.

As for Labour, I strongly disagree with the direction the party has taken since Tony Blair was ousted by a ruthless coup, initiated by the Brownian cronies, and I consider the leadership’s continues attempts to trash and bury his legacy as not just fundamentally wrong but appalling and disgraceful. The Brownites are still spilling their poison, lowering the standards of the political culture and making the current Labour leadership as intellectually exclusive as ever.

But here comes the point.

New Labour’s record is worth fighting for. Not just the domestic achievements – minimum wage, high employment, tough on crime, pro-business – but also the promotion of a liberal interventionist foreign policy, which saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives on the Balkan, in Sierra Leone and Iraq.

That is why I decided to join Red Ed’s Labour – not out of enthusiasm but strategic considerations. I have to admit the fact that Owen Jones asked me to become a Tory was yet another incentive to do exactly the opposite.

Ultimately, it is best to take on the ultra-left from inside. Otherwise you are just another sleazy, opportunistic Tory, whose opinion is not worth listening to. Be warned. I will not be an easy Labourite and lurk on the very right- wing periphery of the party.

All I have to offer is honesty.

Russia’s Janus-faced Middle East policy

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia’s influence in the Middle East has been greatly undermined and its policy has changed in emphasis and intensity. While during the clash between the two superpowers – the US and the Soviet Union – the Middle East was part of its ideological battlefield, Russia nowadays often merely reacts to US policy in the region, after shrinking from a superpower to a middle power.

The post-Soviet era was marked by a struggle between the Russian Atlanticists and Eurasians. The former were in favour of a closer partnership with the West, in order to accelerate Russia’s democratic transformation. But the latter considered China, India and the Middle East as the country’s natural allies and rejected a more pro-Western policy, as it is the case up to the present.

After the September 11th, 2001 atrocities in the US, most Western countries offered their support and embraced a policy of counter-terrorism in the Middle East. Russia on the contrary, despite its rhetoric in the immediate aftermath of the attacks and its problems with Chechnya, has been an obstacle rather than an asset in the fight against global Islamic extremism.

Russia’s policy in the Middle East is inconsistent and ambivalent. Firstly, Russia’s goal is to oppose, sabotage and boycott US foreign policy in the region, in order to counter American hegemony.  This is mostly achieved through diplomatic channels, as for instance by vetoing US resolutions in the UN Security Council, or through arms trades with rogue states, as in case of Iran and Iraq.

Secondly, Russia’s Middle East policy is strongly shaped by strategic calculations, especially in respect to Chechnya. Arguably, no other security concern influences Moscow’s terrorism and Middle East policy more than the situation on the northern Caucasus. Against this background, Russia sought membership in the Organisation of Islamic Conference and was successfully granted observer status. The idea behind it was to gain de facto immunity from criticism of Russian policy in Chechnya.

Thirdly, Russia is determined to profit from economic partnerships in the Middle East. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the country no longer self-restrained itself in its arms sales to the region as long as financial arrangements were beneficial for the Russian defence industry.

Although Russia and the United States arguably have a common enemy in radical Islamism, the former nevertheless deliberately undermines the strategy of the latter. Further, although Putin deploys a zero-tolerance policy against Islamic extremism at home, he maintains close relationships, mostly because of political and economic considerations, with countries in the Middle East, which represent similar ideologies.

Russia’s Decline in the Middle East            

From the mid-1950s onwards to its dissolution in 1991, the Soviet Union played an essential part in providing the weaponry of many Arab states. Almost 90 per cent of military equipment in Syria and Libya was coming from the Soviet market. For the country, this was one way of protecting its influence in opposition to its rival, the US, and to help shaping Middle East policy in its own national, strategic interests.

But even during the Cold War, especially towards the end, the Soviet Union was not in a position to compete with the military and financial aid offered by the US. Many of the Arab states became increasingly aware of its domestic economic problems, and sided with the Americans, as for instance Egypt, which cut all ties with the Soviet Union in 1972, and instead turned on the US to enhance its military capabilities.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s was a fatal blow. The country’s influence in the region significantly suffered and the newly emerging Russia found itself in a disastrous position.  Now incapable of proving the Arab states with large-scale arms sales, it lost almost all of its allies, except of Iran and Iraq, which were boycotted by the US and most Western countries for political reasons. But even these two countries escaped Russian influence more and more, as they were aware of Moscow’s desperate dependence on strategic and economic partnerships in the region and used it for their own advantages.

As a result, Russia’s policy in the Middle East changed from an offensive to a defensive one. Moscow is now primarily concerned with countering US hegemony, containing Islamic extremism on the northern Caucasus and enhancing the country’s influence through economic channels.

The Russian- Iranian Relationship

After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the hostage crisis, the US cut all ties with the Islamic Republic, which has become the leading anti-American force in the region. Up to the present day, the US has not opened an embassy on Iranian soil again.

Russia, on the other hand, has been a long and traditional partner for the Iranians. Since 1995, Russia has  also been Iran’s sole partner in the nuclear field and Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons, after India and China. Russia signed a deal with the Islamic Republic, worth $800 million, over the construction of the Bushehr nuclear plant, for which they sold reactors and turbines.

After it was revealed in 2002 that Iran runs a secret nuclear programme, the country has come under more and more scrutiny from the international community, in particular the US and its Western allies, as many question that Iran plans to use it for peaceful means only. This concern is fuelled by Ahmadinejad’s repeated threats against Israel and some of Iran’s Arab neighbours.

Several UNSCRs have already been issued against the Islamic Republic. UNSCR 1737 was passed in December 2006 and prohibited financial and technical assistance for “Iran’s enrichment, reprocessing, heavy water and ballistic missile programmes”. Four years later, the country was still in breach of previous resolutions and failed to cooperate with the IAEA inspectors. The Security Council imposed further sanctions on the regime and again called on Teheran to completely suspend its enrichment activities.

Despite supporting some of the diplomatic manoeuvres against Iran, Russia has not significantly altered or downgraded its relationship with Teheran and is arguably in breach of the international community’s sanctions against the Islamic Republic. For instance, Putin finally agreed in 2005 to provide the Bushehr plant with Russian nuclear fuel.

The reason for Russia to maintain close ties with Iran at such a high price are threefold . Firstly, Russia and Iran perceive US hegemony and Western influences as a common threat. Both were particular concerned by the Bush administration’s attempt to expand NATO’s sphere of influence on the Balkans and the Caucasus, areas of strategic importance for both Moscow and Teheran

Secondly, Russia is struggling to contain Islamic extremism at its backdoor, especially in Chechnya, which is why Moscow needs allies in the Islamic world. In return for supporting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Islamic Republic has, at least officially, refrained from actively supporting the Chechen rebel, as any Middle Eastern government which seeks Moscow’s support must either side with their struggle against Chechen separatists or, at a minimum, not protest.

Thirdly, Russia’s alliance with Iran has been highly beneficial and proves that Moscow is prepared to risk its relationship with the West, in particular the US, for economic reasons.

The Russian- Iraq Relationship

As with Iran, economic considerations and political opposition to the US guided Russian policy toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. This became strongly apparent in the run up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. At the time, sanctions were crumbling and the no-fly zone over the northern and southern part of Iraq was no longer working. Furthermore, Saddam’s regime was able to smuggle prohibited items in and out of the country through its neighbouring borders.

Consequently, the US and its allies pushed for new and stronger sanctions in the UN Security Council, aimed at restoring the no fly zone over the Kurdish region and to seal off the borders to stop illegal trade. This however was strongly opposed by Russia. Moscow was the leading force in trying get sanctions lifted and Putin’s government threatened to veto any UNSCR of that kind.

As the UK’s former ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, recalled “Russia had its own direct relationship with Iraq and was talking with Iraq probably more than any other country”.  He also stated that Iraq’s debt to Russia “was in many billions of dollars resulting from the Iran/Iraq war purchases” and the country “wanted sanctions to be lifted so they could get some of their money back”. At some point, the US and UK even discussed to pay parts of the $8 billion owed to Moscow to gain the country’s support.

Other economic reasons for Russia to oppose a stronger sanction regime and the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam offered them lucrative contracts in return and Moscow wanted to preserve the cashing-in from the UN’s oil-for-food-programme.

But the country also opposed the US-led policy towards Iraq for political considerations. The reasons given by Moscow were highly dubious. While on the one hand, Putin stated that he opposed the war in Iraq because of the strong opposition of Russia’s Muslim, he never displayed much concern about their opinion on Russian policy toward Chechnya.

Another piece of evidence which suggests that the Putin administration actively tried to wage public opinion against the US is that many of the 20,000 protesters, who went on the streets against the war, were given favours in return.

Russia’s relationship with Iraq is a further example of the country’s troubled Middle East policy and unlike in case of Iran, Moscow has not gained a lot from boycotting the toppling of the Baathist regime. In fact, it can be argued that Saddam, by offering Russia lucrative contracts in return to opposition to the US, influenced Russian policy as much as vice versa, which again is an indicator that Moscow’s Middle East policy is defensive rather than offensive.

Further, with Saddam gone, Russia has lost yet another ally in the region and Putin’s decision not to support the removal of Iran’s arch-enemy, also put Russia’s relationship with Teheran under strain.

Russia’s Janus-faced Middle East Policy

Especially on the issue of Islamic extremism, Moscow’s approach has been Janus-faced. While determined to brutally crushing down those movements at home and on the northern Caucasus, Putin’s administration at the same time maintains close ties with regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, which represents a similar ideology.

Although Teheran has officially refrained from condemning Russia’s policy in Chechnya, Putin is playing with the devil and Iran continues support for organisations like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. It proves where Iran’s solidarity ultimately lies. Also, despite having been granted observer status in the Organisation of Islamic Conference, many Arab states are still publicly condemning Russia’s approach to Chechnya. Thus, in the short-term, Moscow maybe succeeds in containing the situation on the northern Caucasus with its purpose alliances in the Middle East, but in the long-term it will hardly solves the problem.

Moreover, even though Russia experienced a limited surge of influence when the US and allies where under severe pressure in Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia failed to sustainably increase its influence in the region, and consequently Moscow’s Middle East policy remains defensive rather than offensive. Additionally, Russia did not effectively boycott and sabotage decisive policy decisions of the US and its Western allies, as for instance in case of Iraq. Also, with Saddam’s regime gone, Iran under tremendous pressure from the international community and Assad, another ally of Russia, on the brink in Syria, the country has to expect further backlashes.

The only of the three objectives Russia fulfilled was to enhance its economic partnerships in the region. Especially its support for Iran’s nuclear programme has brought in a lot of money for Moscow. In recent years, in particular under Putin’s leadership, Russia has also successfully intensified economic relationships with Israel and other Arab countries, which were not traditional trading partners of Russia.

In sum, Russia has failed to make priorities in the Middle East and got caught up in many conflicts of interest and policy dilemmas. Instead of focusing on specific goals, Moscow has often pursued opportunistic ends, resulting in inconsistent and ambivalent decision-making processes.

How much do you really know about the Iraq war?

End of page: Assessment and answers

———————————————————

Your score

0 answers correct

You are a deluded peace buddy and/or tree hugger. Membership in “Stop the War Coalition” strongly recommended.

1-3 answers correct

Oh hello Peter Oborne. Or is it Noam?

4-6 answers correct

You are most likely a semi-detached Indy, Guardian or Daily Mail hack.

7-8 answers correct

7 – George W. Bush drunk; 8 – George W. Bush sober

9-10 answers correct:

You are either Tony Blair, Condi Rice or just a very well informed and obsessive political anorak.

Answers

1 c

2 d

3 a

4 a

5 d

6 b

7 b

8 d

9 b

10 c

Death-threatened for being a Blairite

Actually, it is too bizarre to be true but I am being stalked and death-threatened by Shereef Abdallah, an anti-Semitic wannabe Ed Miliband “lookalike”. He previously worked as a volunteer for Labour MP Glenda Jackson and was yesterday exposed by the excellent Martin Bright in the Jewish Chronicle.

Shereef Abdallah

Since running my political blog Julie’s Think Tank and the corresponding Twitter account, I have often got buried in waves of ad hominem attacks. Although annoying, you learn to get around it. It is part of modern communication. But never before, had I encountered anything like Mr Abdallah who previously operated under the Twitter names @Sheik74k, @LFCSheikKD and now @LFCSheik83KD.

My crime was to be a friend and supporter of Tony Blair, liberal interventionist and strong advocate of the US-led war against Iraq in 2003, a decision I often defend on social media sites, including Twitter. In Mr Abdallah’s eyes, this makes me a “warmongering, anti-Islamist, Zionist Nazi” with “no class, intellect or morals”.

About three months ago, I first got into contact with him. I did not pick a fight. It was him who intervened in a debate – a civilised one – I had with another Twitter user who strongly disagreed with me over the decision to go to war.

After Mr Abdallah made the serious allegation that the Iraq war was illegal, I politely asked him to explain his position in legal terms and in return offered to explain mine. But instead of engaging in a factual debate, he immediately started to personally insult me. Ignoring his rants, I patiently outlined the significance of UNSCR 1441 in combination with 678 and 687.

Again, Mr Abdallah refused to engage in an argument and instead began to claim I called him a “jihadi”, a remark sent to me not made by me – a small but significant difference. He then “noted and printed” my alleged insults and reported me to Holborn police. They sent him home three times, as he later admitted.

Ever since, he has been sending me aggressive and violent tweets several times per day, many of which he later deleted. According to Mr Abdallah, “Zionists cannot save me” as they “have lost every war since 1973” and indeed “no force on earth” will stop him, including Twitter and the police.

The situation escalated last month, when he turned up at my workplace demanding to see me.

So far, the most chilling death-threat I received on December 29th, 2011 when Mr Abdallah tweeted: “Julia are you still alive FFS? RIP you will be next after I end “X”, that’s a promise. Sleep tight”…“As long as I’m alive I will hound you”…”I’m going to escalate in 2012”.

While I accept Twitter cannot act upon every complaint made and in most cases their suggestion to block the user in question is sufficient to settle the dispute, I find it appalling – to say the least – that they have failed to take action against Mr Abdallah. The internet should not be a law-free zone.

But a spokeswoman from Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” department concluded that his behaviour was “not in violation of the Twitter Rules at this time” and that although they “have a policy against violent threats”, his tweets “lack[ed] the specificity to meet the criteria of an actionable threat”.

Mr Abdallah’s behaviour is now a matter for the Crown. A former Labour Press Officer reported him to the police, after he threatened to “cut his throat” and I too will contact the authorities. I am very pleased the Labour Party has responded by suspending his membership with immediate effect and both Progress and the Young Fabians have confirmed that Mr Abdallah falsely claimed to be a member of their organisations.

The Sheik vs. Moi

A very big thank you to Martin Bright and Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle, and also to my friend Nick Cohen, for exposing the anti-Semitic, women-threatening and death-promising LFCSheik83KD.

Here are some of the most chilling screen grabs:

—————————————

Excerpt of the Jewish Chronicle Story:

Twitter fails to act over Ed Miliband lookalike’s anti Israel death threats

Shereef Abdallah, who advertises himself as an Ed Miliband lookalike and claims to have worked on the Labour leader’s election campaign, began by targeting people identified as supporters of Tony Blair. He has since widened his online attacks to anyone who challenges him.

Mr Abdallah, who has worked as a volunteer at the office of Glenda Jackson and blogged for the Labour Party affiliate organisation Young Fabians, started his campaign with attacks on “Julia”, a young woman who runs the Blairite blog Julie’s Think Tank. The JC has been advised not to reveal the identity of the women involved as there is a risk that Mr Abdallah may turn his violent, often sexual fantasies into real acts of violence. Many of his tweets end with the sign-off “R.I.P.”

The probation officers’ union, Napo, which is running a campaign to toughen up the laws on stalking, referred the tweets to a psychological profiler who helps the police identify violent offenders. She concluded that there was a 30 per cent chance that Mr Abdallah would turn his threats into real acts of violence.

Mr Abdallah, who has used the names @Sheik74k and @LFCSheikKD on Twitter, bombarded “Julia” with messages such as: “Your nightmare is just starting, Julia, it will only get worse for you every day 24/7 till you leave twitter”; “Zionists can’t save you, Julia, the only way to stop it is to leave twitter. Racist tory anti Islamic scum”; “I fear nothing not even death so will fight you and your ilk to my last breath.” Most chilling of all was the message: “… are you still alive FFS? You will be next after I end [Rachel]…. that’s a promise. sleep tight”.

To “Rachel”, he wrote in capital letters: “I WILL BEAT YOU TO DEATH… R.I.P; THIS IS NOT A THREAT… THAT IS A PROMISE.”

The Fabian Society said Mr Abdallah had falsely claimed to be a member of the Young Fabians when he posted as a blogger on its website. His post was subsequently removed.

The clock is ticking – no time to lose in Syria and Iran

2011 was not a good year for dictators and tyrants, as Ben Ali, Mubarak and finally Gaddafi were all successfully unseated from power.

But let us not forget that many are still killing, torturing, and raping their own people – right now. Although Assad is on the brink in Syria, so far more than 6,129 innocent souls have lost their lives and the actual number is likely to be much higher.

While the UN half-masted the flag for North Korea’s ex-dictator, the international community failed to act in concert and protect the Syrian people from Assad’s crime family. It was strategic suicide on behalf of NATO to rule out intervention right from the start and at the same time an invitation for Assad’s snipers to commit mass civilian atrocities with impunity.

It is no longer a battle over freedom and democracy in Syria. It has literally become a matter of life and death.

The other country we must pay close attention to is Iran, which is currently defying the West with its quest for nuclear weapons. Under no circumstances whatsoever we should tolerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The country plans to produce 7000MW of nuclear energy by the year 2020, which will require at least seven nuclear power plants. When Saddam tried to build his dirty bomb, he already had in stock a total of more than 30 lbs of fresh Russian supplied 80% enriched uranium. One only needs to look at developments in Iran and it would appear that history is repeating itself.

How irresponsible, ignorant and naive are we?

According to the IAEA, Iran has already practically completed a front end of cycle, including conversion, enrichment and uranium mining and milling.  What if Iran enriches uranium to a level higher than 20% U-235?

In 2010, the UNSC passed a Resolution, 1929, which called on Iran to immediately suspend its enrichment activities and fully cooperate with the IAEA inspectors. Ever since, Iran has been in breach and has crossed several thresholds relevant to the development of nuclear weapons. Just two days ago, the regime reported that it produced its first nuclear fuel rod.

Iran is a serious  and profound threat to stability and peace in the region, which arguably makes it the greatest present danger per se. It undoubtedly continues to support organisations committed to destroying Israel, such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza and global jihad.

It is essential that we -  the West – understand that those regimes do not hate us because of what we do but who we are. They are fighting hard and so must we. There should be no place for death-worshipping, religious fundamentalist, barbaric, pro-terrorist and anti-Semitic regimes in our freedom-loving minds.

Should the UK join the EU Monetary Union?

When the single currency was introduced in 1999, eleven out of the fifteen European states joined the EMU. The UK however, one of the largest economies in the Union, declined to participate. The choice of whether or not joining the Euro zone was a fiercely contested issue in Britain with the government and business circles generally in favour of joining and the conservative opposition, right wing-media, and large parts of the public equally strong against participation.

Several key economic reasons were named for both in favour of and against adopting the Euro. The parties that were supportive of joining the EMU saw the single currency as a natural and further step towards the Single European Market. They argued that it would enhance the competitiveness of the UK economy and provide sustainable growth and prosperity. Furthermore, the government embraced a pro-European policy and wanted to lead the country out of isolation into the heart of European politics.

On the contrary, the opponents of the single currency argued that the Euro would undermine British national identity by replacing the Pound, and that Britain was culturally and economically closer to US business cycles. Their strongest argument against adopting the Euro was the loss of national sovereignty in terms of monetary policy, which would have largely been coordinated by the European Central Bank. The UK would not have been able to follow an independent exchange rate policy anymore with the result that it would have been impossible to adjust interest rates in times of crisis. The UK would have lost influence over its national economic agenda, since more and more macroeconomic decisions were planned to be made in Brussels. Additionally, while fiscal policy, like tax harmonisation, was not directly linked to the EMU, opponents believed that the adoption of the single currency and deeper integration in relation to the Single Market was a clear sign for an on-going convergence process.

In 1999, the Bank of England became independent which was generally seen as a positive signal for potential membership, since it mirrored one of the criteria, outlined in the Maastricht Treaty, for joining the Euro zone. However, there was also increasingly pressure to reject membership in the long term, when for example the Euro fell steadily against the Dollar and the Pound in the same year. As a result, the “Five Economic Tests”, issued by the Treasury in 1997 and which were key economic criteria for a potential British membership, became increasingly the breaking point of the debate. The tests addressed the following questions of concern:

1. Convergence: Are business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we and others could live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis?

2. Flexibility: If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?

3. Investment: Would joining EMU create better conditions for firms making long-term decisions to invest in Britain?

4. Financial Services: What impact would entry into EMU have on the competitive position of the UK’s financial services industry, particularly the City’s wholesale markets?

5. Growth, Stability and Employment: In summary, will joining EMU promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?

The problem with the test were that they were originally meant to be rather elastic but increasingly became rigid hurdles for adopting the currency. Consequently, when the Treasury issued its assessment in 2003, it concluded that the five tests were either not sufficiently met or answered, and as a result British membership in the monetary union not recommendable in the foreseeable future.

There is a high risk for the UK in joining the monetary union. Strong divergences such as the high probability of asymmetric shocks and a restricted openness to trade make it less likely and favourable for the UK to join the monetary union in the near future. In contrast to the EU, there is a much closer trading relationship with the U.S. Nevertheless, some economists argue that convergence is a feature of countries that are already in monetary union; it is not something that takes place beforehand. The five criteria thus could only be accessed in the post-accession period. However, I believe that in the pre-union time a certain degree of convergence needs to be achieved first. This is currently not the case in the UK.

Under the given circumstance, the most likely future scenario is that the UK will not join the Optimum Currency Area (OCA) and will continue to keep its own currency as well as independent fiscal and monetary policy. There is still the question if the EU can be really regarded as an OCA. There are still limitations of the OCA criteria, especially in times of economic crisis and further EU enlargement.

Moreover, considering the latest economic and political developments, a membership appears to be almost impossible. The bankruptcy of the Greek state has led the Euro into its deepest crisis since its adoption in 1999. Furthermore, the change of government in the UK, with the Eurosceptic Conservatives now in power, has been equal to a kiss of death to a continuous and open debate about a potential EMU entry.  As Conservative Member of Parliament Alan Duncan said “The Euro would take UK only to economic fantasy land”.

Back to the Legality Argument

Since both Mehdi Hasan and Owen Jones claimed this week that the Iraq war was illegal and, according to the former, “every leading international lawyer” agrees with that verdict, I would like to briefly explain – again – why it was not.

First of all, people tend to forget that all arrangements between Saddam and the international community, after 1991, were based on a ceasefire, explicitly tied to Iraq’s disarmament. In particular Resolution 678, the legal basis for military action during the first Gulf war, and Resolution 687, which determined the conditions for the ceasefire between the UN and Iraq, were extremely important. Both were never revoked and authorisation to use force remained in being throughout the years and was also the legal basis for actions in 1993 and 1998.

So why not in 2003?

Furthermore, the legal advisor to the UN, Dr. Carl August Fleischhauer, confirmed that the original authority to use force in UNSCR 678 could revive, given the Security Council’s agreement that a violation of the ceasefire was in place.

This consideration was reflected in the drafting of UNSCR 1441. It not only confirmed that Saddam remained in “material breach” and gave him “a final opportunity to comply”, but also stated in operational paragraph 4, that a failure to comply unconditionally and immediately and fully with the inspectors was itself a further material breach. As a result, it authorised “serious consequences”, as indicated in operational paragraph 13. UNSCR 1441 was thus sufficient, in combination with previous UNSCRs, especially 678, but also 687, 660 and 1137, to lawfully take part in the invasion. Unanimously accepted, it was a legal refreshment.

Grossly exaggerated is also the significance of a second resolution, since it would have provided political legitimacy only. Not to forget that action was sanctioned by the British parliament, with 412 votes in favour to 149 opposed.

Last but not least, a consideration worth making, in regard to the matter of consistency in international law, is the following:

Sir Michael Wood, one of the Foreign Office lawyers against the war, confirmed in his written statement to Chilcot, that it would have made no legal difference if the wording of UNSCR 1441 had been “all necessary measures” (as in case of the recent Libya resolution – not unanimously accepted) instead of “all necessary means” (as in case of the 2003 Iraq resolution – unanimously accepted).

Given that, was Libya illegal, too?

Peter Oborne’s Web of Lies

Peter Oborne, one of the most notorious and obsessed Blair haters in the country, belongs to the group of journalists who see a conspiracy of lies and deceit behind every political decision – in particular when it comes to Tony Blair.

On tonight’s Dispatches, an investigative current affairs programme of Channel 4, Oborne will claim that there exist so-called conflicts of interest between Mr. Blair’s role as the Quartet’s Middle East peace envoy and his private business.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This programme is an affront to objective journalism. It is an example par excellence of hate filled propaganda based on conspiracy theories by the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph.

It is an utter disgrace that the trailer for the programme was running before Tony Blair’s office had even had a chance to reply to their questions.

Those so-called “revelations” were de-bunked by his spokespeople when first made and every figure given in the programme is absurdly exaggerated – in one case by a factor of more than ten – and lacks any credibility.

Now, let us take a closer look at some of the accusations made against Mr. Blair and his staff.

a)      Wataniya

From left to right : Tony Blair, Dr. Mohammad Moustafa H.E. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mohammed Bin Saud Al Thani and Mashour Abu Daqqa.

Peter Oborne argues, as previously claimed in The Daily Mail, that Mr. Blair’s support for the Palestinian mobile company Wataniya and for a gas field development off Gaza was somehow to do with his role with JPMorgan.

This is simply not true. Mr. Blair was not even aware JPMorgan had a connection with the company. He never discussed it with them. They never raised it with him. A fact the company also told the programme.

Tony Blair has advocated both the Wataniya project and the Gaza gas development at the direct request of the Palestinians. It is his responsibility as Quartet Representative to work to build the Palestinian economy, as outlined in his mandate (clearly set out in the statement by the Quartet issued by the UN Secretary-General dated 27 June 2007 (UN Doc No: SG/2129 PAL/2085), the Letter dated 22 August 2007 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council (UN Doc No: S/2007/507) and the President’s response dated 24 August 2007 (UN Doc No: S/2007/508), all of which are public documents).

It should be pointed out that The Wataniya project represented the single largest foreign direct investment there has been into the Palestinian Authority. Together with the gas field development off Gaza it was a long-standing demand of the international community.

The fact that Mr. Blair secured the Watanyia deal  is hardly a revelation: all information is transparently accessible on his website:

*  OQR Report 13/04/11

*  OQR Report 18/09/11

b)      LIBYA

Oborne also claims, in line with The Daily Telegraph, that Mr. Blair was involved in the release of Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi,  from Scottish prison.

As is well known, the decision to release Megrahi was taken by the SNP-led Scottish Executive, two years after Mr. Blair stood down as Prime Minister, and on compassionate grounds that hadn’t even been diagnosed while he was still in office. Tony Blair played no role – whatsoever – in the decisions. The idea that he put pressure on Alex Salmond to release him is clearly ridiculous, given that he supports Mr. Blair’s impeachment over the Iraq war.

Sir Richard Dearlove

On visiting Libya, as previously “revealed” by The Daily Telegraph , it is correct that Mr. Blair has visited Libya since leaving office. These visits were made with the intention to persuade Gaddafi to give up his chemical and nuclear weapons programme, and stop sponsoring terrorism – a policy that was in Britain’s national interest and indeed successful, as recently confirmed by Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of the foreign intelligence service MI6.

It was not a cosy relationship, it was a pragmatic one. It was a political decision, having very significantly disarmed Libya, for the government to co-operate with Libya on Islamist terrorism. The whole relationship was one of serious calculation about where the overall balance of our national interests stood.

Unfortunately, the external change was not matched by internal change, which is why it was right for the international community to act in the way it did when Gaddafi turned his guns on his own people earlier this year. I’d like to remind everyone that, at the time, Tony Blair personally intervened and asked Gaddafi to give up.

To be absolutely clear: Tony Blair has never done any business for or with Libya and has never had any commercial, advisory or business relationship with any Libyan company or entity. Despite what Saif Gaddafi may have said, Mr. Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya.

c)      RUSSIA

As for the Sunday Telegraph story trying to link Mr. Blair to some Russian aluminium deal, neither him nor any of his staff raised any issue to do with a Russian aluminium company, as JPMorgan’s own quotes also show.

—————————————————————————————————–

Tony Blair will instruct lawyers to take action, if tonight’s Dispatches programme oversteps the mark.

IICRS Special: Shock, Horror and Disbelief as former MI6 head says Iraq war was right

My friend John Rentoul has an excellent blog post on Sir Richard Dearlove’s remarks on the post 9/11 period. In sharp contrast to Elizabeth Manningham-Buller’s view and in line with Tony Blair’s assessment of the threat, the  former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 outlined why invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

More below.

Excerpt:

Going into Iraq was al-Qa’ida’s mistake

Went to hear Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of the foreign intelligence service MI6 (right), speak today at the Henry Jackson Society about 9/11.

He said that the surprising thing about the decade since 11 September 2001 was the “relative failure of political Islamism”. He said: “The al-Qa’ida narrative is losing its purchase on the Arab Street.”

In answer to David Davis, the Conservative MP, Dearlove said that the Iraq war accelerated the decline of al-Qa’ida, because it made a strategic error in trying to fight the US in a guerrilla war.

Once again, Dearlove proved himself to be a political supporter of Tony Blair’s post-9/11 world view, which helps explain why they were so close over Iraq: “The right thing to do was to go out and meet that threat militantly – despite the risk of radicalisation of young Muslim men.”

He was not in favour of trying to negotiate with any part of al-Qa’ida, as it is “entirely rejectionist”.

And he ”resented” a question from The Times about the Labour government and his Service’s “cosy” relationship with the Gaddafi regime:

It was not a cosy relationship, it was a pragmatic one. It was a political decision, having very significantly disarmed Libya, for the government to co-operate with Libya on Islamist terrorism. The whole relationship was one of serious calculation about where the overall balance of our national interests stood.

Its success in disarming Libya was “phenomenal”, he said.