Check out the world’s first global debt clock, and explore the map to compare countries across the globe.
Category: World
-
Police charged over Ahmad ‘assault’
Four police officers have been accused of assaulting terror suspect Babar Ahmad as they arrested him in 2003.
The officers, all members of the Metropolitan Police’s territorial support group, will be charged with causing actual bodily harm.
The Crown Prosecution Service said Pcs Nigel Cowley, John Donohue, Roderick James-Bowen and Mark Jones will appear before magistrates on September 22.
Ahmad, 36, was held by officers who raided his home in Tooting, south London, in December 2003. In March last year the Met paid £60,000 damages as lawyers for Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson admitted he was the victim of violence.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer’s decision to bring criminal charges came after an independent review by retired senior judge Sir Geoffrey Grigson into the handling of the case. An original Met inquiry concluded no officer should be disciplined and prosecutors did not bring criminal charges.
Ahmad remains in Long Lartin prison after the European Court of Human Rights halted his extradition to the United States to face terror charges. The court will announce next year whether transferring him breaches his rights by exposing him to life imprisonment without parole and solitary confinement.
ITN
-
Blair must be arrested
John Pilger
Published 04 August 2010
Having helped destroy other nations far away, our former prime minister — “peace envoy” to the Middle East — is now free to profit from the useful contacts he made while working as a “servant of the people”.
Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like Peter Mandelson. Both have produced self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid fortunes; Blair’s, which has earned him a £4.6m advance, will appear next month.
Now consider the Proceeds of Crime Act. Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a defenceless country, of a kind the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the “paramount war crime”. This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes and a majority of children have descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the latter “liberated” by the British) are now higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about 1.9 metric tonnes of depleted uranium ammunition in the Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, told parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic “anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was employed by British and US forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been exposed repeatedly. On 29 January 2003, Blair told parliament: “We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq . . .” Last month, the former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller told the Chilcot inquiry: “There is no credible intelligence to suggest that connection . . . [it was the invasion] that gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi jihad.” Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied: “Substantially.”
The bombings in London on 7 July 2005 were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.
Voracious greed
Documents released by the high court show that British citizens were allowed to be abducted and tortured under Blair. In January 2002, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, decided that Guantanamo was the “best way” to ensure that UK nationals were “securely held”.
Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20m, much of it as a result of the ties he developed with the Bush administration. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make public Blair’s “consultancy” deals with the Kuwaiti royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy Corporation. He gets an estimated £2m a year for “advising” the investment bank JPMorgan and undisclosed sums from other financial services companies. He makes millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000 for one speech in China.
In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as “peace envoy” in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect, a voice of Israel, which has awarded him a $1m “peace prize”. In other words, his wealth has grown rapidly since he launched, with George W Bush, the bloodbath in Iraq.
His collaborators are numerous. The cabinet in March 2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack Iraq. Straw, later appointed “justice secretary”, suppressed the relevant cabinet minutes in defiance of an order by the Information Commissioner to release them. Most of those now running for the Labour Party leadership supported Blair’s epic crime, rising as one to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As foreign secretary, David Miliband sought to cover up Britain’s complicity in torture. He promoted Iran as the next “threat”.
Journalists who once fawned on Blair as “mystical” and amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were his critics all along. As for the media’s gulling of the public, only the Observer’s David Rose has apologised. The WikiLeaks exposés, released with a moral objective of truth with justice, have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit, lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians such as Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair’s rejuvenation of “enlightened” imperialism, remain silent about the “moral truancy”, as Pankaj Mishra wrote, “of [those] paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary world”.
The fugitive
Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared? Just as the Cameron government understands the “threat” of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover for Israeli war criminals, Blair faces a similar risk in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least of being apprehended and questioned. He is now Britain’s Kissinger, who plans his travel outside the US with the care of a fugitive.
Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the International Criminal Court made the landmark decision to add aggression to its list of war crimes that can be prosecuted. It defines this as a “crime committed by a political or military leader which by its character, gravity and scale constituted a manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter”. International lawyers described this as a “giant leap”. Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that created the court and is bound by its decisions.
On 21 July, Nick Clegg, standing at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of Iraq illegal. For all the later “clarification” that he was speaking personally, the Deputy Prime Minister had made “a statement that the international court would be interested in”, said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at University College London.
Blair came from Britain’s upper middle classes which, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they require of their own children. The suffering of the children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting Britain while Blair remains free to profit
New Statesman
-
UK Proscribed terrorist groups
These terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under UK legislation, and therefore outlawed in the UK.Proscribed terrorist groups46 international terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these, two organisations are proscribed under powers introduced in the Terrorism Act 2006, as glorifying terrorism14 organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed under previous legislation.List of proscribed International terrorist groupsThe information about the groups’ aims was given to Parliament when they were proscribed.17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17)Aims to highlight and protest at what it deems to be imperialist and corrupt actions, using violence. Formed in 1974 to oppose the Greek military Junta, its stance was initially anti-Junta and anti-US, which it blamed for supporting the Junta.Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO)ANO’s principal aim is the destruction of the state of Israel. It is also hostile to ‘reactionary’ Arab regimes and states supporting Israel.Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)The precise aims of the ASG are unclear, but its objectives appear to include the establishment of an autonomous Islamic state in the Southern Philippine island of Mindanao.Al-Gama’at al-Islamiya (GI)The main aim of GI is to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state through all means, including the use of violence. Some members also want the removal of Western influence from the Arab world.Al GhurabaaAl Ghurabaa is a splinter group of Al-Muhajiroun and disseminates materials that glorify acts of terrorism.These terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under UK legislation, and therefore outlawed in the UK.Proscribed terrorist group
s46 international terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these, two organisations are proscribed under powers introduced in the Terrorism Act 2006, as glorifying terrorism14 organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed under previous legislation.List of proscribed International terrorist groupsThe information about the groups’ aims was given to Parliament when they were proscribed.
Al Ittihad Al Islamia (AIAI)
The main aims of AIAI are to establish a radical Sunni Islamic state in Somalia, and to regain the Ogaden region of Ethiopia as Somali territory via an insurgent campaign. Militant elements within AIAI are suspected of having aligned themselves with the ‘global jihad’ ideology of Al Qa’ida, and to have operated in support of Al Qa’ida in the East Africa region.
Al Qa’ida
Inspired and led by Usama Bin Laden, its aims are the expulsion of Western forces from Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Israel and the end of Western influence in the Muslim world.
Al Shabaab
Al Shabaab is an organisation based in Somalia which has waged a violent campaign against the Somali Transitional Federal Government and African Union peacekeeping forces since 2007, employing a range of terrorist tactics including suicide bombings, indiscriminate attacks and assassinations. It’s principal aim is the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Somalia, but the organisation has publicly pledged its allegiance to Usama Bin Laden and has announced an intention to combine its campaign in the Horn of Africa with Al Qa’ida’s aims of global jihad.
Ansar Al Islam (AI)
AI is a radical Sunni Salafi group from northeast Iraq around Halabja. The group is anti-Western, and opposes the influence of the US in Iraqi Kurdistan and the relationship of the KDP and PUK to Washington. AI has been involved in operations against Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I).
Ansar Al Sunna (AS)
AS is a fundamentalist Sunni Islamist extremist group based in central Iraq and what was the Kurdish Autonomous Zone (KAZ) of Northern Iraq. The group aims to expel all foreign influences from Iraq and create a fundamentalist Islamic state.
Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armée) (GIA)
The aim of the GIA is to create an Islamic state in Algeria using all necessary means, including violence.
Asbat Al-Ansar (‘League of Partisans’ or ‘Band of Helpers
Sometimes going by the aliases of ‘The Abu Muhjin’ group/faction or the ‘Jama’at Nour’, this group aims to enforce its extremist interpretation of Islamic law within Lebanon and, increasingly, further afield.
Babbar Khalsa (BK)
BK is a Sikh movement that aims to establish an independent Khalistan within the Punjab region of India.
Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi ta Askatasuna) (ETA)
ETA seeks the creation of an independent state comprising the Basque regions of both Spain and France.
Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA)
BLA are comprised of tribal groups based in the Baluchistan area of Eastern Pakistan, which aims to establish an independent nation encompassing the Baluch dominated areas of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.
Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ)
The main aim of the EIJ is to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state. However, since September 1998, the leadership of the group has also allied itself to the ‘global Jihad’ ideology expounded by Usama Bin Laden and has threatened Western interests.
Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain (GICM)
The traditional primary objective of the GICM has been the installation of a governing system of the caliphate to replace the governing Moroccan monarchy. The group also has an Al Qa’ida-inspired global extremist agenda.
Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades
Hamas aims to end Israeli occupation in Palestine and establish an Islamic state.
Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (HUJI)
The aim of HUJI is to achieve though violent means accession of Kashmir to Pakistan, and to spread terror throughout India. HUJI has targeted Indian security positions in Kashmir and conducted operations in India proper.
Harakat-Ul-Jihad-Ul-Islami (Bangladesh) (Huji-B) The main aim of HUJI-B is the creation of an Islamic regime in Bangladesh modelled on the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami (HuM/A and Jundallah)
The aim of both HuM/A and Jundallah is the rejection of democracy of even the most Islamic-oriented style, and to establish a caliphate based on Sharia law, in addition to achieving accession of all Kashmir to Pakistan. HuM/A has a broad anti-Western and anti-President Musharraf agenda.
Harakat Mujahideen (HM)
HM, previously known as Harakat Ul Ansar (HuA), seeks independence for Indian-administered Kashmir. The HM leadership was also a signatory to Usama Bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa, which called for worldwide attacks against US and Western interests.
Hizballah Military Wing
Hizballah is committed to armed resistance to the state of Israel, and aims to seize all Palestinian territories and Jerusalem from Israel. Its military wing supports terrorism in Iraq and the Palestinian territories.
Hezb-E Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)
Led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who is in particular very anti-American, HIG is anti-Western and desires the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic State in Afghanistan.
International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF)
ISYF is an organisation committed to the creation of an independent state of Khalistan for Sikhs within India.
Islamic Army of Aden (IAA)
The IAA’s aims are the overthrow of the current Yemeni government and the establishment of an Islamic State following Sharia Law.
Islamic Jihad Union (IJU)
The primary strategic goal of the IJU is the elimination of the current Uzbek regime. The IJU would expect that following the removal of President Karimov, elections would occur in which Islamic-democratic political candidates would pursue goals shared by the IJU leadership.
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
The primary aim of IMU is to establish an Islamic state in the model of the Taleban in Uzbekistan. However, the IMU is reported to also seek to establish a broader state over the entire Turkestan area.
Jaish e Mohammed (JeM)
JeM seeks the ‘liberation’ of Kashmir from Indian control as well as the ‘destruction’ of America and India. JeM has a stated objective of unifying the various Kashmiri militant groups.
Jeemah Islamiyah (JI)
JI’s aim is the creation of a unified Islamic state in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Southern Philippines.
Khuddam Ul-Islam (Kul) and splinter group Jamaat Ul-Furquan (JuF)
The aim of both KUI and JuF are to unite Indian administered Kashmir with Pakistan; to establish a radical Islamist state in Pakistan; the ‘destruction’ of India and the USA; to recruit new jihadis; and the release of imprisoned Kashmiri militants
Kongra Gele Kurdistan (PKK)
PKK/KADEK/KG is primarily a separatist movement that seeks an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey. The PKK changed its name to KADEK and then to Kongra Gele Kurdistan, although the PKK acronym is still used by parts of the movement.
Lashkar e Tayyaba (LT)
LT seeks independence for Kashmir and the creation of an Islamic state using violent means.
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
The LTTE is a terrorist group fighting for a separate Tamil state in the North and East of Sri Lanka.
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad – Shaqaqi (PIJ)
PIJ aims to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and to create an Islamic state. It opposes the existence of the state of Israel, the Middle East Peace Process and the Palestinian Authority, and has carried out suicide bombings against Israeli targets.
Revolutionary Peoples’ Liberation Party – Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi – Cephesi) (DHKP-C)
DHKP-C aims to establish a Marxist-Leninist regime in Turkey by means of armed revolutionary struggle.
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat) (GSPC)
Its aim is to create an Islamic state in Algeria using all necessary means, including violence.
Saved Sect or Saviour Sect
The Saved Sect is a splinter group of Al-Muajiroon and disseminates materials that glorify acts of terrorism.
Note: The Government laid an Order in January 2010 which provides that Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, Call to Submission, Islamic Path and London School of Sharia should be treated as alternative names for the organisation which is already proscribed under the names Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect.
Sipah-E Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) (Aka Millat-E Islami Pakistan (MIP) – SSP was renamed MIP in April 2003 but is still referred to as SSP) and splinter group Lashkar-E Jhangvi (LeJ)
The aim of both SSP and LeJ is to transform Pakistan by violent means into a Sunni state under the total control of Sharia law. Another objective is to have all Shia declared Kafirs and to participate in the destruction of other religions, notably Judasim, Christianity and Hinduism.
Note: Kafirs means non-believers: literally, one who refused to see the truth. LeJ does not consider members of the Shia sect to be Muslim, hence they can be considered a ‘legitimate’ target.
Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB)
JMB first came to prominence on 20 May 2002 when eight of its members were arrested in possession of petrol bombs. The group has claimed responsibility for numerous fatal bomb attacks across Bangladesh in recent years, including suicide bomb attacks in 2005.
Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari’at Muhammadi (TNSM)
TNSM regularly attacks coalition and Afghan government forces in Afghanistan and provides direct support to Al Qa’ida and the Taliban. One faction of the group claimed responsibility for a suicide attack on an army training compound on 8 November 2007 in Dargai, Pakistan, in which 42 soldiers were killed.
Teyre Azadiye Kurdistan (TAK)
TAK is a Kurdish terrorist group currently operating in Turkey
(Note: Mujaheddin e Khalq (MeK) was removed from the list of proscribed organisations in June 2008, as a result of judgements of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal.)
Proscribed Irish groups
Continuity Army Council Cumann na mBan Fianna na hEireann Irish National Liberation Army Irish People’s Liberation Organisation Irish Republican Army Loyalist Volunteer Force Orange Volunteers Red Hand Commando Red Hand Defenders Saor Eire Ulster Defence Association Ulster Freedom Fighters Ulster Volunteer Force
-
Fury as Israel president claims English are ‘anti-semitic’
Israel’s president has accused the English of being anti-semitic and claimed that MPs pander to Muslim voters.
By David Harrison and Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem
Israel's President Shimon Peres said that England's attitude towards Jews was Israel's "next big problem". Photo: REUTERS Shimon Peres said England was “deeply pro-Arab … and anti-Israeli”, adding: “They always worked against us.”
His remarks, made in an interview on a Jewish website, provoked anger from senior MPs and Jewish leaders who said the 87-year-old president had “got it wrong”.
But other groups backed the former Israeli prime minister and said the number of anti-semitic incidents had risen dramatically in the UK in recent years.
The controversy follows the furore last week over David Cameron’s remark that Gaza was a “prison camp”, as he urged Israel to allow aid and people to move freely in and out of the Palestinian territory.
Mr Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is three years into his seven-year term as president and was awarded an honorary knighthood by the Queen in 2008, said that England’s attitude towards Jews was Israel’s “next big problem”.
“There are several million Muslim voters, and for many members of parliament, that’s the difference between getting elected and not getting elected,” he said.
“And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment.
“They abstained in the [pro-Zionist] 1947 UN partition resolution … They maintained an arms embargo against us in the 1950s … They always worked against us. They think the Arabs are the underdogs.”
By contrast, relations with Germany, France and Italy were “pretty good”, he added.
He made the comments in an interview with the historian Professor Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev published last week in Tablet, a Jewish news website.
The wide-ranging interview covered Mr Peres’ role as one of Israel’s longest-serving political leaders – an MP for 48 years, twice prime minister, and holder of other ministerial posts over the decades. He is firmly on the Israeli Left.
He was awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 jointly with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat for his part as foreign minister in the peace talks which produced the landmark Oslo Accords.
But following his comments, James Clappison, the Conservative MP for Hertsmere and vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “Mr Peres has got this wrong.
“There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries.”
The MP added that he could “understand the frustration” that people in Israel felt with “certain elements of the British broadcast media” which present an unbalanced view of Israel.
He said: “I can understand Mr Peres’ concerns, but I don’t recognise what he is saying about England.”
Yet in Israel, Mr Peres is far from alone in holding such views, which have gained a wider following, particularly on the Right, since the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat over accusations that Mossad sent agents using British passports to assassinate a Hamas commander in Dubai.
Aryeh Eldad, a right-wing member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, accused Britain of working against Israeli interests for decades – ever since it “betrayed” its promises to build a Jewish homeland when it governed Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.
“Both governments from the right and the left prefer Arab interests over Israeli interests,” said Mr Eldad, whose father Israel was a leading figure in the Stern Gang, the most radical of the Jewish terror groups that fought British mandatory rule.
“The other layer is an ongoing, subtle form of anti-semitism. It is not as overt as it was in Germany, it is a quiet, polite form.”
Some leading Jewish commentators in Britain disagreed. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, minister of Maidenhead synagogue and a writer and broadcaster, said: “I am surprised at Peres. It is a sweeping statement that is far too one-sided.
“Britain has supported both Israel and Arab causes at different periods over the last 50 years. There are elements of anti-semitism but it is not endemic to British society.
“The tolerance and pluralism here make Britain one of the best countries in the world in which to live.”
Mr Peres found support, however, from other pro-Israeli groups. Jacob Vince, the director of Christian Friends of Israel, said there was anti-semitism in the UK although many people had a positive view of Israel but were unwilling to express it publicly.
Mr Vince said it was “difficult to see how many MPs would not be influenced by the number of Muslim voters in their constituencies”.
The Government was not treating Arabs as the underdogs but rather was trying to appease them, he said. “The question is how well they understand those with whom they are seeking conciliation.”
Mr Peres is “measured and moderate,” he added.
He said: “His comments have serious connotations and I am sure would not be said lightly.”
One Israeli politician expressed disbelief that the doveish Mr Peres had launched such a broadside against the British.
Benny Begin, a cabinet minister whose father Menachem was prime minister and before that leader of Irgun, the group that killed 91 people in an attack on Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946, said: “Peres? I simply can’t believe he said that.”
The latest figures show that the number of anti-semitic incidents in Britain is rising, according to the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity set up in 1984 to monitor such incidents.
The situation in Britain had worsened “significantly” in the past decade, a spokesman said.
In 2009 there were 924 anti-semitic incidents, the highest figure since CST began keeping records in 1984, and 55 per cent higher than the previous record in 2006.
The figures include reports, accepted only when backed by evidence, of physical assaults, verbal abuse and racist graffiti.
The monthly figure has soared from 10-20 incidents in the 1990s to 40-50 now.
Last year nearly half of the 924 anti-semitic race attacks recorded by the CST showed a political motivation, with 66 per cent of those including some reference to Israel and the Middle East.
A 2009 report by the US-based Anti-Defamation League found one in five Britons admitted Israel influences their opinion of British Jews, and the majority of those said that they felt “worse” about Jews than they used to. It found, however, that Britain was less anti-semitic than other European countries.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7920330/Fury-as-Israel-president-claims-English-are-anti-semitic.html, 31 Jul 2010
-
How Not to Conduct Diplomacy: A Case Study
by Barry Rubin
British Prime Minister David Cameron’s July 27 speech in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy, of suicide by Political Correctness, as a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.
Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country, what should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here’s what I can do for you, here’s what I’d like you to do for me. And here’s what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.
Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.
Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help.
What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet and says: That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?
In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this. You won’t be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech, it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably.
Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old Turkish Republic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron’s pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime’s subversion of Turkish democracy.
Cameron began by saying:
“I’ve come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country.”
Note the cringing here. A proper prime minister might have said: “I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries.” In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship to it while Turkey doesn’t need Britain at all.
And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context: The Turkish regime can take its Western alliances for granted while taking the side of the West’s radical Islamist enemies.
And here it is again:“People ask me why [I’m visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I’ll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy. Vital for our security. And vital for our politics and diplomacy.“ So Turkey holds all the cards and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster.
According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security:
“Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms – whether from Al Qaeda or the PKK. [But not, he fails to mention, from Hamas or Hizballah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey’s unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivalled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security.”
Look, you don’t go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?) but you don’t tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that’s true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its “Eastern” enemies—as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000—or is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side.
He continues:
“Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?”
Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things he adds:
“Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can’t hope to have. So I’ve come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world.”
Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hizballah, alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime’s behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing it hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year’s elections:
Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us!
Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage, that Turkish membership might depend on the regime’s behavior. He could have said:
While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if…. Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.
But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain’s closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey’s entrance into the EU as a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are:
“The prejudiced. Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.”
All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists!
He also complains of those who “see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations as a choice between East and West. They just don’t get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both.”
But he doesn’t comprehend that the current government of Turkey sees the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal. This is not the Turkey of Kamal Ataturk and his successors but rather (at least temporarily) a country ruled by the successors of those who opposed Ataturk.
If I were a German or French journalist my headline would be: Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic.
Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following:
“Turkey’s relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey’s relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.
“Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.
“But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.”
In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas’s behavior, we should accept a permanent revolutionary Islamist, terrorist, genocidal, statelet on the Mediterranean. No problem. And we can ignore the Turkish regime’s pro-Hamas policy and provocative behavior because without abandoning that approach Turkey can still play a productive role! This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron’s part.
And does Israel want this regime to mediate between it and the Palestinians? Even the Palestinian Authority doesn’t want that: it knows that the Turkish regime is allied with its Hamas rivals, for goodness sakes! Doesn’t Cameron know this?
I don’t want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this next gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms (but there’s no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime’s manipulation of such reforms, for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents.
He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap:
“Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey’s help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community.
“We hope that the meeting held in Istanbul between the Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian Foreign Ministers will see Iran move in the right direction.”
That meeting is a conference of Iran’s supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey’s opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar’s worldview: “We need Turkey’s help….” Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help? What behavior will you overlook in exchange for its alleged help?
This regime wants to help Iran, not against Iran.
Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That’s how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class.
, August 4, 2010