Archived entries for UN

British double standards and the Arab Spring

Freelance journalist Daniel Wickham examines British duplicity following the revolutions in the Middle East.

With reports of Russian made cluster bombs being used by the Assad regime, the Kremlin has found its reputation here in the west increasingly in tatters.

But is it really any great surprise that a government with a human rights record as dubious as Russia’s might have unsavoury friends? Much more surprising, however, is the long list of dictatorships and repressive regimes which Britain, an otherwise exemplary liberal democracy, allies itself to.

Only recently, the Home Office declared Saudi Arabia to be a close friend and ally of the British government, despite the Kingdom ranking as the seventh least democratic country in the 2011 Democracy Index. Our support is far more than just verbal- Saudi Arabia is the British arms trade’s number one customer, with British ‘controlled goods’ exports to the regime valued at £4,069,920,068 by the ‘Campaign Against the Arms Trade.’

This fact alone is enough to put into serious doubt the widely accepted claim that the British government is a supporter of democracy and human rights in the Middle East. But such doubts are never found in the mainstream media. Despite knowledge of our support for undemocratic regimes even during the Arab Spring, the media faithfully follows the government line- Britain is devoted to promoting democracy in the Arab world.

If properly scrutinised, however, our record of ‘promoting’ democracy and human rights speaks for itself. A list of Britain’s allies in the region reads like a who’s who of dictators and human rights abusers. From President Khalifa of the UAE to the Sultan of Oman and the King of Bahrain, Britain’s allies in the Middle East have all presided over a sharp increase in human rights violations during the Arab Spring. Crackdowns on demonstrations, torture and even massacres have been reported, but still British arms pour in.

In Bahrain, Amnesty international believe as many as 60 people have been killed. And yet, when 28 countries joined to condemn the violations in the UN Human Rights Council, the British government refused. Fortunately for them, the media remained silent.

Understandably, they have been much more vocal about the atrocities of the Assad regime- the crimes of the Sultan of Oman or President Khalifa of the UAE hardly even bear comparison to Assad’s bloody rule of terror. With thousands dead, and no end in sight, the situation in Syria is desperate.  But talk of intervention seems hypocritical. How can Britain justify intervening against one despot in the name of democracy, and yet continue to support dictators elsewhere?

The British role in the Arab Spring has been riddled with double standards- overthrowing Qaddafi on one hand, supporting Ben Ali and Mubarak on the other. And yet the government still presents itself as a staunch supporter of democracy, championing freedom for all Arab people. The onus for questioning this claim is on the mainstream media, who have a responsibility to do more to hold the government to account for their unsavory alliances.

So before we even consider intervention against a brutal despot in Syria, Britain must look in the mirror and address our own record of support for dictators in the Arab world. Only when the government can proudly say Britain supports democracy for all people, and mean it, can the notion of intervention even be considered.

Daniel Wickham is a gap year student, youth worker and freelance journalist going on to read history and politics at university

A veto on behalf of the charter?

In this post, Young Fabians member Alex Adranghi highlights the need for an impartial response to the situation in Syria

The furore over a Syrian resolution in the United Nations has been swept up into a battle over vetoes laid down by Russia and China.

Naturally I’m upset at the developments in Syria over the past year, especially having spent some time in Syria a few years ago as a student at the University of Damascus, and experiencing so much of what the great people of this country have to offer the world.

Despite this, the media coverage, as with Libya, has been far from  impartial, and now they have gone a step too far in painting Russia and China as pariah states with the use of their vetoes.

What has been overlooked is that the vote was forced to take place, with Russian UN Ambassador saying “the work we have been doing in the Security Council has not been finalised.” The Telegraph reports that the west miscalculated and forced the vote in the belief that Russia was playing for time, and would not veto it without their proposed amendments.

Their amendments placed demands on the ‘insurgents’ similar to those imposed on the Syrian regime. They fear that explicitly supporting the uprising would amount to regime change, like that experienced in Libya. Russia and China’s concern seems to be not whether it is best for Assad to go or not, but whether that is a question that the United Nations can answer at all.

Russia believes that changing the balance of the national dialogue amounts to domestic interference. This seems fairly reasonable. Both sides have argued that the other’s proposals do not reflect the reality of the situation in Syria. We don’t really have a clear impartial picture of what is happening inside the country, and the UN would be wise to deliberate more carefully before passing any resolution.

Interestingly, there is another major player in the United Nations that also strongly supports the need for resolutions to be based on impartial observations– The United States of America. In 2002, the United States announced that it will not back any Security Council resolution against Israel that did not include a condemnation of the ‘terrorist’ groups hostile to that state. This position has become formalised over the years, and is now referred to as the Negroponte doctrine. This was last used in 2011, and in this instance the United States vetoed against all other members of the Security Council. Was this not an even greater act of defiance towards the international community than that being displayed today by Russia and China?

Every call for the events in Syria to be treated impartially, should be matched by a call for events in Israel to be treated similarly. For every interest in Tartus there is a Bahrain. I really do fear that the media coverage here in the ‘free world’  is encouraging ‘tunnel vision’ and crude simplifications of the complex world of international relations. For that we all lose, as it makes a mockery of the public, which leads to a cheapening of politics. Before we know it, politicians are forced to take a stance because of a national psyche – like America to Israel, Argentina to the Falklands, Russia to its neighbours. Then the cycle tragically begins again.

Alex Adranghi is a Young Fabians member

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Leaving with hope

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Marie-Noelle Loewe reflects on the experience as the trip draws to a close.

It’s been one week exactly since the Young Fabians Delegation left for our trip to Israel and Palestine, and coincidentally, we return from our trip on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. At Ben Gurion Airport, security is tense, but this time no one from our delegation has been asked for further questioning.

It is hard to say what the outcomes of our trip will be. Every delegate came from a different background and with different expectations. Although all had approached the trip with an open mind, they had brought certain preconceptions about life in the conflict with them. The one thing that has become clear is that these have been challenged and often dispelled.

Nothing about the Middle Eastern conflict is black and white. After an intensive week of meetings, field visits and socialising, we have barely scratched the surface of the conflict.

The one thing that seems to have become clear to me is that time is running out. Palestinian statehood is crucial on order to support the moderate forces within Palestine. Before this trip, I was under the impression that only a small and extreme minority was still questioning Israel’s right to exist. I was shocked to find out that this view is far wider spread that I had expected.  The current Palestinian leadership is committed to a peaceful and stable two state solution, but they need a success soon to placate extreme forces within their ranks.

The outbreaks of violence and the resulting ascent of Hamas after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 make its reluctance to unilateral withdrawal from further settlements partly understandable. However, Israel’s continued presence in Hebron, which does not seem to be supported by a majority within Israel, continues to not only violate Palestinian human rights, but is a symbol of resistance around which anti-Israeli forces can rally.  Israel has to find a way to compensate the settlers and recognize the sacrifices which they will have to make, but Benjamin Netanyahu needs to find the political courage to withdraw from H2 soon.

Palestine’s bid at the UN seems to be based rather on despair than on actual hope of success.  A negotiated solution is certainly preferable, but Israel should use the General Assembly meeting as a chance to engage with the Palestinian leadership rather than categorically oppose their proposal.

A week in the holy land has provided unlimited amounts of food for thought, but the ‘holy grail’ remains elusive.  The obvious strategy is to strengthen moderate forces and condemn violence.

The situation seems often bleak and stalled, but despite this, I leave with a feeling of hope.

Marie-Noelle Loewe is International Officer for the Young Fabians and the organiser of the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Meeting Fateh Youth

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Siobhan Randell reflects on the group’s meeting with Fateh Youth.

Our meeting with Fateh Youth on Wednesday morning proved really great to see young people with similar interests (even if we differed in some opinions). It was good to see Palestinian young men and women engaged in political activity in a peaceful and organised means, which can only be positive to the nation-building of Palestine.

However, a member of Fateh argued that their problem was not with the State of Israel, but with Israel as a Jewish state. They believed religion should be removed from that title and that it should be a state for all religions with equal rights. After visiting Yad Vashem – the living memorial to the Holocaust – later in the day I better understood the need for a Jewish State that as a homeland for Jewish people. One that provides security for a population that has had its people and culture attacked for hundreds of years.

Of course a Jewish state must treat all races and religions with equal rights as is expected of all states, especially of a democracy. However, Israeli Arabs that we spoke to at the Arab-Jewish Community Centre in Jaffa feel that they do not have equal rights and are marginalised in society – for example, because they do not do military service, they cannot receive housing discounts and thus are priced out of the city.

We return regularly to the Palestinian’s quest for statehood via the UN. The reasons why the UN bid is a necessity for Palestine that should be supported by the international community was explained really well by the policy advisors and senior members of the Fateh party to us on Wednesday. I was especially impressed by the compromise Fateh said they were willing to make – demilitarising the country and accepting NATO or UN soldiers to act as security between Israel and Palestine.

However, I can also understand the Israeli worry that as soon as they pull out of the West Bank we may see a repeat of what happened in Gaza where an extremist group took charge and attacks against Israel greatly increased.

I have come to the conclusion that what is really slowing the peace process down are the worry that the Israeli government will use the security wall as a de facto border for negotiations and the issue of settlements, which personally I believe should have been solved a long time ago. The situation in Hebron and the fact that building has continued in Palestinian territories blight Israel’s reputation as a progressive democracy.

Siobhan Randell is a member of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – The Economy, Stupid

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Joel Mullan discusses nationa-building in Palestine.

The two-state solution is one of the shibboleths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, accepted as the end-game (at official level at least) by the Israeli government, by the PLO and by the vast majority of the international community.

Acres of newsprint are expended each week on physical conflict – confrontations between the various sides and analysis of the latest tit-for-tat. Yet very little is reported on one of the great strategic challenges for the region: a two-state solution requires action to be taken to allow for the birth of a viable Palestinian state. This is an obvious, yet oft forgotten or overlooked, truth.

The economic challenges are formidable. Palestinian GDP is equivalent to just 3% of the Israeli economy. A significant wage differential exists between the two countries which provides incentives for people to leave Palestinian territory and attempt to find work illegally in Israel, rather than complete the education that the Palestinian people will need if they are to compete in the new global economy.

Action is needed on the ground to break down the barriers to trade. In Hebron, we saw first-hand row upon row of closed stores. Closed, we were informed, either as the result of military order or in frustration with the conditions.

More broadly, progress needs to be made on improving arrangements for access to the Israeli and foreign markets, as well as movement of goods and services within the West Bank – a view shared by both the Office of the Quartet Representative and by the Palestinian leadership.

This situation is complex, and even the solutions to economic issues often require political answers. The economic success or otherwise of a future Palestinian state has deep repercussions for other dimensions of the conflict. For example, if economic failure results in delays to the pay of Palestinian civil employees, we could see security personnel abandon their posts. Similarly economic problems which worsen civilian conditions run the risk of strengthening more radical elements of the Palestinian political spectrum.

However, there is recognisable optimism. Senior figures in the Palestinian leadership called for the Palestinian diaspora to provide the expertise needed for nation-building and shared with us a vision for a Palestine capable of harnessing new technology to provide services which can compete with the likes of both India and, even, Germany. The Quartet is working hard with the Palestinians in their efforts and the Israeli Government is clear that “we don’t want a failed state.”

An opportunity for the world’s press arises in the next few weeks – on September 20th the UN General Assembly will assess Palestine’s application for membership of the United Nations. The economic situation is ripe for consideration.

Joel Mullan is a member of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

Middle East Delegation Travellog – The State of Limbo

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Young Fabian Treasurer Claire Leigh weighs up Palestine’s bid to become an independent state.

Day three of our trip to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory saw us go again into Ramallah. I was struck once more by the journey from Jerusalem to the nearby Palestinian city, which takes you past the looming eight-metre high wall and the checkpoint with aggressive looking soldiers pacing outside. As we have done for the previous two days, we pass with ease, white enough to appear harmless – tourists on a sightseeing tour perhaps. But the experience is quite different for those Palestinians who live the other side of that wall, and who have to pass by these soldiers every day on their way to school, work or to visit family. Palestinians need a specific pass for every crossing, made virtual prisoners in their not-quite-state.

Our morning was spent in meetings with members of Fateh Youth and several of the party’s politicians. They spoke passionately about the issues facing the peace process, the reasons why there has been so little movement in recent years and the upcoming bid for Palestinian statehood at the UN. The latter is a controversial unilateral move on the part of the Palestinian Authorities; controversial because it bypasses the stalled negotiation process and risks raising expectations among the Palestinians that will not be matched by real change on the ground. The move could also make it harder for the Palestinian leadership to bargain for a real resolution in the future. Once the UN statehood is set in stone, its terms become non-negotiable.

But then the fact that Israel is so appalled at the surprise move by their neighbours suggests there is something to be gained strategically by the approach. It also promises at least to shake things up a bit, possibly get them moving again. For decades Palestine has existed in a state of limbo, without territorial sovereignty but with airtight borders. Without the right to hold Israelis to account when they commit crimes within those borders but without the assurance that Israelis will be charged in Israel. Without the right to raise their own taxes but in charge of spending millions to provide (or not) basic healthcare and education for its not-quite-citizens. The situation is untenable and yet has tenaciously persisted for longer than anyone thought possible.

If the Palestinians’ unilateral bid for statehood is unhelpful or unrealistic, it’s at least understandable.

Claire Leigh is Treasurer of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

 

Middle East Delegation Travellog – Palestine’s UN bid

As part of our Middle East delegation 2011 travellog, Roxanne Mashari explains why she now supports Palestine’s UN bid for independent statehood.

September 21st 2011 is not just the day I turn 25, but also the day that the Palestinians will take their bid for independent statehood to the United Nations. You can see faces of the Palestinians that we talk to light up with a sense of hope and energy at the prospect of the bid succeeding and there is a real sense of excitement in the air in the Palestinian Territories.

Dr Sabri Saydam, technology and science advisor to the Palestinian Prime Minister, beamed into our meeting with Fateh Youth this morning clutching a tiny cube in his hand. Taking his seat, Dr Saydam held the cube up for the delegation to see. Inside was a miniature blue chair with a tiny Palestinian flag. The message on the cube reads ‘Palestine’s Right, A Full Membership to the United Nations’.

The overwhelming sense of optimism and pride radiating from Dr Saydam as he speaks is contagious. It’s hard not to get caught up in the energy surrounding the preparation for the bid and sitting here with the Young Fabians, Fateh Youth and Dr Saydam, it becomes difficult to contemplate a down side to the September bid.

We have been reminded throughout our trip of the potential dangers of such a move by the Palestinians. Mark Regev, Spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister, put to us yesterday that the Palestinian bid was unilateral in nature and that granting statehood to the Palestinians in this way would allow them to avoid some of the more tough concessions that would have to be made in order to secure a mutually acceptable bilateral agreement with the Israelis. Peace, Mr Reghev argued, must be secured before Palestinian Statehood and not the other way round

As far as I can see, opposition to the Palestinian bid rests primarily on three main points:

  1. While raising expectations, the bid will do little to change the reality on the ground for the Palestinians.
  2. This is an unilateral move by the Palestinians which seeks to undermine Israel’s role in the peace process.
  3. Any UN agreement for the Palestinians will make negotiations with the Israeli’s far more difficult as the Palestinians will be unwilling to deviate from the UN agreements.

Until yesterday I was intrigued but sceptical of the Palestinian bid for statehood. Today, my doubt turned into support.

Putting our concerns directly to Dr Saydam, Dr Mohammad Shtayyeh and members of Fateh Youth, counter arguments to the bid were refuted in a measured and comprehensive manner.

I was particularly concerned that if the Palestinians were granted statehood via the UN that Israel may be undermined or side-stepped in any future negotiations. Between them, Dr Saydam and Dr Shtayyeh were clear that this bid was in no way a substitute for negotiations with the Israelis, that the reality of any borders would need to be decided face to face with the Israeli authorities, that an independent Palestinian state would be a demilitarised in the interim with an invitation to Nato or the UN to remain within Palestine in order to ensure the security of the Israelis.

The Palestinians believe that the bid this month will ‘transform the nature of the peace talks’ and grant the Palestinian people basic state rights and recognition that will place them in a far stronger and clearer position to negotiate a lasting peace settlement.  A clear narrative behind the reasons for the bid began to emerge throughout our various meetings today. The Palestinians claimed that unilateralism hasn’t worked, bilateralism has failed again and again and so the last port of call must be a multinational route.

The quartet, the UN, America and Israel have all backed the concept of an independent and fully functioning Palestinian state. If the Palestinians are committed to ensuring Israel’s security through demilitarisation and the presence of NATO forces as well as clearly stating that this bid is in no way a substitute for tough talks with Israel (as we heard today) I see no reason why the Palestinians should not take this non-violent multinational route to self determination and statehood.

Dr Saydam said today that he would put off his own daughter’s marriage if it fell in the month of September due to the bid. He is right in his measurement of the scale and unique nature of the opportunity in front of us. Today, every concern we have heard about the bid by the Isrealis was answered and answered convincingly by the Paslestinians we spoke to today.

If this is backed up with action, this bid for statehood could very well be a monumental and non-violent victory for the moderates within the Palestinan Authority and breathe new life into the peace process.

Roxanne Mashari is a member of the Young Fabians and a delegate on the Young Fabian Middle East Trip 2011.

Copyright © 2004–2009. All rights reserved.

RSS Feed. This blog is proudly powered by Wordpress and is derived from Modern Clix, a theme by Rodrigo Galindez.