Peter Hitchens calls for immediate action to stop the rush to war

I would not ordinarily repost extended passages from articles in the Daily Mail without further comment, but we have entered an exceptional time in history and I believe it is vital that Peter Hitchen’s message (published yesterday) is heard widely so that enough of us will be encouraged to follow his advice. Everything below is taken from Hitchen’s original article which is also linked at the end.

*

Please write to your MP now without delay — War, terrible war, may be on the way again.

WMD All Over Again: Our Government moves stealthily towards a new war of choice.

IS war coming? This is the traditional season of the year for plunges into war by British governments which mislead themselves and the country about the extent and nature of what is proposed. […]

This week, the Middle East is in a state of grave and dangerous tension. The huge Sunni Muslim oil power, Saudi Arabia, armed and/or backed diplomatically by Britain, France and the USA, is ever more hostile to Shia Muslim Iran, another oil power not as great but still as important, which is close and growing closer to Russia and China.

Bear in Mind as you consider this that Russia is also a European power, and engaged in a conflict with the EU and NATO in formerly non-aligned Ukraine, after the EU’s aggressive attempt to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit and NATO’s incessant eastward expansion into formerly neutral territory. There are several points at which Western troops are now remarkably close to Russian borders, for instance they are about 80 miles from St Petersburg (the distance from London to Coventry), and the US Navy is building a new Black Sea base at Ochakov, 308 miles from the Russian naval station at Sevastopol. Just as the First World War (at root a conflict between Russia and Germany) spread like a great red stain over much of Europe and the Middle East , an Iran-Saudi war could easily spread into Europe itself.

The two powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are not yet in direct combat with each other, but fight through proxies in Yemen and Syria. It would not take much for this to become a direct war, at least as destructive in the region as the Iran Iraq war of 1980-1988, during which the ‘West’ tended to side with Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein, who had started the war and incidentally used chemical weapons at Halabja in 1988, against the Kurds. The attitude of the British Foreign Office towards this atrocity was interesting: They flatly declined to get outraged, saying: ‘We believe it better to maintain a dialogue with others if we want to influence their actions.

‘Punitive measures such as unilateral sanctions would not be effective in changing Iraq’s behaviour over chemical weapons, and would damage British interests to no avail.’

The Foreign Office knows very well that its job is to defend British interests abroad, at more or less any cost. These days it seems to have concluded that British interests involve almost total subjection to the wishes of Saudi Arabia. So their current stance of supposed total horror on the subject of Chemical Weapons, especially when (as was not the case in Halabja) their use has not been established beyond doubt, may be less than wholly genuine. You’d have to ask them, but in any case I ask you to bear this half-forgotten episode in mind as you read this exchange from the House of Commons Hansard for Monday 10th September, an exchange barely reported in the media. It resulted from an urgent question asked by Stephen Doughty MP, and answered without any apparent reluctance by Alistair Burt, who I learn to my surprise is officially entitled the ‘Minister for the Middle East’. Does the Iranian Foreign Ministry have a Minister for North-West Europe, I wonder? The whole passage can be read here : https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-09-10/debates/CF970CA2-402E-4CAC-96B4-F480CC33FC7B/Idlib

But I am especially interested in this exchange, Mr Burt’s response to a clever question from the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry. I have had rude things to say about and to Ms Thornberry, but in this case she is doing her job properly and should be applauded for it. The emphases are mine:

‘Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth on securing it. I can only echo what he said about the terrible bloodshed and humanitarian crisis that is looming in Idlib, the urgency for all sides to work to find some form of peaceful political solution to avert it, and the importance of holding those responsible for war crimes to account.

I want to press the Government specifically on how they intend to respond if there are any reports over the coming weeks, accompanied by horrifying, Douma-style images, suggesting a use of chemical weapons, particularly ​because of how the Government responded after Douma without seeking the approval of the House and without waiting for independent verification of those reports from the OPCW. If that scenario does arise, it may do so over the next month when the House is in recess.

We know from Bob Woodward’s book that what President Trump wants to do in the event of a further reported chemical attack is to commit to a strategy of regime change in Syria—and, indeed, that he had to be prevented from doing so after Douma. That would be a gravely serious step for the UK to take part in, with vast and very dangerous implications not just for the future of Syria, but for wider geopolitical stability.

In the light of that, I hope that the Minister will give us two assurances today. First, will he assure us that if there are any reports of chemical weapons attacks, particularly in areas of Idlib controlled by HTS [Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham], the Government will not take part in any military action in response until the OPCW has visited those sites, under the protection of the Turkish Government, independently verified those reports and attributed responsibility for any chemical weapons used? Relying on so-called open source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups is not an acceptable alternative. Secondly, if the Government intend to take such action, thus escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria and risking clashes with Russian and Iranian forces, will the Minister of State guarantee the House that we will be given a vote to approve such action before it takes place, even if that means recalling Parliament?

Alistair Burt : The co-ordinated action that was taken earlier this year with the United States and France was not about intervening in a civil war or regime change; it was a discrete action to degrade chemical weapons and deter their use by the Syrian regime in order to alleviate humanitarian suffering. Our position on the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons is unchanged. As we have demonstrated, we will respond appropriately to any further use by the Syrian regime of chemical weapons, which have had such devastating humanitarian consequences for the Syrian population. The right hon. Lady may recall that there are circumstances, depending on the nature of any attack, in which the United Kingdom Government need to move swiftly and to keep in mind, as their utmost priority, the safety of those personnel involved in a mission. I am not prepared to say at this stage what the United Kingdom’s detailed reaction might be or to give any timescale, because the importance of responding appropriately, quickly and with the safety of personnel in mind will be uppermost in the mind of the United Kingdom.’

In other words, we’re not asking Parliament, if we can help it. When I heard this on the BBC’s ‘Today in Parliament’ late last night I felt a shiver go down my spine. The White House National Security adviser, the bellicose John Bolton, yesterday presumed (which is not proven, see multiple postings here on the work of the OPCW investigations into these events) that the Assad state had used chemical weapons twice, as he said ‘if there’s a third use of chemical weapons, the response will be much stronger’. He said the USA had been in consultation with Britain and France and they had agreed this. The House of Commons goes into recess *tomorrow* 13th September, for the party conference season, and does not come back until Tuesday 9th October. Ms Thornberry is quite right to speculate that the conflict in Idlib, where Russia and the Assad state are in much the same position as the ‘West’ and the Iraqi state were in Mosul and Raqqa not long ago (i.e confronted with concentrations of a largely beaten Jihadi enemy, who might recover if not finally defeated), could explode during that period. […]

Emily Thornberry, far too rarely among MPs, is aware of the true position. In her question to Mr Burt, she said ‘The Government responded after Douma without seeking the approval of the House and without waiting for independent verification of those reports from the OPCW’.

See:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/07/initial-thoughts-on-the-opcw-interim-investigation-into-the-alleged-gas-attack-in-douma-syria.html

If she and other wise and cautious MPs are to be able to pursue this, and to prevent British involvement in a very dangerous and perhaps limitless war, we as citizens are obliged to act now, swiftly, before Parliament goes away on holiday.

I ask you to write, swiftly and politely, to your MP, of any reputation or party, to say that you do not favour a rush to war, to say that the guilt of Syria has not been proved in the past (see:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/04/waiting-for-the-opcw-how-to-read-the-next-report-on-alleged-chemical-weapons-atrocities.html

and that a rush to judgement on such issues is almost invariably unwise. See for example the lies told to Parliament about Suez, the use of the Gulf of Tonkin to obtain political support for the USA’s Vietnam disaster, the non-existent ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ which began the Iraq catastrophe and the claims of non-existent massacres and mass rapes used to rush this country into its ill-judged and cataclysmic attack on Libya. Ask only for careful consideration, for an insistence that no military action is taken by this country without Parliament’s permission after a full and calm debate. 

it is all we can do.

There are many straws in the wind which suggest that we are being prepared for war. War is hell. At the very least, a decision which could have such far-reaching consequences, which could reach into every life and home, and embroil us for years, should be considered properly. The very fact that our government appears not to want us to consider it properly makes it all the more urgent that we insist on it.

Click here to read Hitchen’s article in full at the Mail Online.

Please note that all bold and coloured font highlights are retained from the original. I have also corrected typos.

*

Additional:

The following upload by “The Last American Vagabond” from Saturday 8th provides indepth analysis and a broad overview of the latest developments in the Middle East and Idlib in particular (links to all articles are provided beneath the video on youtube):

*

Update:

Peter Ford, former British Ambassador to Syria:

You will be seeing lurid accounts in the Western media of the latest  report to the UN Human Rights Council from the Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria. This was issued on 12 September.

In particular it is being stated that the report vindicates claims that weaponised chlorine was used in Douma. This is not what the report (text below) actually says.

If you read the actual report – you have to reach section 92 so obviously few hacks will do that – you will see that it is carefully worded.

The inspectors, who unlike OPCW did not actually visit the site, ‘received a vast body of evidence suggesting that..’ (of course they did, from the jihadis and from hostile intelligence services); ‘they received information on [deaths and injuries] (which is not the same as seeing bodies or examining victims); they ‘recall that weaponisation of chlorine is prohibited’ (but do not actually say that Syrian forces used it in Douma). 

Besides the text of the relevant part of the report I have added the paragraph on Raqqa and the ‘indiscriminate attacks and serious violations of international law’ by the coalition of which the UK is part, including the bombing of a school and killing of 40 people.

You will note also the acknowlegement that ISIS exploited hospitals in Raqqa (as other jihadi groups have done in every part of Syria). Naturally the media and our government will not want to discuss that paragraph of the report.

Click here to read the same statement – including relevant excerpts from the text of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria report – posted on Eva Bartlett’s In Gaza website

*

Further update:

The following is my own letter emailed to Paul Blomfield, Labour MP for Sheffield Central (Thursday 13th). Please feel free use it as a template.

Dear Paul,

The government looks set to get involved in a dangerous escalation in the war in Syria, possibly using the forthcoming parliamentary recess as an excuse for going to war without a vote in the Commons. So I am writing in regards to a recent statement made in the House of Commons by Emily Thornberry on Monday 10th, in which she asked how the government intends to respond “if there are any reports over the coming weeks, accompanied by horrifying, Douma-style images”, and she called on the government, “not take part in any military action in response until the OPCW has visited those sites, under the protection of the Turkish Government, independently verified those reports and attributed responsibility for any chemical weapons used?”

Thornberry continued: “Relying on so-called open source intelligence provided by proscribed terrorist groups is not an acceptable alternative.”

She also asked “if the Government intend[s] to take such action, thus escalating Britain’s military involvement in Syria and risking clashes with Russian and Iranian forces, will the Minister of State guarantee the House that we will be given a vote to approve such action before it takes place, even if that means recalling Parliament?”

The whole passage can be read here : https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-09-10/debates/CF970CA2-402E-4CAC-96B4-F480CC33FC7B/Idlib

I ask if you will stand in full support of Emily Thornberry’s call for careful consideration and her insistence that no military action is taken by this country without Parliament’s permission following a full and calm debate.

Kind regards,

James Boswell

Paul Blomfield replied to my letter on October 9th as follows:

I’m pleased to reassure you that I fully support Emily Thornberry’s position. I know that we have previously exchanged emails before about the issue of military intervention more widely.

12 Comments

Filed under analysis & opinion, Britain, campaigns & events, Syria

12 responses to “Peter Hitchens calls for immediate action to stop the rush to war

  1. Pingback: Peter Hitchens calls for immediate action to stop the rush to war. | Worldtruth

  2. The Burning Blogger Of Bedlam

    Great stuff. And I enjoyed reading your letter too. I also think Hitchens is one of the only reliable journalists we have in mainstream media papers. Also – and I admit this is a tangent – i had a dream the other day and Emily Thornberry was Prime Minister. I wonder if it’s prophetic.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. patricknelson750

    ‘We know from Bob Woodward’s book that what President Trump wants to do in the event of a further reported chemical attack is to commit to a strategy of regime change in Syria’

    Which would be no bad thing in itself as Dictator B.Astard is a genocidal tyrant however it would risk WW3 which is not something worth risking.

    Like

    • Yes but we also know that regime change in Syria was already US strategy long before Trump (I refer for instance to Wesley Clark’s well-known statement), just as it was US strategy to bring about regime change in Iraq and Libya. On all occasions the pretext was humanitarianism – i.e., the toppling of Dictator B.Astard, a genocidal tyrant. Meanwhile, the same humanitarian bombers are happy to do business with Prince B.Astard, the head-chopping despot of Saudi Arabia, whilst enabling him to carry out the ongoing genocide in Yemen.

      Like

      • patricknelson750

        What is going on in Yemen is a US vs Russian proxy war.

        Similarly what has occurred in Syria turned into such a war, but it started as a popular revolution.

        The difference between the murderous dentist in Syria and the Prince is that the clique of the dentist and his Alawite Mafia take pleasure in inflicting suffering on the country they occupy, whilst the Prince is simply trying to stop Yemen turning into an Iranian missile base on his doorstep.

        Like

      • “Claims of Iran’s influence over the Houthis have been overblown. While the Houthis do receive some support from Iran, it is mostly political, with minimal financial and military assistance.”

        http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/67988

        “…the Prince is simply trying to stop Yemen turning into an Iranian missile base on his doorstep.” Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that?

        Like

      • patricknelson750

        Whether you believe it or not this is the case it is the truth. I suggest you expand your sources of information beyond the propaganda channels RT and Press TV.

        Like

      • In December 2015, investigative journalist Gareth Porter debunked claims that the Houthis are armed by Iran, although Western media outlets frequently misreported this:

        “The allegation of Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis – an allegation that has often been mentioned in press coverage of the conflict but never proven – was reinforced by a report released last June by a panel of experts created by the UN Security Council: The report concluded that Iran had been shipping arms to the Houthi rebels in Yemen by sea since at least 2009. But an investigation of the two main allegations of such arms shipments made by the Yemeni government and cited by the expert panel shows that they were both crudely constructed ruses.”

        https://truthout.org/articles/how-false-stories-of-iran-arming-the-houthis-were-used-to-justify-war-in-yemen/

        This is investigative journalist Patrick Cockburn writing in The Independent on April 15th, 2016:

        “Saudi Arabia portrays the Houthis as pawns of Iran, though there is little evidence for this, so Yemen is drawn into the regional confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran.”

        https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/thanks-to-uk-and-us-intervention-al-qaeda-now-has-a-mini-state-in-yemen-its-iraq-and-isis-all-over-a6986086.html

        And here is Medea Benjamin responding to Ben Norton’s question on a recent episode of The Real News [Dec 16th] that Houthi forces “are a proxy for Iran, and that Iran is supposedly destabilizing Yemen”:

        “That the Iranians were not involved until the Saudis got involved. In fact, it seems that the Iranians told the Houthis not to go in and take over Sana’a, that it was not a good idea, and that it was the Saudis who pulled the Iranians into this.”

        “And so now it’s almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the Houthis have looked wherever they can to get support. But I think all along it has been an excuse for the U.S. and the other Western countries to continue their arms sales to Saudi Arabia to couch it in the terms of Iran. But this is not a war around Iran. The Houthis are a nationalist group. The Houthis have risen up before in Yemen. And the Houthis, as we’re seeing now, are not looking to Iran to say what do we do at these peace talks. I mean, they are totally an indigenous group. And this is not a war that was pushed by Iran in any way.”

        https://therealnews.com/stories/how-us-saudi-war-turned-yemen-into-the-biggest-crisis-on-earth

        Merry Christmas!

        Like

      • patricknelson750

        Lol They are a group of goat herding tribesmen, do you really think that they could take over much of the country and stand up against several of the highest funded armies on their own?

        Commander of the US Navy in the Gulf revealed that Iran is continuing to arm the Houthi armed group in Yemen, Al-Arabiya reported yesterday.

        Let us listen to the Commander of the US Navy in the Gulf…

        ‘Vice Admiral Kevin M. Donegan made clear that Iran is sending the Houthis sophisticated weaponry.

        Among the weapons are ballistic missiles, anti-ship weapons, mines and explosive boats which have been used in the Red Sea.’

        Like

      • patricknelson750

        I always had great sympathy for the Zaidis and I am not in anyway trying to undermine the fact that there is a humanitarian crisis in the Yemen for which both sides are to blame, but the simple fact is that the Houthis are dominated by a Rafidite leadership that has been based in Iran, is supported and trained by Iranians and is openly considered a new Hezbollah by Iran.

        That said as I said before what is going on in Yemen is not simply an Iranian vs Saudi conflict, it is an America vs. Russia proxy war.

        The idea that impoverished goat herders in a famine struck country are on their own capable of acquiring missiles that have reaches as far as Riyadh and others that had to be shot down before they hit Makkah is to be honest Alice in Wonderland : )

        Anyway may you have a very very happy Winterfest : )

        Like

      • You wrote: “I suggest you expand your sources of information beyond the propaganda channels RT and Press TV” when in fact I had referred to neither (and have NEVER referenced Press TV in any posts on this blog – check). In fact you were directly responding to a comment in which I quoted from analysis published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which is one of the most influential think tanks in the world (and very far from a Russian or Iranian sockpuppet).

        In return I added further analysis from a variety of sources including Patrick Cockburn, who is a Middle East expert with The Independent and has won the Martha Gellhorn Prize in 2005, the James Cameron Prize in 2006, the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2009, Foreign Commentator of the Year (Editorial Intelligence Comment Awards 2013), Foreign Affairs Journalist of the Year (British Journalism Awards 2014), Foreign Reporter of the Year (The Press Awards For 2014). In turn you ignored this too. Evidently what one US commander says trumps everything else regardless of his complete lack of impartiality – not that the sources I have quoted refute all Iranian involvement per se. Their point is that the Houthis turned to Iran out of desperation following the original US-Saudi onslaught. That the Houthis are not “pawns of Iran” (as Cockburn puts it), or, to quote the Carnegie Endowment again, that “claims of Iran’s influence over the Houthis have been overblown”.

        Feel free to add a further comment but please don’t expect another reply on this same topic.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.