Britain’s Machinations in the Middle East

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Britain’s Machinations in the Middle East

High Court Refuses to Consider CND's Legal Challenge

The government has announced that Palestinian leaders will be invited to Britain next month to take part in an international conference on the Middle East, to be chaired by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. The conference is allegedly designed as "a useful contribution to a process of reform of the Palestinian authority and of Palestinian institutions".

The conference is being seen partly as a gesture to woo the Syrian leader, President al-Assad, who had talks with the Prime Minister in London this week, as well as others in the Middle East and internationally, as part of the Anglo-American preparations for war with Iraq. The announcement follows statements from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, this week that there did not have to be a choice between dealing with "the threat Iraq poses with weapons of mass destruction and dealing with the question of the Palestinians and the Middle East peace process". These comments were themselves provoked by criticisms of the British government’s position of support for Israeli state terrorism, while claiming to be engaged in a "war against terrorism" that were once again levelled by President al-Assad.

Although Syria is still branded a "rogue state" and a "supporter of international terrorism" by the US government, the governments of both the US and Britain have been making attempts to enlist its support, or at least its neutrality, in their preparations for a war against Iraq. This is particularly important at the present time because Syria is a member of the UN Security Council. Last September, for example, President Bush refused to sign the so-called "Syria Accountability Act" which would have allowed the US government to impose economic sanctions, as part of US attempts to strengthen its links with Syria. While for the British government, Syria is seen as "an important and influential country", and one where it hopes for increasing economic and political influence. Already the British government is ‘"giving advice on economic reform" and attempting to encourage Syria to further liberalise its economy.

Syria is "an important and influential country" not least because it shares a common border with Iraq and has established trade links with its neighbour that have been criticised by Britain and the US. President al-Assad has also been a strong critic of the Anglo-American "war against terrorism", most notably when Tony Blair visited Damascus last year. More recently President al-Assad has strongly opposed any war against Iraq, arguing that it would create "fertile soil for terrorism" throughout the entire Middle East region. He is reported to have added that rather than seeing Iraq as a problem "the bigger problem is that any country should interfere in the internal affairs of another". However, the British government has interpreted Syria’s support for UN Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq, proposed by Britain and the US, as an encouraging sign, even though Syria remains opposed to any punitive war against Iraq. Syria has also been a strong supporter of the Palestinians and has refused to capitulate to pressure from the US and Britain that it should expel Palestinian organisations that they deem to be "supporting terrorism". This week President al-Assad once again reiterated his support and reminded Tony Blair of the need for the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions "regarding all issues". This is a clear reference to the fact that the British government is not as zealous in demanding the implementation of UN resolutions relating to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land as it is in regard to those relating to Iraq.

It is in this context that Tony Blair made his comments and has announced the convening of an international conference. But the fact remains that Britain’s involvement in "the Middle East peace process" has not brought peace to the region. Rather it has created all the conditions for bloodshed, for the continuation of Israeli state terrorism against the Palestinians, and as a consequence the denial of their right to self-determination. As for the international conference proposed by the British government, since some Palestinian leaders are in Israeli prisons, while others would be prevented by the Israeli government from travelling to Britain, the proposal has little credibility. It is clearly designed to enable the government to interfere in the internal affairs of the Palestinians, so as to create political institutions and political leaders that can be more easily manipulated in its own strategic interests. It is also being staged in order to claim that Britain is being even-handed in its approach, and thus to create more favourable conditions for the waging of a criminal war against Iraq.

Tony Blair may speak of peace and justice in the Middle East but actions speak louder the words. The British government support for Israeli Zionism and its preparations for war against Iraq show that it remains one of the greatest enemies of the peoples of the Middle East.

CND has not succeeded in its bid for a High Court declaration that it would be against international law for Britain to wage war against Iraq when three judges ruled on Tuesday that the court had no power to declare the true interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

CND’s case was that the government would be acting illegally if it uses armed force against Iraq without a fresh Security Council Resolution. It argues also that the present resolutions, including UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (adopted on November 8, 2002) do not impliedly or explicitly contain an authorisation of the use of force.

The case has already made history by a decision of the Divisional Court on December 5 that, even if CND lost, its liability to pay the government’s costs should be limited to £25,000. There has never been such a pre-emptive costs order made before in Britain.

CND points out that this case was historic for a number of reasons:

1, because no individual or group has ever (successfully) challenged a decision of its own government to declare war or use force;

2, because lawyers have always assumed that the declaration of war was entirely a political decision beyond the control of the judiciary. However, in this case, CND argued that as the British government has said it will be bound by international law, because it has got the law wrong means that this is a matter for judicial intervention;

3, because if CND were right, in the future matters of foreign and defence policy would, in some circumstances, be capable of being scrutinised by the courts.

Lord Justice Simon Brown described the legal challenge as a "novel and ambitious claim". The judge, sitting with Mr Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Richards, said that CND did not question the government's good faith in committing itself only to take action which was justified by international law.

CND argued there was great public interest in ensuring that the government had judicial guidance on what the law actually was so that it did not embark on military action in the mistaken belief that it was lawful to do so when it was not.

Carol Naughton, Chair of CND, said: "The Government wants the freedom to ignore international law when it suits it. War on Iraq will kill thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians. Our intention with this legal challenge is to show that the proposed war contravenes international law and to prevent the British government committing a war crime."

Mark Thomas said: "Despite saying it will be bound by international law, the government has hidden behind the courts. It knows its threatened actions are illegal and it is frightened of this being exposed. The government has won an immoral victory. And possibly a temporary one."

Phil Shiner, Public Interests Lawyers said: "This case is highly significant on the question of whether the decision by the UK government to go to war is lawful. The court and the government did not disagree with CND’s case that Resolution 1441 does not permit force – they simply refuse for political reasons to examine this crucial question of international law. This case has wide-reaching ramifications for democracy beyond the present war and CND is considering an appeal."