What is the legal basis in international law for the present actions of HMG in the sovereign republic of Syria?
To Mel Stride MP
Dear Mr Stride,
This citizen, constituent and tax payer wishes you to answer the question at the foot. I have just read a transcript of Mr Hague’s speech at the UN. It is fair to say that every sentence is a lie or a distortion. A few examples of many:
“We have not turned the desire for peace …” – Nothing could be further from the truth. HMG has provided funds, communication equipment and political support to a ragtag of armed bands. To that they have added sanctions, which are of dubious legality. The FCO knew the massive assault on Iraq by the ‘coalition of the willing’ would lead people to flee. That there were 4 million refugees did not seem to concern the invaders. That 2 million fled to Syria, which took them in with typical Arab hospitality, is passed over in the black propaganda, especially that spewed from the BBC and C4. ‘These accounts/videos cannot be verified’ – the statement we hear at the end of almost every ‘Syrian segment’ (Jim Muir, Jonathan Miller, etc etc)
“… and the risk of extremism.” – The FCO speech writers are having us on. We know that Syria is a secular society with good relationships between the different confessions (20% Christian) and none. Iraq was the same with equal numbers of women in university for instance and little or no account taken as to whether one was Shia or Sunni in adherence. The ‘risk of extremism’ attaches in large part to the ragtag the US/UK/Israel/NATO axis is supporting by every means.
“Second, this Council should express its commitment to supporting justice and accountability for the Syrian people.” – There are many contradictions here. The most powerful SC member the US, supported the Mubarak dictatorship for 28 years. This involved an annual bribe of $2 billion. The US and UK have supported the Al Khalifa mob for years. Mercenary and political motives have supported killings and terrible suffering. The US has no interest whatsoever in ‘democracy’.
“… to protect civilians inside Syria” – HMG did not express such concern in its illegal invasion of Iraq, and nor did it recently in Libya. There were 13,000 NATO ‘missions’ ie dropping/launching of ordnance. There were independent assessments that up to 50,000 civilians were killed. For the black Libyans, that continues. Fuel-air weapons were used. If you wish to be briefed on their action upon the human body I am ready. I can also brief you about the effects of U238 used to ballast or point some of these weapons.
“… encouraging them to develop their vision for a stable, democratic Syria where all communities are respected and secure.” – Which of the nine or more ‘armies’ are expressing such desires? I am aware the Syrian National Council has made some sort of declaration.
” All members of this Council should demand that Syria adheres to its obligations to secure and account for these stocks, …..” – Mr Hague, along with our broadcasters, avoids stating that the most cataclysmic weapon stocks are held by Israel. As I write several Dolfin class submarines are on station in the Persian Gulf. There are credible reports that their torpedo tubes have been enlarged to take nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Israel is the only nuclear power in the ME but its stocks have never been inspected. Furthermore it is not a signatory to the IAEA or the NNPT. Its various mouthpieces are daily threatening a pre-emptive attack on Iran. We are always searching for a word with more power than ‘hypocrisy’.
What international law is the legal basis for the present actions of HMG in the sovereign republic of Syria? You will need to involve the FCO of course.
For truth, reason and justice