Putin is Misguided

Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement, of 13 January 2019, (https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201901131071434981-netanyahu-israel-syria-attacks/) can only be read in the light of the continuous coordination between Israel and Russia, the last of which was reported as a telephone conversation between Putin and him on 4 January 2019.

It can only be concluded that any attack purportedly against Hezbollah or Iranian forces must be carried out with the full consent and acquiescence of Putin’s Russia.

This reality raised many serious issues which are familiar to the Arabs and brings back a parallel they had witnessed in the conduct of the Communist leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of Nasir. Between 1967 and 1970 the Communist leaders of the Soviet Union held the view that the Arabs in general and Egypt in particular should be supported with enough weapons to maintain their existence but never enough to challenge Israel’s military superiority which was being maintained by International Zionism. I am not going to analyse this issue here and now and show how misguided it was.

However, I would like to argue how misguided Putin is when he adopts a similar view regarding Syria.

It should be remembered that Putin did not have a conversation with President Assad after being attacked by Israel but rather had a conversation with the attacker, Netanyahu, to discuss coordination regarding the fight against terrorism. I think that stinks so much that it would be improper even to call it hypocrisy. You do not coordinate with another the fight against terrorism unless you believe that other is in fact fighting terrorism and not committing it!

Putin has created another insurmountable hurdle for himself when he adopted a new strategy based on protecting any Russian citizen wherever he/she may be. By that doctrine Putin binds himself to protect the 1.5 million Russian Jews who emigrated from Russia to settle usurped land in Palestine! It is not for me to argue why such a large number of qualified Russians should leave their birthplace and settle in someone else’s land. But Putin held himself prisoner to his new doctrine by declaring that he would defend his fellow Russian citizens even when they are Israeli. That would naturally put him on a conflict path with every Arab Nationalist, who takes just as much pride in his nationality as Putin takes in his.

We the Arabs have not chosen our enemies but they have chosen us. During the last two centuries, the Arabs have been subjected to an organized and continuous onslaught, the like of which very few nations had been subjected to, and for no crime or fault by them International Zionism chose to crush, subjugate and humiliate the Arabs. By deciding that he would protect the Zionist Russians in Israel, Putin has sided with Zionism by choice or default.

Putin ought to appreciate that Syria gave Russia its first ever military base on the warm waters of the Mediterranean.  But he is misguided in his belief of the durability and value of these bases. It could not have missed the attention of any observer that Russia, over the last five years, has been behaving as if Syria was one of its protectorates. You only need to look at the conferences on Syria which Russia has organized or attended. None has been attended by a representative of the Syrian Government which Russian claims to be the legitimate government and which basic principles of International Law states that it should attend. Turkey, Iran, USA, Israel, UK, France, Germany, everyone attends but not the legitimate representative of the Syrian Government which is being attacked, according to Russia itself, by an army from some 100 states.

I am not naïve to expect that Russia should take on the US in its aggression in Syria. But I would have expected Russia to put an end to any Israeli incursion into Syria. Now that Russia effectively controls Syrian airspace, it is under a duty to protect Syria from any attack. To argue that it is allowing Israel to attack only Hezbollah and Iranian targets in Syria would torpedo Russia’s argument itself that its presence in Syria is within the rules of international law having been invited by the legitimate Syrian Government. The presence of Hezbollah and the Iranian is equally because of the proper invitation of the legitimate Syrian Government. The principle of sovereignty applies equally and universally and not selectively as Putin, siding with Israel, seems to imply.

A lot of noise was made when Putin announced that Russia was supplying the S-300 antiaircraft system to Syria. However, the implementation carries a more sinister message to the Syrians and the Arabs generally. The supply of S-330, in addition that NATO’s Turkey is being supplied with the superior version of S-400, is conditional on not being used against Israel.

The evidence is there to see. Since its installation S-300 has not been used once to stop any of the regular Israeli air raids. Had it been used then we would have seen its effectiveness or the lack of it. But more importantly is that, had Israel been told that future raids would engage S-300, it would not have sent its F-15 or F-16 to hell. The truth of the matter is that, since the announcement to supply S-300 to Syria, Israel was assured that S-300 would not be used against its raids so long as they do not attack clear Syrian army units. Other attacks would be accepted. The sovereignty of other states is not an issue for Russia when it comes to Israel’s activities.

Putin, like Lavrov’s advisers, and most Russian Orientalist have never understood the Arab psyche. I am more critical of my people than many Westerners. But I try to be objective as much as I can when it comes to being fair to my people. Ask any Armenian who fled Turkish persecution and lived among the Arabs, how they feel about the reception they received. The Arabs have demonstrated great tolerance to people coming from any part of the world to live with and among them. History tells us how Syria received 17000 Greeks from Asia Minor in its cities during the forced exchange of population between Greece and Turkey, as agreed upon under the 1923 Lausanne treaty. The Arabs gave the Jews of Spain shelter when the Catholics uprooted both Judaism and Islam. There are no Jewish ghettos in any Arab capital city but there is hardly a European Capital which did not have a Jewish ghetto.

The Arabs did not oppose the settlement in Palestine of Jews who were persecuted in Europe. They opposed Zionism as a political philosophy advocating the creation of an Imperialist Western settlement by force on Arab land. That was the situation in the 1930s and that is still the objection in 2019.

Anyone who does not understand this will be nowhere near solving then crisis. Israel is powerful and has a large arsenal of WMDs. But if that reality about the Arab rejection of forced colonial settlement is not fully understood then Israel will never endure. The USA domination of the world will come to an end like any Empire. Who will then provide Israel with the proper suicide dagger?

Putin is misguided if he believes that by controlling events in Syria he is able to provide Israel with the security it cannot have.

Putin is misguided because he should look back at what the Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, did to the Russians. The Syrians may reach a stage in which they decide that any power that is not able to provide them with the proper protection and sovereignty is not welcomed.

 

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani

The Security Council and Syria

When a competent analyst like Finian Cunningham writes that: “American forces – about 2,000 on the ground as well as warplanes – are in violation of international law since they do not have a UN Security Council mandate, nor authorization from Syria’s government,” repeating the false information that even President Putin uttered in his annual press conference, we ought to be alarmed at how successful Imperialist Zionism has been.

We have been conditioned to accept that US forces could be stationed in Syria under a UN Security Council mandate. However, that is inadmissible under international law. I am not going to discuss the resolutions adopted by the SC on Syria during the last six years because I believe that the UN had no authority to adopt them which renders them null and void. Such a discussion will divert our attention from the question at hand.

But whenever we discuss an issue regarding the UN action we have to remember that the UN was created as an agreement between sovereign states and its function is limited by its Charter and by the principles of international law. The UN was neither created to act as a court of law nor to create new rules of international law.

 

At the heart of the UN Charter is the principle of non-interference in the affairs of its sovereign states. This is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the Charter which reads as: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Article 2(4) has since been declared by the International Court of Justice as a perepmtive principle of international law that could neither be breached nor derogated from. The only use of force allowed in the Charter is one of two cases: self-defence opposing an actual attack and a UN supervised intervention to secure peace in an international conflict which failed to be settled by peaceful means.

It should be emphasised that the UN military intervention would only take place following an international conflict that the UN has concluded to be threatening peace and security. The UN has no authority to intervene in an internal armed conflict. It is not difficult to understand why the drafters of the Charter limited the intervention to international conflict. They were aware of the danger of allowing intervention in the internal affairs of the member states. Any of the world colonial powers that wanted to occupy a small and weak state could have done so by fermenting a small military uprising in order to invade and occupy the small state. Although this has happened since WWII but with more difficulty than otherwise.

As Syria has not been involved in an international military conflict, then the UN has no authority to intervene. That is the law. Raising a moral argument is neither here nor there.

It is time we pause and read carefully what we disseminate.

 

 

Shoigu Encroaches Further Upon Lavrov’s Territory

Both RT and Sputnik carried an item of news stating that: ‘Moscow alarmed that US spy plane coordinated drone attack on Russia’s Syria base’ which in some details explains how ‘A senior Russian military official has accused the US of being directly involved in a drone attack on the Russian airbase in Syria’s Khmeimim’.

On the surface of it sounds like an everyday item of news considering that the US has had, since the demise of Brezhnev’s Russia, a free hand to operate in the world with total impunity so much so that it is estimated that it has been involved in more than 40 military operations since 2000. So what is new one might ask?

The significance of the news become apparent once we know that it is reporting an incident that happened on 6 January and not yesterday. On that day, no less than 13 drones approached the Russian base near Latikkia Syria. The Russian military tells us that these drones were not controlled by ‘peasants’ but in fact guided and controlled by a US P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane flying along the Syrian coastline.

The obvious question is why are we being told this now almost ten months after the attempted attack?

Surely, no one is suggesting that it took the Russian military intelligence ten months to analyse the monitors to conclude it was a US plane that controlled the operation.

The timing of the Kremlin’s release of the details is explained by two developments.

The first is a confirmation of what I concluded last time, namely the ascendancy of Shoigu at the expense of Lavrov. Russian generals have been agonizing for a few years as they witnessed how every principle of strategy and tactic they had studied, practiced and instructed their juniors in have been made redundant by the decisions of Lavrov’s gang of Zionist sympathizers, who have had Putin’s ears. How else could they sit idle when they observe an attacking force approaching and are prevented from bringing down the controller of the attacking force sitting in the US surveillance plane? These were not drones attacking Asad’s army but US controlled drones attacking a Russian base with Russian men and Russian planes and defences.

It now seems that at last Putin is beginning to listen to his Generals and thus the release of the news by the Kremlin. The only conclusion of the admission, which is theatrically presented as alarming, is that from now on the Generals will be allowed to deal with any new threat in the only military way they know, namely eliminating the source of the threat or the attack!

The second cause of the timing of the Kremlin’s release on 25 October of the details of the incident of 6 January is a political message to Bolton and his staunch Zionist backers in the USA. Implicit in the release of the information is a signal to the US that Russia is not going to keep quiet indefinitely about the active role which the US has been taking in Syria in supporting, training and guiding armed groups, in addition to their direct involvement in military operation against the Syrian army and its allies or in providing air protection to the terrorists attacking the Syrian army. The simple release of the details of the incident now signals to the US that from now, in addition to possible action to prevent any similar threat which the Russian generals seem to have secured, that the world will come to accept that if the US is willing to attack Russian forces directly then how deeply involved are they against the Syrian forces. The fact that this declaration coincides with Bolton’s trip to Moscow is of paramount importance in sending the Russian signal.

This must all be seen in the context of the USA declared new strategy fermenting in the little head of Trump – that of the dream of remaining the single super nuclear power! All the signs he has been giving of withdrawing from international treaties and obligations are allegedly on the ground that he is a nationalist who does not want anyone to interfere in the US. But when you think about it, he is anything but a nationalist. All his policies are based on dictating what other nations should and should not do. He wants the whole world to boycott Iran else they suffer adverse consequences. He pulled out of the Paris accord irrespective of how the US environmental policies will affect the rest of the world. The list is too long but the bottom line is that Trump is telling us that: ‘US right to protect its sovereignty means that the US has a right to limit the sovereignty of every other state’. It is not nationalism but globalism in its ugly form.

It seems that Putin has finally realized the fact which his general have been trying to explain by citing to him the US military activity extending from the Polish borders to Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. It does look like Putin is coming to accept that the attempts of Lavrov’s gang of useless out-of-date diplomats to convince him to carry on with the policy of engagement to appease International Zionism in order to allow Russia into the Club has failed. International Zionism does not want or trust Russia. The sooner Putin understands what his Generals have known for decades the safer this world will be.

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani

 

 

 

When Shoigu Overrules Lavrov, Rules of Engagement May Change!

“Something good may come out of a bad incident”, so goes the Arab proverb. And so indeed the downing of the IL20 may mean to beleaguered Syria.

It is no secret that there has been continuous tension between the two ministries of defence and foreign affairs in Russia over the last five years’ policies in Syria. Only a negligent observer could have missed the different tone of, or even conflict in, the statements made by both sides on several occasions.

At the heart of the tension is a simple fact. Lavrov and his gang of Zionist sympathisers want to maintain the status quo of appeasing International Zionism in order for the latter to let Russia into the Club. On the other side Shoigu and his generals have the duty of seeing that the security of their men and the interests of Russia are secured. But those two objectives have turned out to be incompatible. You cannot appease International Zionism and at the same time protect Russian interests simply because the former is out to destroy, weaken or contain the latter. Continue reading “When Shoigu Overrules Lavrov, Rules of Engagement May Change!”

What Putin Needs to Understand to Befriend the Arabs!

It is no secret that there is a wide difference of opinion between the Russian Military and diplomats over strategy and tactics in Syria. This has manifested itself repeatedly over the last five years. Some think it is part of the division of roles.

But the truth is different, and it was so clearly demonstrated today by the Russian General telling us that the Israeli role in the downing of the Russian aircraft over Latikkia was criminal negligence. This is nothing less than a rebuke to Putin who told us a few days earlier, clearly on the advice of Lavrov’s gang of Zionist sympathizers, that it was a tragic incident!

The General went on to highlight the difficulty which the diplomats put them through when carrying out their duties to fight terrorists, protect their bases and personnel in Syria while at the same time had their hands tied in not using their air defences against unknown air attacks. He also reminded Israel that Russia had forced Hezbollah and their allies to move away from the occupied Golan Height to East Syria! Nothing remotely similar has come from Lavrov’s gang.

I understand that Putin, who had spent most of his intelligence life in Europe, knows little about the Middle East and even less about the Arabs. But I hope he is not so deluded as to believe that because some of his diplomats had worked in the Arab world and learnt Arabic, then they must understand ‘Arabism’. Learning Arabic or living among the Arabs are not sufficient tools to understand the Arabs. There is nothing specific about the Arabs, and this statement applies everywhere in the world in that context. However, there is one element which is uniquely specific to the Arabs in this matter. Almost all of the academics in Europe, who had learnt Arabic over the last three centuries, did so after learning Hebrew either for political reasons or in order to study the Bible. This adds an element of built-in bias towards Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It is obvious that Putin, who inherited a devastated Russia after Brezhnev’s hibernation and Yeltsin’s alcoholic lunacy, is keen to build a strong and developing Russia. I have no doubt about his sincerity to that end. He has so far achieved a dream, which has eluded Russia from the Czar’s time throughout Communism, to have a base on the warm waters outside the Black Sea. This I believe to be his biggest international achievement so far. I believe he needs to maintain it and in order to do so I believe he MUST understand ‘Arabism’. Syria is weak and Assad may not have the power to say no, but the Arabs understand fully what is happening and will build on it in the future.

Here are the facts that Putin has to take into consideration.

  1. The Arabs in general are not known to be racist in the sense of showing sensitivity to foreigners or non-Muslims who have lived or settled among them for centuries. Thus, while every European capital has had a Jewish ghetto, the Jews lived in every district in Baghdad, for example, for a thousand years.
  2. The European Jewish settlers who came to Palestine following WWI were not rejected until it was clearly declared that they intended to settle the land and expel its owners and inhabitants. It was Zionist ideology to which the Arabs objected and not Jewishness.
  3. It is not an Arab created problem that you have 1.5 million Russian Jews living in occupied Palestine. They should not have joined the occupying settlers knowing fully that they are usurpers. I do not see how you feel obliged to protect usurpers even if they were Russians at the expense of the Arabs who have committed no evil against you.
  4. The Arabs who have lived under occupation for centuries have developed a rejection of any new occupation in whatever shape or form it comes. Everything that Israel represents today is a symbol of European occupation. Even the style of their settlements and houses is a reminder of European hegemony. Deep in the Arab psyche, there is a total rejection of it. It is the same among the intelligentsia and the common masses. It is the same even among the little men who rule the GCC and who, when they are able to confide, would tell you of their rejection of Zionism which they could not declare because they rely on the US for their survival!
  5. No Zionist brutality over the last 70 years has managed to shift the Arab rejection of the Zionist ideology or the apartheid Jewish state. Not the mass expulsion of the Palestinians; not the invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq; not the obliteration of Libya; not the genocide in Yemen; not the carefully planned destruction of Syria, has forced the Arab nation into submission to Zionist hegemony. There is only one route left for the Arabs and that is to rise again as there is no lower into which they can descend.
  6. There is no denying that Russian help has rescued the last Arab bastion against the arrogance of International Zionism (loosely Israel, US, UK, France, Turkey, SA). But the Arabs, while acknowledging with gratitude that contribution and sacrifice of the peace-loving Russian nation, understand equally that Russia has its own interests in pursuing its policy in the Arab world. It is here that the divergence may begin.
  7. If you do not appreciate fully the interest of your host state you will antagonize it and end up being an occupier rather than an ally. The Syrian Arab Republic as an ally, needs the means to defend its borders, air space and sovereignty. You are capable of delivering that and your refusal to do so amounts, in the eyes of the watchful Arabs, to a tool of intimidation of Syria to act fully in accordance with your desires and plans.
  8. It is inconceivable that you think it proper to supply Turkey, a key member of NATO, with S-400 air defence system and denying Syria the most basic air defences it needs to defend itself against daily Israeli and US attacks on its sovereignty. While Turkey has NATO fully on its side in any likely conflict, Syria has none. Who is likely to attack Turkey? Is it not Turkey which is the heart of the calamity that has befallen Syria? How could you reward it by providing it with your advanced air defence system which will be in the hands of NATO instantly?
  9. You are totally mistaken if you think that by getting closer to Erdogan you may lure Turkey away from NATO. Turkey is made up of two wings. One is the sectarian Turkish people who follow the Zionist Ataturk and are always with Europe which itself has been historically inimical to Russia. The second is the Muslim Brotherhood movement, which was either set up or has been backed by the West depending on how you understand the evolution of the movement. Whichever wing prevails, Turkey will be antagonistic to Russia.
  10. Arab Nationalism is the only force in the Middle East that can be an ally of Russia. Not the Saudi oil money, not the corrupt Gulf regimes which will eventually collapse by the sheer weight of history, but the true nature of the Arab Nation aspiring to live freely in social justice, peace, and harmony with the rest of the world.
  11. Jews, Christians and Muslims can and will live together, as they did before Zionism was born. Zionist ideology will not survive in the Arab world more than a Muslim enclave will survive in the UK. Anyone who does not understand this needs to read history carefully. The US hegemony which is maintaining Zionism today has 50 to hundred years more. But what will happen after that?
  12.  I hope that you understand these realities of history and provide Syria with its needs to defend itself against Zionist daily arrogance. I am not calling on you to provide Syria with nuclear weapons or missiles that reach Tel Aviv. But I am calling on you to provide it with a defensive means that nullifies Israeli aggression. The Arabs in general and the Syrians in particular who sacrificed so much, expect no less from you.
  13. If you do not heed this, you will end up in the Arab world like the Anglo-Saxon: maybe feared but hated. The only difference is that the Anglo-Saxon have managed over the last century to invade rebellious Arabs as they please, but your peace-loving Russian nation will not allow you to do so even if you wanted. You will lose the dream of bases on the warm waters of the Mediterranean but more importantly the friendship of the Arab Nation.
  14. It is time to listen to your Generals who need the freedom to protect their bases and personnel and ignore the advice of the Zionist sympathizers around Lavrov.

 

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani

London

23 September 2018

 

 

How Russia is Paying the Price!

It is no secret that I believe that Russian diplomats in the Foreign Office whose opinions carry weight with President Putin are either Zionist or friends of Israel. The reason for this is that most of them, despite having been members of the Soviet Communist Party, worked in the West and were corrupted by the filth of Zionist temptation in its many forms. This is not the proper time or venue for an argument on this, but I thought of clarifying it as it has relevance to the subject and title of this article.

Iraq, following its foolish incursion into Kuwait in 1990 without any calculation of consequences, abided by and implemented all the measures imposed on it, either because it ignorantly hoped or ill-advised or wrongly wished that Zionism would give it another opportunity. Iraq disarmed itself and exposed itself naked before a world crazy with power and arrogance. But this disarmament did not succeed because Zionism, in implementing its plan to dismantle Iraq, had succeeded in convincing the world that the rules of justice have changed. In International Law the rule has become such that an accused is obliged to prove his innocence and not the accepted principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The new rule is an impossible demand because how can the accused prove the negative? Continue reading “How Russia is Paying the Price!”

Attacking Syria: War Crime And Aggression

Supremacy of Parliament in the UK means that Acts adopted by it apply to everybody including Parliament itself.

WAR CRIMES

In 1957 Parliament promulgated the Geneva Conventions Act incorporating the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 into domestic law. In 1995 the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act was adopted incorporating the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Genevan Conventions in UK Law.

Section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (as amended) states:

“1. Grave breaches of scheduled conventions.

(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions, the first protocol or the third protocol shall be guilty of an offence.

Paragraph 3 of Article 85 of Protocol I reads as:

  1. In addition to the grave breaches defined in Article 11, the following acts shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of this Protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:

……

(c) launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2(a)(iii);”

In 2001 Parliament adopted the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (ICCA 2001) which encoded the customary international law of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide crime into UK Law.

Article 8 of Schedule 8 of the ICCA 2001 reads as:

“2 For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

……

(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”

Any attack on a site potentially containing WMD would inevitably lead to widespread damage to people and the natural environment through the dispersal of material from the destroyed site.

It would be easy to prove in a court of law that the UK Government, which declared that it attacked chemical weapons production and storage facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic, committed a war crime contrary to para (4c) of Article 85 Protocol I, and Article 8 Schedule 8 of the ICCA 2001.

AGGRESSION

The international political order is based on respect for sovereignty of the state and the promotion of peace and security. The United Nations Charter embodies these principles under the umbrella of International Law in whose development the UK has played a significant role.

International Law recognizes only two exceptions to a secure sovereignty of a state – one being to act in self defence against a real, and not an alleged, attack, and the second when the UN Security Council decides that there is a real threat to peace and security that requires military action, which military action should be done under strict control by the UN as described by the UN Charter and for the specific purpose of eliminating the threat to peace and security in the world. There is nothing in International Law that allows any other action however reprehensible the action of the sovereign state may be.

Aggression as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared is any act in breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and classified it as breach of jus cogens norms of customary international law from which there is no derogation.  Aggression constituted the main crime in the Nuremberg Tribunal. Its definition has been unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution (3314) and incorporated into the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Its criminality in the UK has been established by Parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 7.2)

Thus whether the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR) has chemical weapons as the UK insists, despite the OPCW declaring that the SAR to be free of them, or the SAR does not indeed have them, the attack of the UK on SAR on 14 April 2018 is an act of aggression under both International Law and domestic law.

It seems that in the midst of the political waffle we have lost track of the legality of war.

Parliament could not approve an attack on SAR whatever the Government’s argument is. If Parliament were to vote for military action against the SAR with no right of self-defence being established by the UK Government, then it would commit both war crime and the crime of aggression just as it did in 2003 when it voted to invade Iraq.

 

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani (Dr)

Barrister
London

16 April 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shame on You Finland

Thirty years ago I lived among the Finns. Coming from Iraq I was amazed by the complex which most the young Finns lived under of feeling oppressed by the neighbouring powerful Soviet Union and looking towards the US and Europe for salvation.

However, the Soviet Union has since collapsed and Finland has enjoyed the security and bounty of membership of the European Union.

I would have expected that Finland has by now manged to break out of the complex and develop a balanced policy of friendship towards its powerful neighbour in Russia while still keeping its close relationship to the loose EU identity.

It turned out that I was wrong in my expectation and International Zionism, which took hold of Finland after the departure of President Urho Kekkonen (1956-1982), still has a strong grip on politics in Finland. Membership of the EU does not seem to have eased that grip. The Skripal affair exposed that.

The Zionist in response to their losses in Syria decided to hit back at Russia. Whether or not Skripal was purposely poisoned in order the exploit the affair for the attack on Russia, is irrelevant. What matters is that it is being expolited.

Many states joined in the diplomatic attack on Russia. You can look at the table of expulsion and conclude that the highest the number of expulsion from any state the deeper that state is in the Zionist pocket.

It is true that Finland expelled only one Russian diplomat. But even that one was one too many! Finland ought to have done the decent thing and apologized like New Zealand, when exposed to the pressure to join the circus, declared that it searched for a spy to expel but could not find one!

Finland could have responded to the pressure on it by relying on the British scientist in charge of the poisoning affair who advised the High Court in London between 20 and 22 March of the following:

Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent.”

If the British scientist in charge of the matter is not yet sure of what happened, how could Finland have concluded what the incident entailed and who was responsible.

How would Finland react if international investigation were to fail in concluding who was behind the incident?

Would Finland then expel one Israeli diplomat?

 

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani

31 March 2018

Military Insurrection is Terrorism not ‘Moderate Opposition’

Following the adoption by the European Union of several Directives and measures on Terrorism, the UK adopted Terrorist Act 2000. The main purpose of the 2000 Act has been to define the meaning of Terrorism. Several other legislations have since been adopted dealing with terrorism, anti-terrorism, counter-terrorism and terrorist asset-freezing ending with Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

What concerns us here is the definition of terrorism given in section 1 Terrorism Act 2000 which reads as:

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system…”

This wide definition called for a proper interpretation. Soon the Courts were called upon to give one.

Mohammed Gul a British citizen of Libyan origin was arrested in 2009 for having downloaded on his computer videos glorifying Al Qaeda. He was prosecuted under section 2(1), of the 2006 Act; convicted and sentenced. During the trial, the jury asked the judge for instruction on the meaning of ‘terrorism’.

In the appeal process the Court of Appeal was asked to certify the following question:

“Does the definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 operate so as to include within its scope any or all military attacks by a non-state armed group against any or all state or inter­governmental organisation armed forces in the context of a non-international armed conflict?”

The Court of Appeal responded in the affirmative. The appellant applied to the Supreme Court.

In its decision the Supreme Court with great reluctance concluded the following:
“Terrorism is terrorism, whatever the motives of the perpetrators. … Terrorist action outside the United Kingdom which involves the use of firearms or explosives, resulting in danger to life or creating a serious risk to the health or safety to the public in that country, or involving (not producing) serious personal violence or damage to property, or designed seriously to interfere with an electronic system, ‘is terrorism’…”

“As a matter of ordinary language, the definition would seem to cover any violence or damage to property if it is carried out with a view to influencing a government or IGO in order to advance a very wide range of causes. Thus, it would appear to extend to military or quasi-military activity aimed at bringing down a foreign government, even where that activity is approved (officially or unofficially) by the UK government.”

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that action by a non-state armed group against the state is an act of terrorism. The Supreme Court indicated that the UK could not argument as it did, that some actions of its government supporting armed groups outside the UK could be excluded from the definition of support of terrorism.

It follows that the position of the UK Government as represented by its support of armed groups as supporting of the so-called ‘moderate opposition’ is a breach of UK law.

The UK representative’s statement in the Security Council that Al-Nusra makes up only 1% of the people of Eastern Ghouta of Syria is a failed attempt at avoiding the law of the UK as held by the Supreme Court, namely that all armed groups fighting a legitimate government are terrorist and that the UK support of these groups is a crime under Terrorism Act 2006.

Legitimacy of a state is not a matter to be decided by western powers but a matter settled by the UN membership.

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani

Iraq’s Problem in Its Constitution not the Referendum!

I have not written on the political situation in Iraq for many months because I believe it to be futile as Iraq has no short or medium term political future that merits some contribution unless a major war breaks out in the area which could transform matters. The reason for such a bleak forecast, which I reached neither lightly nor out of spite, is not because Iraq had been invaded and needs time to recover from the invasion as had happened to Germany and Japan in WWII. There is a major difference between what happened in invading Japan and Germany and invading Iraq. The purpose of invading Germany and Japan was to defeat those countries militarily and economically and dominate them without a major political change. The purpose of invading Iraq has always been ‘regime change’ so that the outcome would be to create a political system more in line with International Zionism’s plan for the Arab World. In 2003 and after 12 years of genocidal blockade Iraq was no threat to its neighbours let alone to the US/UK!

I do not intend to write about what International Zionism did in Iraq in order to transform it from an Arab semi-socialist state to a Zionist semi-capitalist state because I have already co-authored two books on this and no single or even a few articles would do justice to such an important era of Iraq’s history. However, what I intend to write about are two things: who are the Iraqis who took part in the invasion, and what are the facts which the invasion created that are almost impossible to reverse?

All the Iraqis who called on the US to invade Iraq; took part in it; supported it; or took part in the political system installed as a result of the invasion are either servants of International Zionism, its allies or its appeasers, whom I shall refer to herein as the ‘Invasion Proponents’. The reason why I have not written about the disputes within the ‘Invasion Proponents’ is because they are all about protecting personal interest in power as there are no real political or ideological differences among the group.

As the ‘one’ cannot federate with itself and only more than ‘one’ can, then it is clear that the Occupier established in the 2005 Constitution that Iraq has become a federation of more than one independent authority

It is not a secret that the Kurdish leadership among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ have always been aligned with Israel; be that secretly for a long time and openly since the battle of ‘Hindereen’ when in 1996 the Kurds wiped an Iraqi army 4th brigade with open support from Iran, Israel and a bunch of Iraqi communists. The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’, on the other hand, had aspirations extending from setting up an Islamic Sunni State or an Islamic Shi’a State, both of which is a fantasy that could not materialize. However, they all agreed on the end of the Arab identity of future Iraq. Alongside these political Arab and Kurdish groups among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ there were a few independent Iraqis who had no political ambition beyond having a share in power and its reward. That explains why not a single member of the so-called Governing Council, which never governed, asked Paul Bremer, Iraq ruler par excellence, what the occupation was planning for Iraq. They asked, according to Bremer, only about the remuneration for their services.

Towards the objective of ‘regime change’ the occupying US/UK powers issued more than 100 laws which irreparably changed Iraq politically, economically, socially and militarily. Not a single member of the ‘Invasion Proponents’ had an opinion, a say or objection to any of them. When the objective of ‘change’ was achieved, it became imperative for the Occupiers to extricate themselves publicly from the occupation of Iraq. Although, this has not occurred in reality because Iraq in practical and even legal terms is still occupied, it was important to declare the withdrawing from Iraq and handing it to its people.  Such a measure was vital to limit the potential of legal labilities not towards the people of Iraq but rather towards citizens of the US/UK in case any of them suffers some injury or loss as a consequence of Occupation. Thus a need arose to draft a constitution for the new state replacing the Arab Nationalist state.

And that is how the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 was born. I am confident that not one single Iraqi took part in its drafting. I am almost as confident to assert that those who voted for it neither read it before voting for it nor since. Those Iraqis who claim today to have been members of the constitution committee, have only themselves to blame for the shortcomings and failures of the constitution and should be held responsible.

Whoever wants to know the true Zionist project for Iraq should read its 2005 Constitution before preaching about the constitutionality or otherwise of any measure. Reading the Constitution will further expose the political hypocrisy of some members of the ‘Invasion Proponents’; one of whom is reported a few days ago to have said that the establishment of an independent Kurdisatn in northern Iraq will be a ‘second Israel’ implying that he, or any of the ‘Invasion Proponents’, has had a problem with Israel. If that was the case then International Zionism would have been either a charitable organization or stupid in having invaded Iraq only to hand it over. I doubt if Zionism is either. However, none of my fellow Iraqi citizens said to him that had it not been for Israel you would not have assumed power in Baghdad. You would still have been hanging around cafes in Zaineb district of Damascus.

What does the Constitution of 2005 bring to occupied Iraq?

Despite the numerous reservations I have, I will limit them here to issues relevant to the Referendum on the independence of Kurdisatn.

I shall attempt to show how the Constitution was carefully drafted to expand the concept of ‘Creative Chaos’ intended by International Zionism to ensure a fragmented and weak Arab world so that Israel remains dominant and powerful in the otherwise sectarian world around it.

The first thing that hits you in the face is the poor language in which the Constitution was drafted. The reason for that is clear. The Constitution was originally drafted by the Occupier in his language just as was the case with the 1925 Constitution which was drafted by the British: English. Furthermore, English is the language that determines the authenticity of any law or document as Paul Bremer decreed in Regulation (1) on 16 May 2003. So when the Constitution was translated the Kurds got their version of which I have no knowledge.  The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ had no interest in what the Constitution contained assuming that many among them had even read it. And even if they did care what could they have done? They, i.e. the Arabs ‘Invasion Proponents’ fall into three categories who all came from outside Iraq after March 2003. The group of Al Hakim who came from Iran knew better Persian than Arabic. The group of ‘Solagh’ who came from Damascus were led by someone who claimed that he used to read the police crime series of the French ‘Arsene Lupin’ and the novel of the Count of Monte Cristo’. Bahr El-Uloom group which came from the UK were led by the garrulous doctor who is known for using words in meaningless sentences!

Let us start with Article (1) of the Constitution because of its relevance in language and content. It states:

“The Republic of Iraq is a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state in which the system of government is republican, representative, parliamentary, and democratic, and this Constitution is a guarantor of the unity of Iraq.”

A reader of this Article for the first time may raise the question: what is wrong with it? The problem is not in the English text but in the Arabic translation. Firstly, it uses the two English words ‘parliamentary, and democratic’ in that form and not uses Arabic words for them. The Constitution of any state is drafted in its official language. If the translators of the Iraqi Constitution 2005 did not know Arabic words to represent the English original then maybe the Constitution is not meant for Iraq. The composition of the translation is so poor that it would be rejected linguistically if submitted by a primary school pupil. Another example of the poor translation is that the term ‘fully sovereign’ in the English text was translated into Arabic to read ‘with full sovereignty’ as if there are states that have less than ‘full sovereignty’ incorporated in their constitutions.

The true intention of the Occupier appears in choosing the phrase:

“a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state…..”, to distinguish it from the ‘Unitary’ state which was Iraq up to 2003. As the ‘one’ cannot federate with itself and only more than ‘one’ can, then it is clear that the Occupier established in the 2005 Constitution that Iraq has become a federation of more than one independent authority.

Someone may argue that the reason for the Occupier to change the political structure of Iraq was to release the Kurds from the oppression they had suffered in the past. But even if we were to accept the Ba’athist oppression for the Kurds because of their ethnicity and the Shi’a because of their sect, then that was irreversibly changed after the De-Ba’athification of the Iraqi Society in May 2003. Democratic Iraq post 2003 ought to have become free and safe and no need to make it ‘federal’ to avoid oppression!

But the Transitional Administrative Law does not exist legally which makes a reference to any Article in it questionable to say the least. The Transitional Administrative Law suddenly appeared on the CPA website but there is no Regulation or Order through which it was promulgated. Legally it had not been adopted even by the legal order of the occupying power which makes it void.

But the reality that is known to all who have been watching the Middle East is that the Kurds have been nurturing a desire for self-independence, which I find indeed justified. How else could I demand a right fort the Palestinians in their homeland and not that of the Kurds? Establishing such a right leading to a Kurdish state, which I believe is inevitable, may mean that I support the birth of a new enemy as the new state is an ally of Israel. However, despite this realization I am not able to oppose the birth of a Kurdish state, if they so genuinely want, in hope that new generations of Kurds may realize the value of good relationship with their Arab neighbours with whom they had peacefully coexisted for centuries.

The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ are fully aware of the Kurdish designs for an independent state. The question was repeatedly discussed and agree by all the parties during the period that preceded the 2003 invasion. It is difficult and hypocritical of them to make all this noise about the current Referendum by the Kurds. Had they really objected to the Kurdish demand they ought to have demanded that the new Iraq was not a ‘federal’ state.

International Zionism has found in the Kurdish aspiration for a nationhood another arrow to add to its arsenal to ensure a divided unstable Middle East and has decided to use it not out of charity for the Kurds but of spite for the Arabs. Thus the Iraqi Constitution was born. If the Zionists wanted a unitary state in Iraq they could have easily pointed out to the both the Kurds and Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ that the State of California in the USA has similar population to that of Iraq; has more diverse society ethnically and religiously but still a unitary state and not federal. Had Zionism decided that, no one would have been able to oppose.

Article 7 of the Constitution reveals the true purpose of ‘regime change’ in eradicating the Arab Nationalist ideology in Iraq, on which all parties in the ‘Invasion Proponents’ agree, states as follows:

“Any entity or program that adopts, incites, facilitates, glorifies, promotes, or justifies racism or terrorism or accusations of being an infidel (takfir) or ethnic cleansing, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols, under any name whatsoever, shall be prohibited. Such entities may not be part of political pluralism in Iraq. This shall be regulated by law.”

This Article which attempted, unconvincingly, to identify the charges of racism or terrorism with the Ba’ath ideology, in fact implies something more sinister. It sets out as clearly stated in the phrase ‘under any name whatsoever’ to ban the setting up of any political movement that embodies Arab Nationalism ideology by claiming it to be Ba’athist. By this the main objective of the invasion of Iraq, namely eradication of Arab Nationalism, which meets the approval of Kurdish political ambitions and that of political Islamist Arab leaders both Sunni and Shi’a, has been fulfilled.

Thus not one single political group has spoken about Arab Iraq since 2003. While the Kurds have been talking proudly about their Kurdish nationalism, talk about the Arab identity of Iraq has become a shame!

Those who drafted the Constitution and those who read it have ignored that Article 7 is in direct breach of other Articles in the Constitution, such as Articles 14, 39 and 42, set out to present a democratic and free Iraq. When have Constitutions setting up states refer to banning or approving specific parties identified by their names? Constitutions are documents of principles meant to apply for all times to come after their adoption.

Article 24 goes on to reveal the true admission of a divided Iraq when it states that:

“The State shall guarantee freedom of movement of Iraqi manpower, goods, and capital between regions and governorates, and this shall be regulated by law.”

Why would a ‘single’ state need to have an Article in its constitution stating the obvious, namely that people and capital can move free within its borders? Even the EU, which is a very loose union, has full freedom of people and capita without it having to be specified in the individual states’ constitutions.

However, the true objective of the Constitution in dividing Iraq is manifested in Section Three: Federal Powers. Despite the fact that Articles 49 to 64 deal with the Council of Representatives, we find that Article 65 under the heading “The Federation Council” states that:

“A legislative council shall be established named the “Federation Council,” to include representatives from the regions and the governorates that are not organized in a region. A law, enacted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives, shall regulate the formation of the Federation Council, its membership conditions, its competencies, and all that is connected with it.”

Despite the wide difference between the English and Arabic texts and despite our inability to decide which is relevant as different parties may rely on different text, there are still major questions that arise out of Article 65. Why would a single state, which has a fully and democratically elected Council of Representatives, need another legislator in the form of a ‘Federation Council’ in which representatives of governorates take part? Is this not intended as an excuse for potential future dispute?

Article 105 emphasises this reality of intended division in stating that:

“A public commission shall be established to guarantee the rights of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region to ensure their fair participation in managing the various state federal institutions, missions, fellowships, delegations, and regional and international conferences. The commission shall be comprised of representatives of the federal government and representatives of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region, and shall be regulated by a law.”

What is the state of Iraq if regions and governorates need to guarantee their rights within it?

Article 116 seems an attempt to respond to the above question created by Article 105 which states that:

“The federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, as well as local administrations.”

This Article seems to add more confusion than answers. What does it mean to have a decentralized capital, regions, governorates and local administrations constituting a state? This federal system which seems like an amalgamation of all these constituents is a recipe for division and disaster should any member of it decides to move away from the federation.

Following Articles add more to the bizarre state of affairs and make the Iraqi State post 2005 unique and inviting to ridicule.  I shall summarize some of them to support such a description.

Article 119 enabled any on more governorates to set up their own region. Thus by its constitution Iraq could end up with 18 regions. In fact this Article was used by some in southern Iraq calling for their own region similar to that of Kurdistan in the North.

Article 120 allowed each region to have its own constitution which according to Article 121 entitles each region to practice its own independent executive, legislative and judicial authorities. An important sub-article in 121 tells us that:

“Offices for the regions and governorates shall be established in embassies and diplomatic missions, in order to follow cultural, social, and developmental affairs.”

Thus if Iraq became constituted of 7 regions then its Embassy in Somalia, for example, could by the Constitution have seven so-called Offices representing these different regions. It is surprising that neither the US nor the UK have such a constitutional requirements for their states or regions.

There are three more Articles worthy of citing for the purpose of this argument. These are Articles 126, 140 and 141.

Paragraph 2 of Article 140 states that:

“The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007.”

This paragraph raises more than one question relative to the decision to divide Iraq and deserves careful consideration.

Firstly, it refers to Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. But the Transitional Administrative Law does not exist legally which makes a reference to any Article in it questionable to say the least. The Transitional Administrative Law suddenly appeared on the CPA website but there is no Regulation or Order through which it was promulgated. Legally it had not been adopted even by the legal order of the occupying power which makes it void. As the Transitional Administrative Law is null and void, any reference in it has no legal value and subsequently so does Article 140 of the Constitution.

But if we assume that Article 140 stands then that raises another question. Why would a single state need to have a referendum to decide the borders of disputed territories within it?

Article 141 sheds more light on the bizarre state of affairs.

“Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan, including court decisions and contracts, shall be considered valid unless they are amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the Constitution.”

Thus if Kurdisatn has enacted a law prior to 1992 calling for a referendum then an argument that it is unconstitutional for it to do so today is unacceptable not least because there is no such provision in the constitution banning the holding of a referendum. In fact the opposite is supported by the constitution as it is in the nature of a union to be capable of becoming disunited.

Paragraph 4 of Article 126 lends support to such argument as it states:

“Articles of the Constitution may not be amended if such amendment takes away from the powers of the regions that are not within the exclusive powers of the federal authorities, except by the approval of the legislative authority of the concerned region and the approval of the majority of its citizens in a general referendum.”

Which confirms two principles: firstly, that the authority of the region is higher than the Constitution and secondly, that a referendum is the proper mechanism when dealing with the limits of the authority of the region which seems to indicate that it would be right for a region to hold a referendum on a fundamental issue so long as the Constitution does not bar it.

What I have argued in the preceding paragraphs is meant neither to be a justification for the referendum nor to advance a political argument. It is not my intention either to indulge in the wave of emotional talk propagated by so many among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ these days. I write to establish that the objective of invading Iraq has always been to divide it. All the ‘Invasion Proponents’ know that; agreed to it and took part to implement it.

Redefining the Sykes-Picot Agreement begins with the main element of its make-up – Iraq. That is how it was when International Zionism realized the failure of its project to control the Arab World through the setting up of the national state post WWI.

It is time all those in the ‘Invasion Proponents’ stop their hypocrisy about the dangers of the Referendum.

 

Abdul-Haq Al-Ani
28 September 2017