ꕤ
Article
SOURCE
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/05/bribery-over-humanity-the-uk-saudi-arabia-and-the-un-human-rights-council/
January 5, 2016
Bribery over Humanity: The UK, Saudi Arabia and the UN Human Rights Council
by Binoy Kampmark
Wither human rights – especially when it comes to strategic partnerships. The UK-Saudi Arabia relationship has been one of a seedier sort, filled with military deals, mooted criticism and hedging. When given the John Snow treatment as to what Britain’s role behind securing Saudi Arabia its position on the UN Human Rights Council was, Prime Minister David Cameron fenced furiously before embellishing Riyadh’s value in its relations with the West. [comment: not sure who John Snow is ... it may be Channel 4 presenter, Jon Snow - here]
The paper trail in such matters is always useful, and given that Britain remains one of the most secretive states in the western world, those things are not always easy to come by. Light, however, was already shed by cables released through WikiLeaks suggesting that a degree of haggling had taken place between the states over the subject of compromising human rights.
The Saudi cable trove, made available to WikiLeaks last June, has spurred various groups to comb through the foreign ministry collection with an eye to decoding the Kingdom’s sometimes inscrutable positions.
The relevant documentation in this case touches on talks between Saudi and British officials ahead of the November 2013 vote on membership of the 47 member body. Cables from January and February 2013, separately translated by UN Watch and The Australian, discloses proposed positions of support.
One cable posits how, “The [Saudi] delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014-2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.”
It goes on to say how, “The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
The cables also reveal how money was expended for the campaign to gain the seat, noting a transfer of $100,000 for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016.” While the itemisation of that item is not available, the Kingdom’s record on sugaring and softening its counterparts to improve its image is well known.
A spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attempted to nip any suspicions in the bud in rather unconvincing fashion. “Saudi Arabia took part in an uncontested election for a seat as one of the Asian Group members in the UN’s Human Rights Council.”
Besides, the UK’s position, so went the argument, was of no consequence, whatever might have been said behind closed doors. The UK might not publicise “how it votes” but as “this was not a contested election within the Asian Group… the UK’s vote was immaterial.”
The situation has also been further excited by the mass execution on Saturday of 47 individuals, including the outspoken Shia cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr. It was the largest show of death put on by the Kingdom since 1980.
Neither the Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett or Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats, could let that one pass. “In light of the weekend’s events,” claimed Bennett, “the government should be launching an inquiry to establish who made the decision to so abuse the UN process and the principle of universal human rights.” The perennial problem here is that any government inquiry tends to be an exercise of exculpation rather than revelation. [comment: eluding responsibility rather than fact-finding / exposing]
The response from the British FCO to the spectacular bloodletting on Saturday was of the tepid, pedestrian variety, taken straight out of its precedent book of tepid, pedestrian responses. “The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country. The death penalty undermines human dignity and there is no evidence that it works as a deterrent.”
The statement goes on to suggest that the foreign secretary is doing his job, regularly raising “human rights issues with his counterparts in countries of concern, including Saudi Arabia. We seek to build strong and mature relationships so that we can be candid with each other about these areas on which we do not agree, including on human rights.”
So candid were these exchanges, they led to a compromise regarding Britain’s own stance on human rights abuses. If anything, it induced a cynical caricature, one of positioning and sponsorship for an image distinctly at odds with the reality. For Riyadh, this could not be seen as anything other than a coup in international diplomacy. The Kingdom had found its own useful, complicit fool.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
|
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
COMMENT
The human rights topic is wasted on me.
As I see things, universal human rights principles are just a means of (a) interfering with other nations (bullying, shaming, undermining, pressuring, smearing, fomenting dissent etc), while maintaining pious intentions; and (b) a means of politically assaulting and manipulating domestic political opponents (or other targets), in the usual guise of 'concern', 'condemnation' and other holier than thou rubuke, or whatever else.
I highly doubt that those at the top end of national government (whoever they may be) actually consider the notion of 'human rights' (and certainly not domestic rights), as they plot their way to domination and exploitation of whatever is coveted and targeted for gain, on behalf of whoever their masters may be.
Western governments that pour billions of dollars (while depriving their own citizens and/or condemning them to generations of debt slavery to finance wars etc), Western governments that supply tons of arms over decades of relentless interference in the affairs of foreign targets, with the aim of destabilising sovereign states, when they're not raining down tons of bombs, or otherwise pursuing regime change, faking reasons to wage war, waging war illegally and destroying entire regions, regardless of the grand scale of destruction and number of direct and indirect deaths, probably don't really care much for universal human rights principles ... or much beyond the principles of self-interest.
The British Foreign Office personnel wouldn't lose any sleep over beheadings in Saudi Arabia. In fact, they're probably in favour of whatever blood-letting it takes the Saudis, if it serves to preserve the power of the Saudis (whom the British installed on the throne), because the British elite interests and the Saudi elite interests coincide beyond the UNHRC body.
The rote non-statement 'nowhere' response, that serves to create an appearance of an appropriate official 'response', must be standard practice in British politics -- and maybe all politics. I've not really been listening.
Getting a bit off topic: what's the bet that the following isn't an aberration, and that it's also a standard British political manoeuvre?
No Evidence of Iran’s role in violence and instability in Iraq – confirms British Foreign Minister
by Mehrnaz Shahabi(CASMII Columns)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
David Milliband, British foreign secretary, confirmed in an interview (1) with the Financial times, 8th July, that there is no evidence of Iranian complicity in instability in Iraq or attacks on British troops:
Asked by the FT, “What do you think of Iran’s complicity in attacks on British soldiers in Basra”?, Miliband’s first response was, “Well, I think that any evidence of Iranian engagement there is to be deplored. I think that we need regional players to be supporting stability, not fomenting discord, never mind death. And as I said at the beginning, Iran has a complete right, and we support the idea that Iran should be a wealthy and respected part of the future. But it does not have the right to be a force of instability”. However, prompted more closely, “Just to be clear, there is evidence?”, he replied, “Well no, I chose my words carefully…”.
This confession came in the context of an implied accusation or a not so subtle suggestion of Iranian role in the instability in Iraq which seem to have stimulated the question “There is evidence?”, to which the reply “Well no …”; a possible disappointment, was nonetheless crystal clear: There is no evidence.
Contextually, this important admission by the British Foreign Minister of absence of any evidence linking Iran to the violence and instability in Iraq was preceded by the discussion about Iran’s nuclear programme and Britain’s readiness to impose another set of punishing sanctions on Iranian people, for Iran’s non-compliance with the security council’s resolutions which have no basis in international law, imposed based on supposed suspicions for which again, there is no evidence.
[...]
CONTINUED
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/2609
In Summary
FT did not dwell on Milibrand admission
FT had published without evidence
that Iran govt cooperation w/ al-Qaeda using Iran territory
for launching anti-coalition ops in Iraq
mainstream media response re Milibrand admission, also silence
war media / orchestrated chorus
"finding shadows of Iranian culprits at every corner"
Tape of Abu Omar al Baghdadi
al-Qaeda Iraq leader
released by Associated Press
>> threatens to war w/ Iran
>> unless Iran stops supporting Shia in Iraq
>> no USA govt response
>> absence of media interest |
That caught my eye somewhere today (not sure what I was reading) ... and it sort of stuck.
Lucky the Financial Times guy followed up the misleading statement with a clarifying question. lol
EDIT: It looks like FT itself didn't then follow up further on the Milibrand admission, nor did the media in general.
This is the funniest British-Saudi image I could find. Not sure how accurate it is -- as in, who is really in control in this relationship?
[CLICK image for clarity / enlargement]
ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
ꕤ
|
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
