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.
".... and the creation of refugees on a vast scale." - 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
24 November 2012
Dear Mr Stride,
I wrote to you on the above subject 31 August 2012. (attached) I asked you to kindly direct the letter to Mr William Hague, The Foreign Secretary. After several prompts and about six weeks, I had a letter from Mr Alistair Burt. The question I required an answer to was 'What international law is the legal basis for the present actions of HMG in the sovereign republic of Syria?'
Mr Burt quoted some EU law/rules which sanctified sanctions he believed, but this central question went unanswered. I have taken the trouble to read and copy the speech Mr Hague gave in the House of Commons 20 November. This extract is from this FOC web site link
"On the basis of the assurances I received and my consultations with European partners yesterday, Her Majesty’s Government has decided to recognise the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
As the President of the National Coalition said to me on Friday, recognition imposes responsibilities on the Coalition, and we will continue to press them to uphold their commitments.
I can also announce a significant increase in practical support for the Syrian Opposition by the United Kingdom.
First, we will invite the Coalition to appoint a political representative to the UK, and we will offer support to them as they set up their political and humanitarian structures.
Second, we will provide a £1 million package of communications support, which could for instance include mobile internet hubs and satellite phones to improve the Coalition’s ability to communicate inside Syria.
Third, we will urgently deploy a Stabilisation Response Team to the region to work with the Coalition to develop its plan to meet people’s basic needs in opposition held areas and this team will draw up recommendations for areas for further UK assistance.
Fourth and separately, My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is looking at increasing our assistance to Syrians affected by the conflict. This could include increasing our humanitarian medical assistance for wounded Syrian civilians by providing UK funding for hospitals and mobile clinics, and training for health workers. And we intend to launch new work to build on our existing work to support victims of sexual violence in Syria."
The questions I respectfully ask Mr Hague, through yourself, and with all expedition are:-
1. Again - What international law is the legal basis for the present actions of HMG in the sovereign republic of Syria?
2. What basis is there in British law for - Her Majesty’s Government has decided to recognise the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people? I note the 'sole legitimate' adjectives. Mr Hague is to tell our citizens how 'legitimate' is judged, and how the title is awarded to rebel forces within a sovereign country.
3. Does the 'appointment' of a political representative by a diverse group of armed rebels, many from outside Syria and derived in part from present alleged enemies, conflict in an adverse way with usual diplomatic practices?
4. We are to contribute £1million for communication systems. How will our magnanimity in this be seen by the legitimate Syrian government? Will all loyal Syrians (and my understanding is that they are in a large majority) regard this British 'contribution' as grossly subversive? If another nation was providing this, say in Cornwall for Mebyon Kernow west of the Tamar, we would regard those co-operating Cornish as being guilty of treason?
5. Is the "Stabilization Response Team" to contain any British military or other military type personnel? I have in mind mercenaries of British or other origins. I note further UK assistance. Would this be aerial as in Libya?
6. There is irony in this, given that the NHS has been directed to make £20 billion of savings in 3 years and that already 60,000 front line posts have been lost. It is apposite to note that 24 November the CQC, after 13,000+ inspections has said that staff shortages are the central cause of failures in care. An armed insurrection has been given impetus by some Gulf dictatorships and many western countries in order to bring 'democracy' to Syria http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-war-crimes-surgical-strikes-against-palestinian-children/5312787 and having aided the blood letting, HMG now plans to dispense sticking plasters whilst OUR NHS is eviscerated.
Added comments. I note that the National Coalition includes those in Aleppo but that they are aiming for an Islamic State. Many have witnessed film of the killing of captives by an armed group. The shooting with automatic weapons was followed by 'Allah Akbah'. Other reports of similar barbarity have been reported on the internet mostly. Blood lust is up and law is lost. It would seem HMG is conspiring towards another Libya where there is no law and no security for its families.
For truth, reason and justice
David Halpin MB BS FRCS
PS I should appreciate the reply being by e-mail so that I can forward to your other constituents who have discussed all this with me.
Dear Mr Stride,
Thank you for your prompt reply of 3 December (att) to my letter of 25 November for Mr Hague (att). You believed that Mr Burt had answered my question on legality sufficiently and you were not therefore prepared to send the letter.
a. In regard to that central question, I have read through my two letters and Mr Burt's reply. I do not believe, with respect, that this question has been answered ie "What international law is the legal basis for the present actions of HMG in the sovereign republic of Syria?" I have also looked at the EU resolutions that Mr Burt referred to. These relate to an EU determination to apply sanctions against Syria but that is all. (I cannot recall the Security Council backing these but I might be in error)
b. In my second letter of 25 November I transcribed the speech made by Mr Hague. Important questions arise from that speech. Selected questions have not been presented yet to Mr Hague or the FCO. They are additional to the central question.
I could not reply to your letter of 3 December promptly but the delay has allowed me to gather more facts where facts are sparse and black propaganda overwhelming.
c. I took note of the PM's statement to the house 17 December http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20762098 From Hansard -
"Finally, I turn to Syria. As a result of Assad’s brutality, a humanitarian crisis is unfolding in Syria on our watch, with more than 40,000 dead and millions in need of urgent assistance as a hard winter approaches. There is a moral imperative to act—and Britain is doing so, as the second-largest donor in terms of humanitarian aid—but there is also a strategic imperative to act. Syria is attracting and empowering a new cohort of al-Qaeda-linked extremists, and there is a growing risk of instability spreading to Syria’s neighbours and of drawing regional powers into direct conflict. We therefore cannot go on as we are. The Council was clear, as Britain has been for many months, that Assad’s regime is illegitimate, and committed to working for a future for Syria that is democratic and inclusive, with full support for human rights and minorities. We will continue to encourage political transition from the top and to support the opposition, who are attempting to force a transition from below, and that will include looking at the arms embargo. The conclusions also make it clear that we must now explore all options to help the opposition and to enable greater support for the protection of civilians.
With progress on Syria, our objective on banking union secured and the principle established that changes in the eurozone require safeguards for those outside, I commend this statement to the House."
I comment briefly on this -
Mr Cameron speaks "Syria is attracting and empowering a new cohort of al-Qaeda-linked extremist ...." The irony is that the Gulf dictatorships and western democracies are doing the 'empowering'. That is absolutely clear and it is a unanimous opinion.
".. committed to working for a future for Syria that is democratic and inclusive, with full support for human rights and minorities." I doubt few in the FCO would expect either democracy or inclusiveness IF the present rebels with a large majority of foreign nationals win power with arms. "and that will include looking at the arms embargo." The 'rebels' already have a superfluity of small arms, anti-aircraft cannon, mortars, artillery pieces and some captured tanks. Most have been supplied by those Gulf dictatorships we are told. Mr Cameron implies that superior weapons to those listed might be supplied. SAMs would be an obvious possibility, and much more besides.
"The conclusions also make it clear that we must now explore all options to ..." We know what that means. The geography and the urban patterns are very different from Libya but it would seem that 'NATO' bombing with many civilian casualties is a real possibility.
Context. I do my best, as a patriot and as a conscientious citizen to winnow the truth from lies in all 'conflicts'. Almost all reports in the western broadcast media are not those of eye witnesses. Reports from Muir, Keane, Reynolds, Pannell etc end with 'this cannot be verified.' But the mud has stuck - usually. The recent massacre of the bread queue was shown to be a lie.
This current report in the Guardian is first hand I believe. It describes the chaotic and previously good medical care system.
This detailed report by an eye witness Arab journalist describes how looting is a primary motive of some in the rebel army
- 'The rebels had taken over the warehouse of a leading pharmaceutical company and then had resold the stock back to the owners, shipping all the drugs back into government-held territory, he claimed.'
- 'A group of civilians stood watching in the late afternoon as the men trawled through the school. Burned and torn pictures of Assad lay on the floor. Desks and chairs were upturned and broken, and plastic flowers and students' projects were strewn around.
The men ferried some of the tables, sofas and chairs outside the school and piled them up at the street corner. Computers and monitors followed.
A fighter registered the loot in a big notebook. "We are keeping it safe in a warehouse," he said.
Later in the week I saw the school's sofas and computers sitting comfortably in the commander's new apartment.'
These men are hardly the core of a democratic government, are they?
Alex Thompson of C4 has filed reports on video and in text from within Syria. This is in spite of his near assassination by rebels in an ambush in ?April. Very few British journalists have reported first hand. He has shown that structure within the multi-confessional Syrian society remains intact in large part and that the government remains in firm control.
I am aware of the great pressures on your time and attention Mr Stride. However, you will agree that what happens in Syria might mean death from weapons, as now, and from freezing and starvation for very many as Mr Cameron has said. Therefore the answers to my main question and the ancillary ones arising from Mr Hague's speech, should be given to me and fellow constituents as soon as possible.
Of the principles which characterise the Conservative Party one of the most prominent is 'law and order'. That is precisely what Syrians cry out for now. Given British and French involvement in Syria inside the Sykes-Picot Treaty, surely we should be pursuing a diplomatic course with international law by our side. That we are instead negating important elements in the Charter of the UN and in the Nuremberg Principles is cause for outrage in our democracy.
For truth, reason and justice
David Halpin FRCS