Let’s stop backing dictators
By Rupert Read
It is time for Britain to decisively change course, and abandon its support for Middle Eastern and North African rulers (including those of Bahrain, Djibouti, Yemen and Israel) who fire on people protesting against them. This process might be helped along a little if Gordon Brown (and Blair, who initiated the process of making friends with Gaddafi) himself were to speak out, expressing regret that the last government didn’t take a far stronger line against the murderous Gaddafi.
At the moment, the signs that the British government is contemplating a serious change of course are limited, to say the least. Yes, Britain has now stopped certain arms exports to Bahrain and Libya. But just a week before its uprising began, William Hague was in Bahrain in effect pledging our support to the autocrats there, warmly shaking their hands, pushing for more economic and trade links, and making a few gentle noises about ‘reform’ to cover his tracks. Meanwhile, we have the astounding situation that LibDem peer Emma Nicholson is in Yemen to conduct trade talks, during their uprising. I can find no record of Nicholson speaking out about what the government there is doing to its people right now.
The British government needs to wake up. The world is changing. It is simply no longer acceptable to be complicit with the violent and provocative repression of peaceful protests abroad – or, indeed, at home…
As the people of North Africa and the Middle East rise up against their despotic leaders, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has flown into Abu Dhabi where the Index 2011 arms fair is taking place, to perform his salesman act on behalf of British arms and ‘security’ businesses. Aerospace Defence Security (ADS) the body that promotes UK arms companies calculates that this market is worth £7.2 billion a year to the British economy, half of which goes to the Middle East.
More http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/2011/02/oil-arms-blood-and-hypocrisy.html
Hello,
yes, I do agree with Ali here – whatever Brown wanted, the decision was made by Kenny MacAskill. I’m not a massive fan of him in many ways, but he’s always had a compassionate approach to crime.
And yes, this was the right decision, both legally and morally. In the full version, you refer to ‘rule of law’. In Scotland, Kenny was following the rule of law. He was also doing the right thing – who benefits from a sick man dying in jail? This is just societal vengeance. I don’t see how it had any impact on Gaddafi’s behaviour now in response to demonstrators trying to kick him out.
Quite right.
Here’s another one that’s escaped attention in some quarters.
http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela
The Venezuelan government’s domination of the judiciary and its weakening of democratic checks and balances have contributed to a precarious human rights situation. Without judicial checks on its action, President Hugo Chávez’s government has systematically undermined journalistic freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and the ability of human rights groups to promote human rights. It has also harassed political opponents.
Those wanting a fuller account, goto http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/02/way-that-brown-helped-gaddafi-visavis.html
, which also touches on Brown’s dismal anti-devolutionist actions to get Megrahi the Lockerbie bomber released – another way in which, following in Blair’s footsteps, he eased the path for the tyrant Gaddafi.
Anti-devolutionist actions? The decision was entirely the action of the Scottish government, and the right one at that. I really don’t see how that act of compassion for a man who is undeniably very ill in any way eased the path for what Gaddafi is doing now. Do you really think if Megrahi han’t been released it would have made any difference to the current situation? I don’t see any evidence for that or any logical reason why that would be so.