sanctions | ukwatch.net

Lift the Siege on Palestinians

Ellie Keen — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:51:12 +0000

Having handed over the premiership to Gordon Brown, Tony Blair was appointed by the Quartet of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations as Special Envoy to the Middle East and his terms of reference premised upon the fact that he should not talk to any groups who ‘don’t recognise Israel’.

Such a remit ensures that all of the diplomatic skills in the world will achieve little. Hamas, elected to government in democratic and fair elections that the Palestinians were proud of, and which were endorsed by all independent observers, has been boycotted by most of the international community, despite signs that it was beginning to move on the recognition issue anyway.

In any other situation, third party mediation would help broker a lasting peace, but given this restriction, alongside the fact that Tony Blair refused to call for a ceasefire when Israel was bombing Lebanon in 2006, he has limited credibility in the region. It’s a poor starting point. Israel has made no secret of its delight in Tony Blair’s appointment, so let us watch closely.

There is much speculation on the forthcoming international Middle East conference expected to open in the United States in November, or possibly December, as the date gets put back.

The conference is supposed to open dialogue between the Palestinians and Israelis but clearly Abbas, having been propped up by the US since the election, is only representing a proportion of Palestinians. Bush represents the Israeli point of view and Olmert represents the Israeli point of view too. I would like to be optimistic but it is not easy, and meanwhile the Palestinians starve.

The Israeli government knows no bounds and it is up to the international community, which includes Britain, to draw boundaries where Israel will not. The contradiction in what Israel says and what it does is what ensures that so much of its actions go unheeded. Surely we cannot stand by and watch Israel’s latest move, as it sets about cutting off electricity to Gaza which is already experiencing a humanitarian crisis. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has condemned such a move, along with other relevant and significant individuals such as John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. Israel will do many things to punish the Palestinians for their resistance to occupation, but it will not stop the occupation.

As the Palestinian economy dwindles, other problems soar and the region has seen an increase in chronic diseases, including chronic malnutrition (particularly in children under five), water shortages, educational quality as well as absences, insecurity and much much more. A 2006 World Bank survey concluded that three quarters of Palestinians suffer from depression. The impact of food shortages, a climate of massive unemployment, and getting from A to B due to massive movement and access restrictions cannot be overestimated.

Two years of restrictions upon Gaza in particular (since disengagement) have truly taken their toll and it is difficult to see how anything other than a lifting of all sanctions upon it can change anything. The situation is repeatedly being referred to as an humanitarian crisis of dire proportions, particularly since the June 2007 events which have seen Gaza become a exclusion zone. To those of us who have watched the ongoing matrix of control become so entrenched as to be virtually irreversible, we believe it to be nothing short of an apartheid system.

As the settlements continue to grow, support for the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and associated groups becomes greater. There is a lobby of parliament on 28 November so make an appointment with your MP and get down to the House of Commons.

A counter-productive display of international machismo

JamieSW — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 13:52:24 +0000

As if the tensions between Iran and the West weren't bad enough with President Bush's heightened rhetoric and President Ahmadinejad's increasingly obdurate stance on nuclear issues, Washington has chosen to ramp up the confrontation further with unilateral sanctions against Iran.

Although they may prove painful to the regime in Tehran, targeting as they do banks and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, they are unlikely to prove either effective or useful. The US has imposed various forms of commercial sanctions on Iran over the past 30 years and they have done nothing either to help the cause of reform within the country or the cause of moderation in its dealings outside.

Given Iran's oil and gas reserves and its market for imports, there will be plenty of people and countries (China and Russia most obviously, but also some European countries) willing and eager to keep dealing with Iran. The history of sanctions – Iraq is the clearest example – is that their effect is often not to undermine regimes but to increase the power of the ruling regime at the expense of the people. Sanctioned governments frequently use them to build up the rhetoric of a nation under threat, with the added benefit that they can control and profit from the means used to evade them.

The people suffer because their standard of living and commercial prospects are reduced. Worst hurt of all are the democrats and reformers within the country, who find themselves painted into a position of appearing creatures of the West if they criticise a government under threat. If President Bush wished to increase the standing of the radical president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and undermine the cause of democrats within Iran, he could hardly have done better than this act of commercial warfare. Just as with Fidel Castro, the more the pressure on Iran, the more Ahmadinejad is hailed as a hero for standing up to America, not just in Iran but in the Arab world as well.

The best that can be said of sanctions in this case is, rather a financial squeeze than a military strike, with all the consequences that would ensue. Sanctions may not do much to the so-called enemy, but they do feel warm to those imposing them. The worse the situation in Iraq, the more Iran has been erected within US politics as the enemy around which the nation can rally. Support for sanctions has come from not just the Republicans but also many Democrats, including the leading contender for the presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton. Calling for tough action is a way for politicians to prove their toughness and their sense of threat and purpose.

Nor has Gordon Brown helped the situation by announcing the British determination to seek tougher EU sanctions on Iran in a joint press conference in London this week with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. Most of the Middle East believes that the Western actions against Iran are as much the product of Israeli interests as American politics without giving them apparent proof of their fears.

Unfortunately, showing your machismo is no way to international peace or security. The prospect of nuclear proliferation is a deeply troubling one. But it is not beyond reasoned negotiation. Iran has said it has no wish to develop nuclear weapons and remains a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. It is in discussion with the Atomic Energy Authority over its concerns. It is in talks with the EU on the nuclear question and it has held discussions with the US over security in Iraq. Those are the forums in which its sincerity should be tested, not by bellicose gestures of "punishment" which can only increase the temperature and make it more difficult for either side to accept compromise.