Posts Tagged ‘International Court of Human Rights’

Lord Simon of Highbury: Why Was He in Government and Not Behind Bars?

April 25, 2016

Okay, I’m writing this because it’s left me furious ever since I read about it when putting up the article on Saturday. This was a piece on the ‘Fat Cats’ Directory’, the list of company directors and senior management, who had entered government under Tony Blair in George Monbiot’s book, Captive State. It was a long list of incompetents, who had run their companies into the ground; the self-interested – scientists on the boards of biotech companies, who got on the boards of the funding bodies to give themselves even more money; the environmentally negligent; and the simply exploitative. These last were various company directors, who had made masses of employees redundant, or cut wages, and had been put in charge of Bliar’s ‘welfare to work’ programme and the minimum wage board. But there was one person on the list, who struck me as particularly odious: Lord Simon of Highbury. Here’s what I wrote about him:

Lord Simon of Highbury

Chairman of BP
Vice-Chairman of European Round Table of Industrialists. Under his direction, BP assisted the Colombian government in forcing peasants off their lands, and imprisoning, killing and torturing trade unionists. Gave money to the 16th Brigade, notorious for murder, kidnapping torture and rape.

Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
One of the ministers responsible for implementing the ethical foreign policy.

By any standards, this resume makes the man a Fascist collaborator. So why is he in government, and not facing trial at the Hague for crimes against humanity? What does it say about our society, that a creature like this can breeze in and out of the halls of power in chauffeur-driven limousine, wining and dining with the highest in the land, when he has doubtless been responsible for some of the most horrific atrocities? Why has he escaped censure, let along prosecution, when others haven’t?

In the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi leaders at the end of World War II, many senior executives of the various firms that served the Nazi state were also tried, and convicted for collaboration. The firms they managed, like the horrific IG Farben, which produced the cyanide gas used against Jews in the death camps, were deliberately broken up into their constituent companies.

Unfortunately, too many Nazis escaped justice, and Nazi hunters like Simon Wiesenthal spent their lives trying to hunt them down and bring them to justice. And it was apparently the same rage that spurred the Baader-Meinhof gang to commit some of their terrorist attacks. They were also outraged that members of the Third Reich had escaped justice, and were living very well in the Bundesrepublik. And so they began their campaign of murder and terrorism. I’m not trying to whitewash or glamorise them here. They were responsible for some of the most horrific terrorism offences of the 1970s. For example, they firebombed a Berlin synagogue, supposedly as part of a campaign against Israel, which they perceived as a colonialist state. They were violent criminals, but when it comes to killing the men, who ran the death camps and torture squads of the Third Reich, you can understand their rage.

It’s the same rage that motivates people to protest and physically fight the clowns in the various far-right Nazi parties – the BNP, National Action, EDL, National Front, North West Infidels and so on. Many of the members of these groups are violent thugs, guilty of the most horrific attacks on innocent people, including murder, simply because of their race or political opinions, and have rightly been jailed. But these are very small fry compared with monsters like Lord Simon. He has aided and abetted an organisation that has violently removed people from their land, and murdered and tortured trade unionists and left-wing activists. By the same standards we applied to the Nazis, and to Radovan Milosevic and the rest of the genocides in Serbia, he should be standing in a dock in a court room at the Hague, waiting for sentencing.

But he isn’t. Instead, I’ve no doubt he still pursuing a very lucrative career as the director of an extremely profitable multinational. Or else he’s taken up a very pleasant retirement. Either way, I doubt his troubled by either the consequences of his actions, or lawsuits from his victims. I don’t doubt that wherever he lives, it’s nice and quiet, very haute bourgeois, and exclusive. He’s probably thought a good neighbour by the others around him.

I am certainly not urging anyone to turn to terrorism and try to copy the Baader-Meinhof Gang or the violence of some of the Antifa street fighters. All I am trying to do is express my outrage that this man was given a place in government, and try to work out why someone with a record as odious as his was being given a gracious welcome at the highest seats of power. My guess is that it’s because he was a wealth businessman. He wasn’t directly responsible for the atrocities committed by the Colombian government, and his company is ridiculously wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. As for the murders and death squads of the various South American Fascist regimes, they’re protected by pretty much the same apathy expressed by Neville Chamberlain in his infamous comments about Czechoslovakia. They’re ‘far-away’ countries ‘of which we know nothing.’ And the only people, who get worked up about what goes on there are the ultra-left types Private Eye’s been satirising for years in the guise of Dave Spart.

Advertisements

The Young Turks on the Dildo-Tossing Protestor of New Zealand

February 6, 2016

Yesterday, Mike over at Vox Political ran this story about a woman in New Zealand, who was so incensed at the violation of her country’s sovereignty by the Trans-Pacific trade deal, similar to the TTP, that she lobbed a sex toy at one of the politicos responsible: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/02/05/the-serious-message-that-prompted-a-woman-to-hit-a-politician-in-the-face-with-a-sex-toy/.

In this video, the Young Turks’ anchors Jimmy Dore, Mark Thompson and Ana Kasparian also discuss the incident, and quote the young woman in full. They discuss her concerns about national sovereignty, including the possibility that she might have been motivated by fears that multinationals will use the deal to trash the environment. They state that they’ve been critical of the threat the TTP poses to American businesses, jobs and sovereignty when it kicks in. They raise the point that foreign companies will then be able to come in, and prospect and exploit natural resources in America, without respect for Americans’ right to control the natural wealth of their country. And Jimmy Dore makes the excellent point about the danger this will also pose to local legislation to reduce the risk of oil spills. Chicago has passed laws stating that only double-hulled oil tankers can stop at its port facilities, in order to reduce the risks of an environmental disaster. But, says Dore, many nations are still using only single-hulled tankers. There’s a real danger, therefore, that if the TTP comes in, the oil companies and shipping lines using such vessels were go to an international court, and force countries and cities like Chicago to accept those ships.

They also note the duplicity of the political class on this issue. They note that the Republicans have always been accusing Obama of betraying America, and giving away American sovereignty. Most of the time it’s just propaganda, but this time they’re right. Not that this makes them any better. They state that Obama is basically a moderate, corporatist Democrat, and allege that half the time he is so moderate that he does pretty much what they want. And this is very, very much the case now. Obama is giving away American sovereignty on the TTP trade deal, but it is not being condemned by the Republicans because they also are four-square behind it. America is being betrayed for the benefit of the big corporations that run it. It shows the depth of the corruption in modern American politics.

On a lighter note, as you can imagine there’s a lot of joking about dildos as missiles to be thrown at politicians. They make it clear that the act was an assault, and they don’t approve of it. Ana Kasparian, however, believes that dildos are too useful to be thrown away, while Thompson makes the point that if the protest had happened in America, they would have shot the politician. They also talk about how some municipalities in America have banned such sex toys, and the way it is more acceptable to ban these items, than guns.

The arguments against the TTP are all excellent, and shows the concerns that some Americans at least have about the way this deal threatens their national sovereignty and economy as well as the other participating nations. On the subject of multinational corporate control of national resources, they don’t realise that this does exist elsewhere in the world, where it’s been pursued to America’s advantage. Like the oil companies in the Middle East, which effectively control those countries’ oil supplies, in return for an extremely tiny percentage of the profits. This is the case from Iraq to Saudi Arabia. The exception is Iran, where the oil industry was nationalised in 1979, and where foreigners are excluded by law from owning Iranian industries. I suspect that most Americans don’t know about these arrangements. They probably believe, as many in Britain and elsewhere undoubtedly do, that these arrangement are probably on some kind of perfectly equitable basis. Hence if the same kind of thing happens in America, it will come as a bitter shock. And it will be particularly resented because of the belief that it is only happening to America. I also don’t doubt that those few, who are aware that hitherto such arrangement have been pursued on a unilateral basis to benefit America will be offended, because of the idea that America is so perfect, that it must be exempt from the regulations and strictures it imposes on others. Like the international court of human rights. America is perfectly happy to support it for other nations, but will not be a signatory itself.

I’ve reblogged other pieces that show that everyone around the world will suffer if the TTP goes ahead, including those nations that are not party to it. The only people, who will benefit, will be the heads of the big multinationals. Everyone else stands to lose their national sovereignty, their jobs, and businesses.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Republicans Blocking International Disabled Rights Legislation

March 30, 2015

This is another piece of news from America, which is also relevant over here. In it, the left-wing news anchor and political commentator Rachel Maddow discusses the Republicans’ refusal to ratify an international treaty promoted disabled rights and accessibility worldwide. The treaty is itself based on legislation, which George Bush SNR signed was back in 1990. Maddow describes it as making the American laws stipulating public access for disabled people the ‘gold standard’ around the world. It had large, bi-partisan support, and was being promoted by the both the leaders of the Democrats and Republicans. This included John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, who addressed the senate from his wheelchair.

It was, however, turned down and blocked by the Repugs for what Maddow describes as ‘tin-foil hat’ reasons, that she said she wouldn’t dignify by repeating. If it’s like other international legislation that has been voted against by the Republicans, then my guess is that it involved fears about loss of sovereignty. Almost a decade ago, when the American Right was loudly denouncing Islam for the practice of Female Genital Mutilation, they refused to support an international motion in the United Nations to ban it around the world. Why? The reason appears to me to be the same reason that America has never signed up to the Human Rights court to try war crimes in the Hague. There’s a deep, pernicious fear amongst Republicans of allowing foreign nations reciprocal rights over the US. It contravenes the deep feelings of American exceptionalism in the party. This demands that America should have the freedom and power to enforce its moral standards around the world, but should never have to submit to legal constraints or judgements from other countries. This piece of news shows how far this attitude seems to go, right up to the point where it actually contravenes an American initiative to promote their standards as that of the world’s on a social issue.

I also decided to put this up because of the brief background information it gives on the disability rights movement in the US. Or at least that part of it, which campaigned for mandatory access to public transport. It came from a group called ADAPT – Americans Disabled for Access to Public Transport, which was set up in Denver in 1983. They staged a series of campaigns where they tried to get on buses en masse, despite being turned away and arrested, as the video shows. Colin Firth and Anthony Arnove include a piece by the Bristolian disability activist, Liz Crowe, ‘Catching Buses’, in their anthology of radical historical texts, The People Speak: Democracy Is Not A Spectator Sport. In it, Crowe describes her campaign to get disabled people access to public transport. The piece is from 1999, nine years after George Bush made it law in America.