I watched with alarm and shame the footage on the news last night of our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs attending the reopening of the British Embassy in Iran. The portrait of the Queen displayed in the building still has “death to England” scrawled above it. Amnesty International recently calculated that there have been 700 executions in Iran in the first six months of this year. Not only is the execution rate on the rise, the “trials” are conducted without regard to what we regard as due process, and neither pregnant women nor teenagers are spared. While in this country some who regard themselves as enlightened call for drugs to be de-criminalised, in Iran drug offences are capital offences. Iran’s journalists are harassed, controlled and imprisoned. Iran sponsors terrorism. The relief from sanctions which results from the nuclear deal will make that much easier. The Supreme Leader of Iran repeatedly calls for the elimination of all the Jews of Israel, ie genocide, not to mention encouragement of the killing of Americans. No doubt Israel-haters amongst my readership will write in to vent their spleen, but Iran’s behaviour is of a different order from that seen before. Surely Britain cannot accept the language of destruction about any legitimate state, let alone an ally? If the price of a nuclear deal is allowing regional terrorism and aggression, this is no different to 1930 ‘s appeasement. Opening an Embassy is not the only way to open dialogue, if that is the aim.
So what is wrong with the nuclear deal? First, it ought to allow the United States or an independent third party to carry out nuclear inspections any time, without delay and without agreement of other nations; the deal is rendered pointless if Iran has to be given lengthy notice that inspectors are coming. And it is ludicrous to allow Iran to carry out self inspection. Second, the deal means that Iran will be a threshold nuclear state after 10 years. There can be no doubt that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power is for the purposes of war. With the abundance of oil that Iran has, there can be no need for her to require peaceful nuclear energy development. And lifting the sanctions will provide Iran with money which may well be used to provoke chaos in the Middle East and fund groups like Syrian President Assad’s government.
Obama’s naivete lies in believing that Iran will uphold its side of the agreement, because historically nations can only conduct relations with each other by accepting the binding nature of the obligations that they undertake. He assumes that all sovereign states operate on this basis. Perhaps more than most theocracies Iran fears losing face by a compromise, and sees a temporary compromise as a way-station towards later victory. It is reported that Iran is already in breach of the nuclear deal and is accusing the US of the same. To Iran, the deal may be just a way of freeing herself from sanctions and proceeding to her ultimate goals. The choice faced by P5+1 was not a deal, or no deal – a better more efficacious agreement should have been sought. So how can we celebrate the reopening of our Embassy in the face of the most terrible breaches of human rights and the bloodthirsty ambitions of the ayatollahs?
This is awkward. I wish I didn’t have to write that English laws, customs, democratic sensibilities, and other stuff we get anxious about, are not universally acknowledged to be the right way, but it does need restating from time to time.
Executing people remains a legal penalty, according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part III, Article 6 (2). Yes, it continues “…only for the most serious crimes…” but fails to elaborate further and remains a debating point; this is the status quo, despite past efforts from nations and organisations. This is a serious failure which must be addressed before criticism of other endeavours can be made to stick.
If change is desirable, then at least one existing factor has to be eradicated and/or modified. Give Mr Hammond a chance, at least.
Many countries the UK has diplomatic relations with have the death penalty. The USA being the main mover and shaker, but, then, so does Israel, selectively.
I find it odd that one country is seen as not worthy of recognition for the same lack of human rights as another. That is hypocritical. Besides the true reason for the Iran overture is the NATO requirement for more bases and strategic military practice. The eye is firmly placed on Russia. It has nothing to do with their or our population and whether it is good for civilians of any country.
Which leads me on to the UK should have far more sense than handing our backing to military activity following warring nations practice. Surely Iraq made that very clear. Our troops do not want to join up in order to serve under Global masters. Which is the reason they cannot find men to join the Royal Navy. Plus, the millions of immigrants we are so happy to take care of are not into signing up to defend our nation at all or ever. In fact they are more likely to want to join the enemy than devote themselves to any British cause.
“So how can we celebrate the reopening of our Embassy …”
It may still seem “too difficult” but the answer remains:
“Peacefully radically reform the British Constitution onto a Longest-Term Sustainworthy Foundation;
and pre-proactivate the same through the EU and the United Nations”,