Western governments’ abandonment of the very system of international law which they created was embodied in a tweet from the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which sought to justify the illegal Israeli attack on Iran as “Targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.”
The former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, was left to point out on X that far from a justification, it is specifically against international law to target nuclear facilities.
He refers to Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions. While we are on the subject, you might also wish to see article 54:
It is worth noting that the exception on destruction of foodstuffs at Article 5 refers to the right of a country which is defending against invasion, not which is invading another country. It means that it is not illegal for a country to destroy crops and stocks of its own, on its own territory. Which is to say a scorched-earth policy against an invader is legal. It does not give the right to refuse supplies to a population under occupation.
The German justification was of course just part of a chorus of Western support for the Israeli attack on Iran, in which numerous Western leaders all parroted a co-ordinated line about “Israel’s right of self-defence,” even as Israel conducted an entirely illegal and unprovoked attack on Iran during peace talks.
There are dozens of examples, but I give you the openly genocidal Ursula von der Leyen, European Commission president, as one — [saying on X that she had assured Israeli President Isaac Herzog of Israel’s right to “defend itself and protect its people.”]
On Thursday, before Israel attacked Iran, I attended the U.N. General Assembly debate on Palestine. This had limited utility as it mandated no specific measures and did not suspend Israel from the United Nations, the one truly useful action the General Assembly has the power to implement.
The motion called for an immediate ceasefire [in Gaza] and for states to take “all necessary measures,” but that is the last we shall hear of it. It passed by 150 votes to 12, with opposition from the United States, its de facto colonies and the small far-right collection of Argentina, Paraguay etc.
But there was one interesting point in the “statements,” known as “explanations of vote,” of the national delegations. These too were very routine, with Arab states that have not the slightest intention of actually doing anything, condemning Israel and Western nations all launching blood-curdling condemnations of Hamas (yes, really, that was still their priority, 60,000 dead Palestinian civilians later).
But the U.K. explanation of vote (EOV) made one point that absolutely nobody else made. It stuck out like a sore thumb. Barbara Woodward, the British ambassador to the U.N., stated that
“While the U.K. voted in favour of this resolution, we wish to clarify that our long-standing position remains that there is no legal obligation on states to ensure respect for international law by third parties.”
When the EOV was published, this part of the statement was bolstered by a reference to Common Article 1 of the Geneva Convention. I do not recall her actually saying this and it is not in my notes.
Common Article 1 (so called because it is present in every one of the Geneva Conventions) reads:
“Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.”
So why did the U.K., and the U.K. alone, say that it is not responsible for ensuring that other parties comply with international law, adding later a specific reference to the Geneva Conventions?
It is perfectly simple. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Defence Minister David Lammy are terrified about future charges of complicity in Israeli war crimes. So the U.K., only, feels it necessary to emphasise that they do not bear legal responsibility for Israel’s actions.
They claim they are not responsible for what Israel did with the supplies of U.K. munitions, which the U.K. increased to fuel the genocide.
They claim they are not responsible for what Israel did with the targeting information they gave Israel on a daily basis from RAF Akrotiri flights over Gaza.
They claim they are not responsible for the Israeli use of weapons flown in through the U.K. and Akrotiri.
They claim they are not responsible for use of the F-35 jets attacking Iran now, which they continue to supply with U.K.-manufactured spare parts.
We simply do not yet know what else they have done to support Israel based on the secret U.K.-Israeli defence treaty, but whatever it is, Starmer and Lammy want to make absolutely plain that the U.K. had no responsibility to prevent Israel from committing war crimes.
The claim that this is longstanding British policy is of course a rather frivolous bit of gaslighting. Indeed given that this argument runs completely counter to the doctrine of “the responsibility to protect” — of which the U.K. was the leading international proponent — it is simple nonsense.
[As it happens I always opposed the “responsibility to protect” argument because it is used as an excuse for Imperialism, cf. the destruction of Libya.]
The Genocide Convention in fact explicitly does create a duty on states to prevent genocide by third parties.
Article I of the Genocide Convention reads:
“The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.”
So the declaration by Starmer and Lammy of not bearing responsibility really does not wash. The interesting thing is that they felt compelled to make it.
The evening after the debate I attended receptions hosted by both the British ambassador and then by the Russian ambassador, and I spoke to a large number of ambassadors to the U.N. Of course we discussed the debate, and everybody had noticed both the extraordinary and unusual addition to the U.K. statement and its motive.
They all specifically realised it was an effort to back away from responsibility for complicity in Israeli crimes.
I understand and share your disappointment at the collapse of international law. But I can tell you that the prospect of eventual retribution at The Hague still terrifies Starmer and Lammy.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desperate gamble in attacking Iran is an attempt to force the USA to join the war on Israel’s behalf, and to prevent peace talks.
It is of course simply untrue that Iran was about to produce a nuclear weapon. Every Spring a C.I.A.-led U.S. intelligence exercise formally reviews the situation, and the firm position of Five Eyes [Australia, Canada, New Zealand, U.K. and U.S.] intelligence remains that Iran genuinely was not seeking to make a nuclear weapon.
I hope that Iran learns the lesson of Southern Lebanon. There, over many months, Israeli air superiority enabled them to substantially degrade missile systems of various resistance factions.
Israel does — not least because of the traitors ruling Jordan and Syria — have air superiority over Iran. In a long war of attrition, Israeli bombing raids could do real damage to Iranian capabilities.
Iran’s best strategy would be to view this as the existential crisis, and seriously unload its missile capacity on Israel without restraint. The period of measured tit-for-tat reprisals is at an end.
The decision of nuclear-armed Pakistan to stand behind Iran was extremely helpful. These are early days in the Israeli-Iranian war. I do not sense any popular enthusiasm in the USA to be involved.
Even the mainstream American media is characterising Iranian attacks as “retaliation” and the Israeli victim card is no longer as Platinum as it used to be here in the USA.
Germany has been refuelling Israeli jets en route to attack Iran, and the U.K. may also have been doing so. Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron have both expressed determination to defend Israel with their own military but both would face massive popular resistance.
We wait to see what happens next. But having lived through vicious Israeli bombardment of Beirut, having been menaced by drones in the Bekaa Valley, having stood on the line at Kfar Kila while a 12-year-old boy was shot standing next to my producer, having witnessed 100,000 Lebanese homes destroyed, I have no sympathy left for Tel Aviv.
Source: Consortium News.
