The recent abduction of 15 UK service personnel has somewhat foreboding implications for not just the Middle-East, but also the EU. Whether you are in favour of the War in Iraq or against; Iran's actions were from the outset obtuse. Iran and Britain are not at war and so no matter where the boats actually were, normal paradigms would suggest that a quick and efficient handover of personnel should have been arranged. This however was not the case and Iran has chosen to make a media and political spectacle out of it (as much for their own populace as for the British or wider world). Sir Malcolm Rifkind (former Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence in the last Conservative government) made the following comments in the British Guardian Newspaper:
There was, however, one other approach that would have a good chance of succeeding. The members of the EU aspire to having a common foreign policy. What better issue could there be on which our French, German and Italian allies and partners could show solidarity with the UK and demonstrate the benefits of joint action?
The best means of pressure would have been the export credit guarantees that are given to assist trade between Iran and western Europe. These, together with banking and other financial facilities are the soft underbelly of the Iranians and their withdrawal could do significant damage to Iran's already weak economy.
Such measures have already been canvassed by the Americans in respect of Iran's nuclear defiance.
So has the EU missed the boat? Should they have taken the opportunity to show a united front and provide some real teeth to their joint "calling for the 'immediate and unconditional' "
And what does this mean for national defence policy. Is Britain therefore right to maintain its strategic nuclear capability and its stand-alone force projection ability. Furthermore, is Poland, which does not have either of these two abilities, therefore right in colluding with the US; as it may not be able to fully depend upon its European neighbours.
We still can’t escape the fact that the British ship was down in Iraqi/Iran waters because it was part of an invasion of someone else’s country. So I have no sympathy at all with those British forces.
ReplyDeleteAnd then they have the cheek to come back home, sell their pathetic story to the newspapers (“But I had no choice but to write a false confession.”). O, yes they did. Whatever happened to ‘name, rank, number’? Anyone would think they were innocent passers by kidnapped off the streets. They were not. They were in the navy. They were part of an occupying force. Shit happens.
I agree with the story bit, they over cooperated with the iranians. However, name, rank no is a bit wrong as this was not a war situation and their was no security concern to deal with. Their training and common sense says that they should cooperate with their captors to ensure they get treated well. however, that does not mean over-coperate. the photo meeting the Iranian President was a joke> They should have had their photo taken, but with a grim look of determination, or at least neutrality. They made it look like they were meeting santa claus.
ReplyDeleteBR, fully agree as you may expect. Fiarly good investment for the sailors all the same wasn't it. Maybe they can now get the fuck out of the Navy, not be renegaged as part of an occupying force, and get a job where they don't have to be separated from their loved ones for dumb reasons.
ReplyDeleteI've suggested this should be the same route for the Danish soldier who, after being injured in Iraq, spent his time playing poker online at home, consequently winning the recent Euro Poker championships in Poland, netting himself over $400 grand.
The spereation from their loved ones is ofcourse a fair reason to get out of the military. Howver, BR, by your reasoning you are justifying one bad action by another that pre-dated it. Does that mean that if i spot a J-walker i can accelerate as he shouldm't have been there? This line of logic folllows on from our discuussion of the Maldives (see i even named it in deference to you :) )There you justifed one action, by a previous over 150 years before. I am not sure i can agree with your line of argument here.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the right of the Iraqi war, Iran had no right to take them> Iran is not involved in that war.