letters

Correspondence with Johann Hari concerning his article about Megrahi...

Dear Johann
You may be interested, if you don't know it already, in Gareth Peirce's analysis of the Megrahi case at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/gareth-peirce/the-framing-of-al-megrahi. I know you mention in your article that 'there are some serious commentators who argue that Megrahi was framed', but it seems fairly clear that you don't go along with that. I'd be interested to know how you feel confident enough to dismiss it - which is effectively what you do by referring to Megrahi as 'a convicted terrorist - the worst in modern British history'. (You also say that 'Megrahi was sent home to Triploli to be greeted by cheering crowds after serving eleven days for each person murdered'.)

I also think that for those few people who still don't acknowledge that Iraq was about oil (and surely they're relatively few by now, aren't they??) I'm not sure that what I understand to be your main argument will be all that convincing. You seem just to be saying that Blair is unscrupulous (which we knew), that he was prepared to trade a convicted terrorist for oil, therefore he must have been prepared to go to war for oil. (A simplification, of course, of your words, but isn't that the essence?). In a way, I think that by linking this single example of Blair's duplicity and self-interest to the Iraq war, you are almost less likely to convince detractors: what is important in the case of Iraq (and indeed Megrahi) is surely the context, including the history of US and British actions in the Middle East, rather than the intentions and actions of one individual.

If one does accept that Megrahi was almost certainly framed, then it seems to me that there are far more important issues than those addressed in your article. These include:

Inspired, as usual, by the excellent Medialens. Their latest alert picks up the beauties of the complaints process at the BBC

Submitted through the complaints form first, then forwarded to the Editorial Complaints Unit

I am writing to complain about the inadequacy of your complaints procedure with respect to 3 specific complaints I have submitted over the past few weeks. We are told that your aim is to respond within 10 working days. If the complaints procedure is to have any sense and to provide any form of accountability, 10 days should surely be an upper limit: news moves fast, issues pass quickly from public attention,and impressions are mostly formed as a result of the way a story is presented first time round. Bias needs correcting immediately, not after a month or more, with constant prodding by the complainant. Yet as you will see from the specific issues outlines below, 3 weeks or more was closer to reality.

More importantly, any response needs to deal with the specific issues identified by the complainant, and not just enter the concerns within an audience log. I have found that the first response to a complaint is almost always a standard response which does not pick up on the points raised (I could offer further examples from complaints submitted over a longer period). A second response, requesting that the points be addressed directly, is rarely forthcoming without a significant amount of persistence and effort from the complainant. Yet your website suggests that people 'unhappy' with a response to a complaint should '... contact the department which replied, explain why and request a further response to your complaint.' I have done this, and have received no further correspondence. This too is typical, in my experience.

I would like to request from the ECU:

UPDATED

• Original complaint
• Response from the BBC: '...the occupation is not illegal, per se'
• My response
• Second response from the BBC NEW
• My second response NEW

As the Quartet said in its statement last week, we are deeply concerned over developments on the ground, and we condemned the Government of Israel’s plan for 1,600 new housing units in Jerusalem.

As I have said before, I say again, directly and without equivocation: settlements are illegal under international law.

With regard to today’s clashes in Jerusalem, a city holy to three religions: let me remind everyone that the status of Jerusalem is a subject of final negotiation. I call for restraint and calm by all.

Ban Ki-moon, Press conference. March 2010 (emphasis mine)

The BBC have a formula for referring to East Jerusalem, which is to say that the Palestinians want it as the capital of a future state (or words to that effect).

They want it. Like a child wants a lollipop? Like I want my friend’s bicycle or boyfriend or this book which I am pulling from her grasp? Or like someone wants justice, wants their property back, or wants their stolen identity.

The wanting formula, on its own, gives no hint as to which of these is to be taken as read, but since the general belief among the population of this country is that Jerusalem is part of Israel (which it de facto is), the wanting sounds more like the book which I am snatching from its owner’s grasp.

The BBC ‘guide to facts and terminology‘ for journalists writing on the Israel/Palestine conflict attempts to understand this. It recommends:

The BBC should say East Jerusalem is "occupied" if it is relevant to the context of the story.

For example: "Israel has occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. It annexed the area in 1981 and sees it as its exclusive domain. Under international law the area is considered to be occupied territory."

But the BBC does not always stick even to its own flabby guidelines. This page includes the wanting claim, without a word about the status of East Jerusalem. A pure book-snatching example.

Well - our new PM and new foreign secretary are both friends of Israel. They are hardly going to stop being friends because Israel has notched up one more international crime to add to its tally.

“I am proud not just to be a Conservative, but a Conservative Friend of Israel; and I am proud of the key role CFI plays within our Party”

David Cameron

"I'm a natural friend of Israel"

William Hague

Nick Cleggoman might possibly have offered a bit more hope, given his position here and here. But he too is a member of the government now. And that clearly changes things.

Anyway, I sent off some pointless letters to all three.

Dear David Cameron
I am writing to express my utter disgust at your failure to comment on the incident last night, in which up to 20 people may have been killed by the Israeli military. The top story on the Downing Street website, at 2.05, several hours after the event, has just been renewed: it is about government data
being opened up to the public. No statement, as far as I am aware, has been forthcoming from you as Prime Minister.

The UN Chief has called for a full investigation into the matter, so has the EU. France has condemned the attack, and Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Turkey and Greece have summoned the Israeli ambassadors of their respective countries. Your Foreign Minister has at last issued a statement 'deploring the loss of life', and 'asking for more information'.

Why is he not calling for a formal investigation?

Why does the statement make no mention of the fact that the (flagged, foreign) ships were intercepted and boarded in the high seas, and that is in violation of international law?

Why has he not condemned the use of lethal force, clearly disproportionate, since the ships carrying the aid had been thoroughly searched by the Turkish authorities and found to contain no firearms?

Your silence on this matter is shameful. If Iran had killed up to 20 citizens carrying international aid to a community which had been under an illegal siege for almost 3 years, to the almost universal condemnation of the international community - would you have been
silent?

Yours

...

UPDATED

• Original letter to James Naughtie
• Original letter to Jon Donnison
• Reply from James Naughtie
• My reply to JN

What made the Gaza attacks launched on 27 December different from the main wars fought by Israel over the years was that the weapons and tactics used devastated an essentially defenceless civilian population. The one-sidedness of the encounter was so stark, as signalled by the relative casualties on both sides (more than 100 to 1; 1300-plus Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis, and several of these by friendly fire), that most commentators refrained from attaching the label “war”.

Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights, in Israel’s war crimes

Still, the BBC is determined to see this as a two-sided conflict, and to present issues at all times according to the point of view given by official Israeli spokesmen. Palestinians die; Israelis are killed. Palestinians kidnap; Israelis hold or capture. Palestinians hide civilians in their midst and cannot be surprised when Israel’s well-directed precision bombs cut short their lives. Hamas’ blundering, home-made rockets deliberately target Israel’s innocent civilians. A Palestinian life cut short is lucky to make a mention in the international media; an Israeli life cut short is front page news.

No context is given, no reference to international law or UN Resolutions; no mention of occupation and what that means to those who are occupied; no siege or malnutrition in Gaza and no right to self-defence for Palestinians. Hamas is ‘in control’ - no matter that it is the elected government of Gaza.

And all Israeli misdemeanours are caused or prompted by a Palestinian evil further back in time. The Palestinian evils rarely have a cause.

James Naughtie has perfected this approach, in an interview with Jon Donnison on the Today programme to discuss the latest bombing attack on Gaza. (Extract starts around 6.30 am):

So the Independent has joined the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph and jumped onto the we-hate-human-rights bandwagon. Torture the terrorists! Pull out their wives' fingernails! Waterboard the children!

An exaggeration? Not really, if Bruce Anderson's recent article is to be believed. After much 'agonising', he has come to the conclusion that if our secret services were sure that we were threatened by a ticking nuclear bomb, and if they were sure that they had the right man to tell us where it was and how to stop the clock, and if they were also sure that the 'right man' would not crack before the ticking bomb blew up, then there is only one answer: 'Torture the wife and children'.

His words, not mine.

Dear Irene Khan

I am delighted to see that Amnesty is at last making explicit the link between human rights and climate change. Perhaps you have done so before, and I have failed to notice. In any case, I have felt for a long time that human rights organisations - and Amnesty in particular - have been remiss in failing to identify climate change as a human rights issue.

In view of your latest appeal to political leaders in the run-up to Copenhagen, and your recognition that "the effects of climate change will be felt most by people experiencing human rights abuses because they are poor or vulnerable" - I wonder if you could reassure me on two specific points relating to your organisation?

The first concerns the number of air flights undertaken by employees of Amnesty International. I am sure you are aware that air travel is by far the most carbon-intensive form of travel, and that the carbon footprint of one international flight per year is approximately equal to an individual's total carbon quota for the whole year, if carbon allowances were to be distributed equally about the globe. The carbon footprint of your employees is almost certainly several magnitudes higher than it should be if the crisis of climate change is to be averted - and if the poor and vulnerable are not to suffer more than they are at the moment. I would like to know whether Amnesty has any plans to address this issue.

Secondly, I have had numerous conversations with employees from numerous human rights organisations - many of them from Amnesty International - in which I have raised the issue of air travel and the carbon footprints of those who claim to be working for the poor and vulnerable. Almost universally, human rights workers do not see climate change - and their own behaviour, particularly in relation to air travel - as a human rights issue. Sadly, this is true for your own employees as well. Indeed, the normal reaction from Amnesty staff to the suggestion that they should at least reconsider their use of air travel has been to laugh it off, or dismiss it out of hand.

Are you happy that this is the message being delivered by your own staff in relation to the links between human rights and climate change - and do you have any plans to address perceptions within your own organisation which are entirely at odds with the urgency of the issue?

I would be very grateful for your response to these two points.

With thanks

[antarchi]

"The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative." Children of the atomic bomb

But that was all a long, long time ago. It was so long ago, that in the true Obama spirit of our age, we are going to look forward, not back. Nagasaki today, and the Hanford B reactor where the bomb was built, has another story, a happy story, a story that we can tell at 8.50 in the morning, over family breakfast, about economic recovery, Obama's financial bailout, and America's heritage.

So let us not spoil our family breakfasts with tales of 200,000 dead, of charcoal corpses or irradiated children; and let's not burden people by making connections with those other nuclear weapons - the ones our enemies possess, or try to possess; the ones which have such horrifying consequences that we feel it necessary (or pretend to feel it necessary) to obliterate those who may be planning to develop them, to use on us. Let us have a good news story on nuclear weapons.

And if you think there aren't any - well you can depend on the Today programme to hunt one out.

"The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative." Children of the atomic bomb

But that was all a long, long time ago. It was so long ago, that in the true Obama spirit of our age, we are going to look forward, not back. Nagasaki today, and the Hanford B reactor where the bomb was built, has another story, a happy story, a story that we can tell at 8.50 in the morning, over family breakfast, about economic recovery, Obama's financial bailout, and America's heritage.

So let us not spoil our family breakfasts with tales of 200,000 dead, of charcoal corpses or irradiated children; and let's not burden people by making connections with those other nuclear weapons - the ones our enemies possess, or try to possess; the ones which have such horrifying consequences that we feel it necessary (or pretend to feel it necessary) to obliterate those who may be planning to develop them, to use on us. Let us have a good news story on nuclear weapons.

And if you think there aren't any - well you can depend on the Today programme to hunt one out.

response to an interview with David Miliband on the Today Programme.

Dear John Humphrys

Thank you for pressing David Miliband hard this morning. I was interested by one of your questions. You asked:

'Some people might argue, might they not, that if you are Afghan, and see yourself as defending – we of course would take a different view of this – but see yourself as defending your country against foreign invaders – in what sense are they terrorists?'

Why did you say that 'we of course would take a different view on this', and to which 'we' were you referring?