Time to take out President Assad's weapons of mass destruction

So now we know for sure. Not only does Syrian President Assad have weapons of mass destruction,  but he has threatened to use them against so called 'external enemies'.
With the regime in slow decay,  and defections now happening daily,  the Baathists now realise that their only hope of remaining in power is to utilise its chemical weapon arsenal.
'External enemies' could mean anyone: Israel who shares a border with Syria,  Kurdistan in northern Iraq (their are millions of Kurds inside Syria),  or even Turkey which has become a de facto safe haven for some of the Assadist opposition.
One thing is certain: condemnation and sanctions are no longer enough.  The West - through Nato -  should take preventative action, take out the Regime's chemical weapon arsenal - before it is too late.
P. S.  Under the UN doctrine 'Responsibility to Protect' , adopted by the General Assembly and Security Council,  preventative action is justified under international law in order to stop mass genocide.
P. P. S.  The article above is from today's Times newspaper.

What is the difference between the assassination of Heydrich and the assassination of the three elite members of the Assad regime?

On June 4 1942, Reinhard Heydrich, author of the Final Solution (responsible for the Holocaust), died from an assassination attempt that had taken place on May 24.

Heydrich was head of the Nazi Security apparatus, and his death had been organised by the British Special Operations, in collaboration with the Czech Government in exile.

Yesterday, three senior members of the Syrian Assad regime were assassinated, one of whom included the Defence Minister. For the last eighteen months, the Assad regime have been murdering their way through Syria - to do everything possible to destroy the opposition to their dictatorship.  The regime is thought to have a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and there is a strong possibility that they will be used against their opponents.

Given that this is the case, the assassination of the Assad perpetrators of the Syrian massacres  - is as justified as it was to kill Heydrich - another genocidalist, in 1942.
 
by Robert Halfon MP - Working Hard for Harlow.

What if.... John McCain had been elected U.S. President

What if.... John McCain had been elected President?

Would Gadaffi's demise have been quicker?

Would Assad be in the International Criminal Court?

Would Iran be on the threshold of having a nuclear bomb?

Would Iraq be facing political meltdown, following the withdrawal of US Troops?

Would the Taliban be resurgent in Afghanistan?

Would Hamas still be ruling Gaza and Hezbollah, Southern Lebanon?

Would North Korea be thumbing its nose against the free world?

Would the United Nations doctrines on 'Responsibility to Protect' be put into practice?

by Robert Halfon - Working Hard for Harlow.

Over a year since the Syrian uprising - and the UN fails its own Mandate on the Responsibilty to Protect

It has now been well over a year, since the Syrian people began their uprising against the Assad Dictatorship. Over a year and still the free world does nothing.

Tonight on our Television news, we see more horrific pictures of the Syrian army murdering citizens - through city after city

The excuse for non-intervention is that there is no mandate from the United Nations. Yet the UN is flouting its own conventions. Under the UN Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), (introduced in 2005, agreed by the Security Council in 2006 and General Assembly in 2009), the UN has a duty to intervene to stop genocide.

RtoP was brought into being primarily because of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and has three core principles:

1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities,
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.
3. If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
(Courtesy of Wikipaedia)

If the UN refuses to act under its own laws of RtoP, then leading UN nations - like the United States - should step up to the plate and take responsibility. This means a no fly zone, and armed support to the opposition movements to Assad.

If the free world does nothing, then no doubt, once it is all over, and the extent of the Assad genocide is revealed, the world will wring its hands and say "never again". Will President Obama be remembered in a different way? "We did nothing".

You can read more about the UN 'Responsibility to Protect', here: http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/about-coalition/our-understanding-of-rtop and here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect

Intervention in Syria

There is an important article by Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian today.  In essence, his article makes the argument that (i); Syria is not Iraq and (ii); intervention doesn't have to mean sending armies or planes.

Just because the Iraq intervention has always been controversial, it does not mean that there should never be any intervention anywhere.  Without intervention in Libya, Gadaffi would still be ruling and many thousands of Libyans would have been massacred.  Whilst pro-active military intervention in Syria may be difficult, it doesn't follow that Nato et al, could not supply the opposition movement with logistical support, weaponry, intelligence and humanitarian aid.  We should also not hesitate to expel the Syrian Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

The Assad regime is most probably nearing the end of its reign in terms of brutality - to avoid further suffering and genocide - and to help a stable post-Assad Syria, the West has a moral duty to intervene.

This was the Question I asked William Hague, earlier in the week (6 February), during the short Statement on Syria:

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done thus far, but, just as we were right to intervene in Libya and to support with weapons and logistics those opposition movements that faced massacre, can he do more to work with other countries to give logistics, weapons and humanitarian aid to the opposition groups in Syria? Further, when will the stage be reached at which we need to expel the Syrian ambassador from the United Kingdom?

Mr Hague: I hope that I have covered those points. We are not engaged, and are not planning to engage, in arming the opposition forces in Syria, although we will help with advice and some logistics and practical support in order to ensure their ability to operate. It would not be in their interests in any case to be seen as an arm of western Governments, so there is a limit to what we can do in that regard.

On the question of the embassy, we will work with our partners throughout the world on that, but there are advantages in keeping an embassy, as well as in making the strong diplomatic statement of withdrawing an embassy. It improves our understanding of the situation on the ground to have an embassy there.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Links between Syria and St Andrews University

A couple of weeks ago the Guardian published two articles on potential links between Syria, and St. Andrews University, which had some short quotes from me. You can see them HERE and HERE.

Following this, Mr Ayman Asfari has written to me clarifying his role.

Voluntarily, and out of courtesy, I reproduce part of his letter below. I would like to thank Mr Asfari for the humanitarian work that he does.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

Is it time for a United Nations Resolution on Syria?

Is it time for a United Nation resolution on Syria?  Whilst world attention has invariably been focused on Libya, the Assad Baathist Regime has been busy murdering its own citizens all around the country. In March, security forces fired on protesters, including at a funeral in Dara.

A few days ago, in the City of Homa, thousands of demonstrators were attacked by armed forces.  So far, human rights groups suggest that up to 200 people have been killed by the Regime, with hundreds more imprisoned.

This reaction to demonstrators is not new. The Assads have ruthlessly crushed any challenge to their rule.  President Assad's predecessor, (his father), Hafez al-Assad, carried out the most horrendous genocide in 1982, when (according to the Syrian Human rights committee), up to 40,000 Sunni Muslims were killed in the city of Hama, in order to crush a rebellion against the Assad family.  One commentator described the events at Hama:

"as among the single deadliest acts by any Arab government against its own people in the modern Middle East".

Syria remains a totalitarian state.  Its Baathist regime mirrors that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its emphasis on Arab nationalism, expansionism and dictatorship.  Dissenters are routinely imprisoned, tortured and sometimes executed.

The regime has funded and sent weapons to terrorist groups around the world  - as well as hosted some of the most extreme Palestinian terrorists.  Abu Daoud for example, the mastermind behind the massacre of the Israeli Athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, spent his final years in the country.

Bashir Assad has also formed a close strategic alliance with Iran (Iranian advisers are thought to be in Syria at present, advising the leadership on dealing with the opposition movement).

Like Gadaffi, President Assad will stop at nothing to protect his regime and all it stands for.  The desire from thousands of Syrians for liberation from the Baathists - is regarded as treason against the State.

Whilst the Syrian Government have pledged to end the 48 year old 'emergency law' (a kind of Assad-Baathist Magna Carta), the reality is that it has been used to deal with protesters - even in recent days.

The United Nations acted at ten minutes to midnight on Libya. It now needs to take action to ensure that the Assad regime knows that murdering their way out of this crisis is not an option.

This blog also appeared on the Conservative Home website today HERE.

Libyan War Criminals must face Justice

Last Friday I spoke with BBC Radio 5 Live, and also with the former Labour MP Mike O'Brien, who was Foreign Office Minister in the last Labour Government.

As you can see in the video above, I said that we must bring Libyan war criminals to justice, including Mousa Kousa, who has recently defected to the UK.

The free world must send a signal to the undemocratic regimes around the world, that we will no longer tolerate tyranny or oppression. 


by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com