British Defence Secretary defends Nazi Germany

Michael Fallon, the British Defence Secretary, has said that Nazi Germany had the right to defend itself from the aggression of the allies. No, he didn't. But he effectively implied as much by his defence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's war of aggression against Yemen.

 

Michael Fallon claims that Saudia Arabia has the right to defend itself from Yemen. But this is just backwards. Saudi Arabia unleashed war on Yemen in 2015. It is Saudi Arabia that attacked Yemen. Saudi Arabia is the aggressor.

 

The notion that the aggressor can retrospectively claim self defence, as Fallon apparently believes, would make any and all wars legal. It would mean that there is no such thing as a war of aggression. It would overthrow the judgement of Nuremberg, which held that war of aggression is the ultimate crime. Fallon's new doctrine of war would turn the historical clock back to the middle ages.

 

In Fallon's doctrine, the Saudi imposed humanitarian disaster in Yemen is justified. The starvation of the people by siege and bombing is justified. The dropping of cluster bombs on hospitals, schools, funerals, markets and residential areas is justified. According to the Fallon doctrine, any and every war crime is justified.

 

Yet, the British goverment routinely claims to be committed to international law. The British goverment, including Michael Fallon, repeatedly criticised Russia's military actions in Syria as war crimes, calling for those responsible to be held legally accountable (even though Russia is in Syria legally).

 

Michael Fallon's Alice in Wonderland approach to international law reveals the British government's total contempt for international law. Saudi Arabia has clearly committed war crimes in Yemen, including the ultimate crime, war of aggression. Whereas, Russia's military actions in Syria are clearly legal. But these legal facts are simply ignored because the British government prefers interests to law.

 

The interests that the British government prefer are the interests of a tiny minority. This is revealed most clearly by the fact that Saudi Arabia is supporting jihadist terrorists in Yemen, including al Qaeda; whereas, Russia is combatting jihadist terrorists in Syria, including al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia, however, buys British arms by the billions. The Saudi princes own vast chunks of the western corporate media. The Saudis fund influential think tanks. The Saudis funnel money to western politicians. Yemen has no such influence. 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (9)

  1. Munkyman

    The media in the US is silent about this, the average person in the US thinks Yemen is just dealing with a civil war… that couldn’t be as bad or convoluted as Syria, because the TV would certainly cover that.

    May 12, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      The US media’s position on Yemen is strongly influenced by Saudi money. The Saudis provide Tony Podesta with money to lobby. They throw money at the Centre for American Progress. They own substantial amounts of Time Warner and News Corp. They have thrown millions at the Clintons. They buy billions of dollars worth of US arms. They fund the Atlantic Council.

      May 12, 2017
      1. Munkyman

        ayup, so where IS the free press?

        May 12, 2017
  2. Munkyman

    When a Saudi terrorist attacks the US planes fall out of the sky, when a Yemeni terrorist attacks the US someone runs a small boat into a Navy cruiser parked far from home.

    May 12, 2017
  3. magnocrat

    Whatever your politics or religion , whatever platform you stand on money speaks much louder than words.

    May 13, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Your cynicism is truly depressing.

      May 13, 2017
  4. magnocrat

    Realism Steve.

    May 13, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      No, it is not realism. There are people for whom principle is more important than interest.

      May 13, 2017
  5. magnocrat

    Correct but they are not running the show and the world benders are those that set the pace.

    May 13, 2017