Fenian Notes

The issue of human rights and abuse by the British to the population of the Six Counties has been submerged to a low priority in the "peace" process, when, in fact, it should be at the top of the priority list.

The 26-County State, the "United Kingdom" and the United States are quick to judge others but are blind to abuse in their own backyard.

As we are well aware, the British are masters of diversion to take the heat off themselves and yet they are as guilty as other countries when rights are denied both directly and very subtly.

The latest United Nation's Human Rights Report cites the British quite harshly regarding their attitude to the murder of lawyers Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson and their subsequent investigations. There is also a case before the European Court involving the British Shoot-to-kill policy.

Historically, the overall attitude of the British towards the Irish people has been less than humane, and this is fact beyond any doubt; however, during this so-called peace process the tables are turned and the focus is upon Republicans and what they are accused of perpetrating.

Look at the emphasis here in the States and how it has been manipulated so that Irish Americans react defensively to accusations against Republicans and they are forced to accept that "violence" in the face of tyranny must still be condemned.

When the British tyrant commits atrocities it is excused as necessary to protect the public, but when victims and freedom-fighters dare resist with "violence", it is roundly condemned as illegitimate tactics. The combination of the British supported by the US and the British-created 26-County government always make out the worst against the other side.

When the IRA kills a British soldier on Irish soil, it is described as "murder", yet if the British kill an IRA person it is justifiable under the tyrant's definition of homicide.

Nation states certainly have the right to protect themselves from those who would do them harm. We live in a world of terror where there are those groups and nations who are irrational in targeting others who they claim are their enemies.

The US government has draconian anti-terror legislation as of 1996 to use against anyone in any manner it sees fit. This is unpardonable in a democracy and in a free and open society.

We must explore the proposition -- was the United States in any way justified in its assault on the US Constitution or was it simply political/judicial terrorism that such law could be approved without a hue and cry from US citizens is the most amazing facet of this scenario.

There had been in the United States a balance between the exercise of government power and the protection of personal freedoms.

This constitutional balance has been assaulted by the fear-mongers who see too many terrorists, just as the Red scare inventors plied their evil in the 1950s. Today it is a terrorist scare.

The British are the prime example (as well as the Israelis) who see a threat of terrorism as an excuse to debase and curtail personal liberties in the name of security.

This of course is aimed at the Irish and it shows how close in thinking London is to the Unionist Party, both of whom put security before individual rights.

The problem with anti-terrorist laws is that most of those who are pursued under its draconian authority are innocent people. Generalisations rather than specifics are used to profile potential threats.

There are two types of threats of prime concern; those who have no bounds and those with a politically-focused structure that has self-imposed constraints. The latter are those such as true Irish Republicans with legitimacy and purpose in their justifiable pursuits.

When it comes to anti-terror legislation, the British and Free Staters are second to no one. Their laws are admired by the world's greatest tyrants.

Unfortunately the US along with its "UK" partner view their English-speaking world morality as if they are temporal gods. Should a nation not conform to its ideals, they are aptly punished, sanctioned in various forms.

The punishment for not conforming to US/"UK" world moral standards is brutal and harsh treatment such as meted out to Libya, Iraq and other well-judged nations. Sanctions seem to have displaced diplomacy as a means of settling disputes.

The overuse of such a tool has devalued the tool itself, so any nation dissenting from US/"UK" political morality may be sanctioned. The question involved by imposing such terrible consequences is -- who is it intended to punish and who does it actually hurt?

In the case of Iraq, the result of the sanctions has been impoverishment of the people, innocent people, yet it has had no effect on Saddam Hussein and his regime which was supposed to collapse under the weight of world sanctions. He is as strong (some say stronger) than ever.

Did the US/"UK" junta actually believe the Iraqi people were going to rise up and overthrow Saddam and if they did so desire to do so were unarmed hordes going to be successful against a well-armed military force? There was a major blunder here which has been swept under the carpet.

There is a very serious moral issue presenting the United Nations with a dilemma. The US/"UK" state publicly their hostility to Saddam while disclaiming any animosity to the Iraqi people.

The paradox is that billions worth of humanitarian contracts for Iraq for essential to life items have been denied them, causing untold human suffering by innocents.

Sanctions to leaders with sensitivity to ordinary human beings are a major problem in international relations and they are becoming sanction-fatigued.

Because of sanctions, there is immense hardship in Iraq. It is a nation falling apart in every possible way except in sustaining the dictatorship of Saddam which is " to the sanction-mongers.

The cold, calculating, totally insensitive, pro-British US State Department cannot comprehend the suffering being promulgated upon the average Iraqi people. They are only interested in perceptions and the favourable spins they put on US policy.

Many governments in the world are now reassessing their attitudes towards Iraq, but their query of conscience has to be, can international pressure translate into swaying the very, very inflexible positions of the Americans and British? This is now a moral issue.

Pope John Paul II set the record on sanctions straight when he visited Cuba. He set the tone on the four decades of sanctions the US has had on Cuba. He said that sanctions are "always deplorable, because they hurt the needy".

Iraq took Kuwait and was punished for it. The argument could be made that it was justified because Kuwait was once part of Iraq before it was partitioned under the British.

In the case of Cuba, Fidel Castro dared form a government of his own choosing that did not please the United States, so he was sanctioned. The US/CIA-backed insurrectionists tried to overthrow Castro unsuccessfully but were defeated at the Bay of Pigs.

A similar situation occurred in Chile when Marxist Salvadore Allende was democratically elected President. He was overthrown by US-backed terrorists and was murdered.

What happened to national sovereignty? If it is convenient to the US, it is supported, but if it is not, it is ignored.

Let us focus on the issue of human rights, an area that should be targeted for world moral attention. Certainly, there may well have been abuses in Iraq, Cuba and Chile, yet this was not the reason for the imposition of sanctions.

No human rights abuses and inhumane conduct towards and treatment of a people has been as clearly documented as British brutality against the civilian population of Ireland. Where the hell are the sanctions?

There never has been any reparation to the Irish people for the last thirty-year abuse nor for the prior centuries. It has been glossed over, excused and covered up.

If the United Nations held the British accountable for its human rights violations, as it has other nations, it would have been a major step towards real change.

With the voluminous documentation afforded the US government on British brutality, the inaction by it and its agent, the State Department is callous and calculated and has been the major player in a cover-up of British abuse.

The cover-up of British violations of human rights is a necessity for the "UK" to be a partner in the US/"UK" new world order. A political scenario was scripted and abuse was spun as a battle against terrorism in Ireland and lumped onto general world terrorism.

The British became a US partner as terror fighters, yet it was terror they used as a tactic against innocent people. The true Republicans were demonised in a campaign against dissent.

We know the US kept Republicans out of the country unless they agreed to follow the "peace" line which we know to be a return to the Ireland of 35 years back and a commitment to Partition and British rule indefinitely.

The only way Britain can get what is coming is through an international war crimes tribunal that has not teeth, not merely being cited for cruel and inhuman treatment as it was back in 1976/77 at Strasbourg. It was stated recently at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: "Our mandate is to pursue those responsible for crimes against humanity" and Britain is surely guilty of that.

Mass killings in the Balkans are war crimes, but not in Korea when the US is involved. "USA Today" of April 21, 2000 documents the mass slaughter of 2,000 Korean political prisoners by US allies with US troops looking on and General Douglas MacArthur fully aware. There was a 50-year cover-up.

As we know in Chile and Cuba, having a political philosophy of which the US does not approve brings dire consequences.

The US in the 1950s blackmailed Cuba's neighbours against Cuba, put a trade blockade and trained a CIA-led army to invade Cuba.

As we are acutely aware, the US is opposed to true Republicanism that is dedicated to driving the British from Ireland, but supports Vichy-Republicans like the Provos who place power and money over principle.

Sanctions for expressing ideas and a philosophy have been imposed on true Republicans until they join Vichy-Provo Sinn Féin. But guess what -- if you are a Russian tied to organised crime, you may obtain a visa to enter the US.

Josef Kobzon is a member of the Russian parliament who is attending a two-week programme at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

He has been denied a visa before on the basis of a CIA report that he is the czar of the Russian Mafia. The CIA believes his purpose in truth is to engage in criminal activity in the US, a direct national security threat to the US ('Boston Globe', April 30, 2000).

Visa sanctions to trade sanctions need to be investigated in the US to determine what is a threat to US security. Again, as stated previously, a state has the right to protect itself, but should not violate constitutional and human rights in the process.

When a nation, especially a democratic one, uses terror tactics, it becomes a terrorist nation and is what it accuses others of being.

If the US/"UK" want other nations and organisations to behave, they should get a large mirror and look in it.
-- Peadar Mac Fhínín