Opinion: Macron should atone for Mitterrand’s sins

“Since 1994, sorry to say it in such crude terms, you have never been able to restore the military, security or administrative sovereignty of your country. It is a reality. We must not look for culprits outside, in this case” (…) “Don’t blame the France for something that depends on you” – President Emmanuel Macron (04.03.2023).

Sometimes, hubris and arrogance takes over. In essence, that’s maybe what happened in the Joint Press Conference with French President Emmanuel Macron and the Democratic Republic of Congo’s President Felix Tshisekedi. The French thought he could humiliate and act naive about the past. However, the French has to take responsibility here… their choices and power in the Great Lakes has cost lives and insecurity. Not their actions alone, but they have amplified. That was all done in favour of one ruling elite and regime in the early 1990s in Kigali. This is why there is issues to this day.

In Kinshasa yesterday, Macron could have answered and offered relief for the mistakes of the past. Instead, he pins the blame on the rulers today and brushes of the involvement in the past. That is arrogant and forgetful. Like if “Operation Turquoise” wasn’t implemented and didn’t have any sort of outcome to begin with. While we all know the aftermath and what occurred after the French gave the ex-FAR and “interahamwe” a safe-haven in the DRC. Many of us know the continued bloodshed and insecurity that has persisted ever since. Therefore, the French should take blame, but we see the entitlement of Paris in these regards. Seriously, it is infuriating.

Just read snippets of assessments and writings on the matter!

“That is why, in addition to the major concerns outlined above, we share with you a copy of a memo that we gave to members of the delegation of the Security Council of the United Nations who visited the DR Congo on May 19, 2009 – a memo which tells the tragedy suffered by the Congolese people. This memo can be summarized as follows:

“Since 1994, the superbly armed Hutu, fleeing the advance of the Rwandan Patriotic Army crossed the Congolese border with support of UN operations called ‘turquoise’, headed by France. These Hutus settled in the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu in flagrant violation of all international standards governing the right of asylum or refuge. Known as the “Interahamwe” or FDLR, Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, and so on, these Hutu particularly stand out in DR Congo by practicing acts of looting, rape, massacre and so on. And since they became a pretext for the authorities in Kigali to justify the presence in DR Congo of their regular army, the results are the current massacres and atrocities suffered by our people at Makobola, Kasika Katogota, Lemera, Nindja, Kaniola , Kalambi, Bunyakiri, Kaziba, Luhwindja, Kalonge, Bukavu, Uvira, Kiliba, Katumba Kalehe, Bwegera, Kamituga, Mwenga, Shabunda, Lugushwa, Ngando, Ndola, Kigulube, Bijombo, Masango Tubimbi, Kakungwe, Mushago, Kitutu, Lubuga , Mutambala, Fizi, Minembwe, Bibokoboko, Baraka, Kagabwe, to name a few, as regards the South-Kivu. Moreover, Rwanda’s history is punctuated by cyclical and fratricidal wars driven by a spirit of intolerance and retaliation between Hutus and Tutsis. Hence, when it is the Rwandan Tutsi ethnic group that is in power, their countrymen who are in the majority, the Hutus, are in exile: and vice versa. DR Congo has become each time, the country of pilgrimage for them” (Rev. Aniedi Okure, OP – Letter From Congolese Elected Officials to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 26.08.2009).

“That the French government be careful not to use the excuses made to the Rwandan regime to join the club of looters of DRC resources; That the French government take a position on the genocide and serious crimes committed in the Congo by the Rwandans and their accomplices since “Operation Turquoise”; That the French government in turn come out clearly in favor of the creation of an International Criminal Tribunal for the DR Congo, responsible for prosecuting the perpetrators of the genocide and serious crimes committed in the Congo since “Operation Turquoise” in 1994; That the parliamentarians friends of the Congo, introduce these concerns of the Congolese people in their questions to the government and before the European institutions” (Hamuli RETY – ‘CRID MEMORANDUM ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF “OPERATION TURQUOISE” AND THE CONGOLESE GENOCIDE IN THE DRC’ 08.03.2010, CRID).

“The escape of many of these Hutu extremists was enabled by the French safe zone, concealed by the flood of refugees. To fight these rebels, the new Rwandan government supported the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (AFDL), which also aimed at overthrowing the president. This caused a violent emergency in the DR Congo in October 1996. Therefore, the intervention did trigger instability in a neighboring country, however, the conflict did not occur within two years after the end of the intervention” (Rwanda 1994, Teresa Leiendecker, Karolina Schmid, 21.12.2018).

When you read these things and from very different sources. You understand the deep underlying sentiment. Alas, the French has responsibility for the insecurity in the DRC. It is partly their fault and it cannot hide from it decades later. The choices made by the leaders of Paris has haunted the DRC. It still does and the remains of these decisions are costing lives today. Therefore, Macron should be more humble and understanding.

However, he met an inept and unprepared President. The leaders of Kinshasa wasn’t prepared or ready for yesterday. They didn’t think it would play out like it this week, but it has. Macron trying to act like the “hot shot” and “big man” but not account for the past transgression of his nation. That’s something he should acknowledge, but if he does… he knows he will have to pay consequences right now, but also possibly at home. That’s why he doesn’t have the courage or the heart to do so. Peace.

Rwanda: Communique du Conseil des Ministres (19.04.2021)

Rwanda: The Duclert Report re-affirms what we knew about French involvement ahead of the 1994 Genocide

Yes. This is a long time coming. It had to be several of French Presidents before they took any responsibility and taking to account their role in the Genocide of 1994 in Rwanda. The French had invested and a close relationship with the current leadership at the time in Kigali. That jaded their will and their support for it. These folks did directly trade weapons and profit on the genocide.

The French have tried people who has been involved in the Genocide in Rwanda. France have acted as a big-brother, but not acted righteous towards its own ends. They have been the paternal nation and with the current Duclert Report. The current leadership in Paris should make reconciliation and redeem its stature in Kigali. That is only fair knowing what their actions did and did assist the atrocities in Rwanda.

First dropping one statement from France24 to show what they found and what has been written in 1999 about the same thing.

French Reports states known facts:

“The report tells of French decision-makers trapped in “post-colonial” thinking who supported the “racist, corrupt and violent” regime of Habyarimana as he faced a Tutsi rebellion which many considered was directed from English-speaking Uganda. Mitterrand “maintained a strong, personal and direct relationship with the Rwandan head of state”, it said” (France24 – ‘’Blind’ France bears responsibility on Rwanda genocide, historical commission reports’ 26.03.2021).

French Involvement before the Genocide:

“The leaders of France and Rwanda also had very close family ties Mitterand of France and Habyarimana were friends, but their sons, Jean Christophe Mitterand and Jean Pierre Habyarirnana, were not only closer friends, but that friendship was consolidated further by business dealings. The two camps used political power in their countries in order to boost and protect their respective economic interests. The Rwanda Re-view(2:3,1993) ran a letter from Mitterand to Habyarimana, a letter that was not only both personal and official, but also talked about the interests of France in Rwanda. There is also an indication that Jean C. Mitterand was one of the biggest arms dealer in Rwanda. It was there-fore in the interest of France that there should be use for the arms France was ready to supply to Rwanda, arms that eventually ended in the arms of the hands of the extremist killers” (Joan Kakwenzire and Dixon Kamukama – ‘The Path of a Genocide – The Rwandan Crisis from Uganda to Zaire’, P.83, 1999).

With these two pieces. You see they say the same thing. They are connected. The Kakwenzire and Kamukama is also showing the benefits of the relations between the Heads of State. That the sons also had a favourable relations. They wouldn’t have done what they did. If it wasn’t beneficial and had positive outcome. These folks wouldn’t have worked together like they did.

Both Kigali and Paris had close communication. They were even trading arms ahead of the genocide. Certainly knowing what was brewing and had some foresight into the violence that could erupt. Not like they were dumb or had no knowledge.

Just as they had already done this as well ahead of the genocide:

“1991; March 15: The French ambassador to Rwanda, Georges Martres, informed Juvénal Habyarimana that the French Presidency had decided to put a thirty-man DAMI (detachment of troops for military assistance and training) at the Rwandan authorities’ disposal *(Lanotte, 2007: 144). It was named DAMI-Panda and was originally intended to stay four months on location, but in fact it remained in Rwanda until December 1993 *(Lanotte, 2007: 145). This deployment was not publicized by the French political and military authorities, or by their Rwandan counterparts *(Lanotte, 2007: 148)” (Viret Emmanuel – ‘Rwanda – A Chronology (1867-1994)’ 01.03.2010, SciencePro.fr)

So with this all in mind. The Duclert Report only re-affirm what we already knew. They are only stating facts that been out there and they have finally “found” it out themselves. If they will take more accountability and actually reflect it. That is a whole different ball-game.

For some of us. We knew the French was directly involved and supported the regime who did their part in the genocide in 1994. Clearly, with that knowledge. The French could have acted differently and not participated in the exports of arms. However, they only saw money and friendship with the Heads of State. It was business and pleasure. Which in the end was helping the demise of so many innocent civilians.

Now is not the time for empty statements, but direct action of the French to act upon their own findings, which many of us already knew. Peace.

Muse Report shows how the French Government supported Habyiramana during the 1994 Genocide!

Just two days ago an American Law Firm studied the Rwandan Genocide as they say it themselves: “In light of that inquiry, the Government of Rwanda has retained the Washington, D.C. law firm of Cunningham Levy Muse LLP to review and report on the material available in the public record on the role and knowledge of French officials regarding the Genocide against the Tutsi” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 3, 2017). This here is will be quotes from that report that is on the role of the French Government in the Rwandan Genocide. Clearly, there has been allegations and has been some talk about that, concerning the arms and the knowledge of it. This report are putting light on some of that. I will take the quotes that is substantial for the French intervention in the civil war and genocide in Rwanda.

“The expansion of France’s military support and strategic advice began within days of the war’s commencement. On October 11, 1990, Defense Attaché Colonel René Galinié recommended sending French advisers into the field, northeast of the combat zone, to “educate, organize and motivate troops that had been ossified for thirty years and who had forgotten the basic rules of battle.” (…) “In addition to advice, French officials supplied the FAR with modern mortars, armored vehicles, and other vehicles, along with ammunition and rockets. French officials also provided and helped maintain helicopter-gunships, which fired upon RPF fighters. According to jokes at the time, the only thing Rwandan soldiers did was pull the trigger” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 12-13, 2017).

“Massacres of Tutsi continued throughout 1991, 1992, and up until the Genocide. French officials were aware of massacres at this time, as well as the role of the Habyarimana government and its military in them. Despite this knowledge, French officials maintained their support of the Rwandan military and funneled weapons into Rwanda” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 20, 2017).

“Thus, in February 1993, after the Noroît detachment had just been reinforced . . . , the Army Chief of Staff reminded the defense attaché that he was responsible for “ensuring that the Rwandan army does not find itself in a stock shortage of sensitive ammunition . . . and that deliveries to the FAR of military equipment be made in the utmost discretion.” In fact, in the timeline laid down in his end of mission report, Colonel Philippe Tracqui, commander of the Noroît detachment for the period from February 8, 1993 to March 21, 1993, noted “Friday, February 12, 1993: landing of a DC8 50 with a 12.7mm machine gun plus 100,000 cartridges for the FAR. Wednesday, February 17, 1993: landing of a Boeing 747 with discrete unloading by the FAR of 10 mm shells and 68 mm rockets (Alat).” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 23, 2017).

“The French Parliamentary Commission accordingly found: Faced with procrastination by Rwandan authorities and concerned about the stability of states and regional security, France never made the decision to suspend all cooperation, or even to decrease the level of its civil and military aid. Thus, President Juvénal Habyarimana was able to convince himself that “France . . . would be behind him regardless of the situation, and he could do anything militarily and politically.” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 27, 2017).

“Arms flows to the FAR were not suspended immediately by France after the imposition of the arms embargo on May 17, 1994. Rather, they were diverted to Goma airport in Zaire as an alternative to Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, where fighting between the FAR and the rebel RPF as well as an international presence made continued shipments extremely difficult. Some of the first arms shipments to arrive

in Goma after May 17 were supplied to the FAR by the French government. Human Rights Watch learned from airport personnel and local businessmen that five shipments arrived in May and June containing artillery, machine guns, assault rifles and ammunition provided by the French government. These weapons were taken across the border into Rwanda by members of the Zairian military and delivered to the FAR in Gisenyi. The French consul in Goma at the time, Jean-Claude Urbano, has justified the five shipments as a fulfillment of contracts negotiated with the government of Rwanda prior to the arms embargo” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 39, 2017).

“Information in the public record also shows that in the months that followed the Genocide against the Tutsi French officials continued to support génocidaires. On August 3, 1994, the UN Secretary General suggested that the international community should coordinate with UNAMIR to identify within the camps perpetrators of the Genocide against the Tutsi, with an eye to bringing them to justice. But instead, French soldiers escorted and released suspected génocidaires in Zaire. Between July and September 1994, French military helicopters evacuated Bagosora, along with Interahamwe leader Jean-Baptiste Gatete, and other ex-FAR troops and militia members, out of Goma” (…) “Finally, we urge the Government of Rwanda to seek France’s cooperation in this endeavor. To this end, France should make available its archives, documents, physical evidence and officials (current and former). Any investigation by the Government of Rwanda should evaluate what occurred in the 1990s, as well as what has happened since then, including France’s cooperation with this investigation into French complicity in the Genocide” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 48, 52, 2017).

This one collected lots of public information and put into account. This is damning evidence and not just random quotes from a mad-man, but from lawyers collected information as ordered by the Rwandan Government. The could have been done by the French, they might have given other insights and even transcripts we haven’t seen. Even as the Rwandan has and can get documentation on the actions during the genocide and before. Since the Rwandan Government wants closure and might want the French to answer for their crimes.

French President Francois Mitterrand at the time was loyal to President Juvenal Habyarimana, therefore wanted to stop the Rwandan Patriotic Front from overthrowing their man at any cost apperently. The French really showed it with the ammunition, training and also helping them flee with weapons to Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo. Clearly, the French knew what they did and did it with a reason, as of they wanted someone loyal to them and also a weapons brother at any cost.

So the continued trouble of the Great Lakes Region has been created by the French as well. Since they let the Interahamwe and Ex-FAR leave with weapons in the refugee camps in the DRC. That has been an initial reason for violence since the 1990s. The French should step up and take responsibility for what they did and who they gave power to. Which also created this genocide. The PRF and President Paul Kagame did his part, the RPF is not a holy and non-violent movement who just brought peace. They also killed and took control. However, the French did aid and abide help to the other partner in the crime. Therefore, they are responsible for their part in this genocide. That shouldn’t be left alone and the stones should be turned, the ones sanction this and ordering this on behalf of Habyarimana and his government.

This report was compelling and it shows how disgraceful the French was and how they really wanted the dictator Habyirmana to continue to rule in Rwanda. Peace.

Reference:

Cunningham Levy Muse LLP – ‘REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA ON THE ROLE OF FRENCH OFFICIALS IN THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE TUTSI’ (11.12.2017)

Opinion: Theresa May lost so bad, that she has to beg for mercy from Belfast!

 

Today is a unique day, the General Election in the United Kingdom. That Theresa May herself ushered in and grinned while doing. She was confident because of the Conservative Party lead and support, that it would be walk-in-the-park to regain and strengthen her party before Brexit negotiations. Instead, she has fallen and bad. So bad she do not have majority in Parliament as she thought she was entitled to have. The public was not agreeing with her methods, neither was her campaign anything to run around the mill about and no one will say: “Well done lads”.

The winner is the opposition candidate and his party. That is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his campaign. A manifesto of progressive social welfare state ideas. That would support youth, health-care and build the state. He was moderate in tone, but progressive in stances and promises. It was something rare and neat. Corbyn deserves praise for his attitude amongst all the hatred, sceptics and pundits who expected him and his party to fall. The dominant problem was not the grass-root mobilization, but the Members of Parliament who has revolted against the man.

While Theresa May has been able to screw-up all on her own. Corbyn has built a party from scratch in some sense and used his connections in Unions to spark interest. To the amazement of the left, which May has sounded more and more alike. Part of me feels that she has more similar opinions of Nigel Farage, than of her old mate David Cameron and George Osborne. That is just me, I guess.

With this amazing defaulted campaign that has shattered the dreams of strong Conservative Party united to negotiate with European counterparts. Instead, she has belittle herself and has to ask for help. Not by just anyone, but the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). She needs help from the DUP and their support to gain majority. Before the election, the mandate of the Conservative was strong enough on their own.

Now the help come from the London friendly Northern Irish. Just think about the shit-storm it would have been, if the Labour Party went into alliance with Sinn Fein (SF) or Scottish National Party (SNP). It would have created havoc and the world would have hassled the leadership of Labour. The world clocks would have stopped and the Tube in London would have gotten massive delays. However, since it is the Conservative and their needs, we all should just be merry.

Well, the handout of loyalists to London in Northern Ireland is all fine, but at what cost is it for the May government. Since, an arrangement of these sorts has to leeway for the alliance partner and not just for the show. That she says she will deliver a government for the ‘National Interest’ is bit weird, as the whole election was about her ego and her drive for total control. Something the voters has taken away. She will not get full majority, Theresa May needs support… the Tories cannot run alone.

If the Tories and May government hadn’t run this snap and quick elections, she would still been able to have majority and also have more power in the Brexit negotiations. Now she is weak, the tea isn’t strong. Corbyn and Labour has surged, because the Tories run on weak manifesto and worse campaign. May might be good to write legislation and be a Parliamentarian, but as a campaign leader she was unstable. The public saw this and the strength she didn’t show the public, as she even abstained from open and national televised debates. That was distasteful and showed arrogance to the public.

That also Liberal-Democratic Party (Lib-Dems) gotten more seats in Parliament. That Tories and SNP lost seats, shows how their workings has gone against them. That the Tories will defend their minority government in honor of the willing party DUP. The DUP as of now will decide what they deserve for being the king-makers.

May has really lost, not only her strength, but her credibility. She has been all-out swinging, but not delivering. Shredded with her ego and therefore when Corbyn and his team been modest in their approach they have gotten more sympathy and while May created apathy. This is the reason why so many turned Labour and lost faith in her. While Corbyn have showed character. Theresa May haven’t showed this. The Tories are bleeding now, therefore they need the support of DUP to be able to create a new cabinet.

The ones who voted the Tories because they feared the ‘Coalition of Chaos’, she will now run her own if she get an agreement and gives way to DUP. That the DUP Arlene Foster will use her leverage to eat of the plate and create hardships for May. The cost will come to the forefront the coming days. Even if the Tories have the senior Cabinet Ministers and the Tories have the formal minority government alone. They will still need to kiss the ring of Foster. She is not even trusted in Northern Ireland, so it is interesting that a bleeding Prime Minister begs from someone who is not trustworthy in NI.

This here will be saga of chaos and chaotic affairs, this is not a stronger United Kingdom government before negotiations with Brussels. Because the Tories have to keep their own shop at bay and also their new partnership with the NI DUP. This will be a fragile company… and how it goes will escalate the coming days. What we do know is that the Tories lost, May lost and the Corbyn’s of the world had a massive victory. Peace.

Opinion: Theresa May is wrong, no need to suspend Human Rights Laws, there are provisions for the State to keep their citizens safe!

“I’m clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe. After the London Bridge attack, I said “enough is enough”, and that things need to change to tackle the threat we face. And tonight I set out what that means: longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences; deporting foreign terror suspects back to their own countries; restricting the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough to prosecute them in court” – Theresa May (06.06.2017 – at a rally at Slough, United Kingdom).

That Prime Minister Theresa May are obliged to amend her laws and ask for provisions to change them through Parliament. She is fine to do so and follow the procedures of the state, to make the most draconian laws able. As the Tories already before the grand-elections started to unleash laws of old, that we’re in the fashion of King Henry IV. These laws was amend and gives more powers to the government over the Parliament. So the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom has already shown force and will of taking the powers in their hands.

Theresa May isn’t the first to use terrorism to control and to suspend laws to gain more power. That is usually a sign of oppressive behavior and of the Orwellian society. Clearly, a human being like May should consider her words. If not she really wants to show that she can act so much, that she wants to take away freedom and liberties from her own citizens. Instead of believing in the set freedoms and provisions done by the United Nations Charter and ratified legal framework that the United Kingdom must have.

Still, there are enough signs that she doesn’t need to do so, as the provisions that are in place has not and will not overpower a sovereign, neither will it create interference of state control in troubling time. That is if she really cares about the liberties and the just societies the United Nations legal framework put in place.

OHCHR own Fact Sheet on Human Rights and Terrorism:

“International and regional human rights law makes clear that States have both a right and a duty to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks. This stems from the general duty of States to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against interference in the enjoyment of human rights. More specifically, this duty is recognized as part of States’ obligations to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security” OHCHR, P: 8, 2008).

“These challenges are not insurmountable. States can effectively meet their obligations under international law by using the flexibilities built into the international human rights law framework. Human rights law allows for limitations on certain rights and, in a very limited set of exceptional circumstances, for derogations from certain human rights provisions. These two types of restrictions are specifically conceived to provide States with the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, while at the same time—provided a number of conditions are fulfilled—complying with their obligations under international human rights law” (OHCHR, P: 23, 2008).

Than it is the United Nation Security Council own definition:

“Security Council Resolution 1963 (2010) reiterates that effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort, and it notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively combat terrorism. Resolution 1963 (2010) “thus encourages CTED to further develop its activities in this area, to ensure that all human rights issues relevant to the implementation of resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005) are addressed consistently and even-handedly including, as appropriate, on country visits that are organized with the consent of the visited member State”.

(UNSC, 2015)

It is really serious when the United Nations and the OHCHR are saying there no issues between respecting the Human Rights Law legal framework and countering terrorism. Even if the resolutions and legal framework are critical and makes the state more bound to respect the terrorists. This still, doesn’t stop them from having provisions and having strict security in the Member States. The Member State themselves are putting forward rule of law and also has to incriminate inside their territory. However, the security is for the reason of the liberty and freedom of all citizens and all rights to all human beings. It is strange that Prime Minister Theresa May wants to suspend it, while the UNSC and OHCHR are saying it is possible.

That she has to go this far to gain support. Seems more like she could join Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttal, than following the Conservative leadership of the past. These words would not have come from David Cameron or anyone of his kind. This shows how fragile and how hell-bent is on winning this election by any means. That she has to promise on the final leap to suspend rule of law and take away basic human rigths. As the Police Service and Security Organization in our time cannot be able fight terrorism by the means and the values, that most of Europe see as natural. That the Police and Army get stronger laws and more draconian ones to make sure the United Kingdom can oppress and silence freedoms. Instead of fighting it through the means of strengthening the Police and the Intelligence, as the UK has one of the most sophisticated Security Organization in the world. It should have the capacity and if the Conservative had been serious about it, they would have fixed the issue during the last 8 years. Peace.

Reference:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism – Fact Sheet No. 32’ (July 2008)

link: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf

United Nation Security Council – ‘PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM’ (10.09.2015) link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/rights.html

Opinion: PM May’s Plymouth Herald Interview graced with blissful ignorance towards the marginal constituency!

“If I was to really get at the burr in my saddle, it’s not politics — and this is, I think, probably a horrible analogy — but I look at politicians as, they are doing what inherently they need to do to retain power. Their job is to consolidate power. When you go to the zoo and you see a monkey throwing poop, you go, ‘That’s what monkeys do, what are you gonna do?’ But what I wish the media would do more frequently is say, ‘Bad monkey’.” – Jon Stewart

This week’s interview with the Plymouth Herald as she was campaigning in the South West of England. As the General Election of the United Kingdom runs closer. I feel it is important to show grace and tact to the local constituencies. Plymouth is a marginal seat and with the dwindling polls of the Conservative and less of a percentage between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

Therefore the coalition of chaos is getting closer, than the strengthening the Tories for the Brexit negotiations. Instead of showing class and policy as the Tories could have had a better campaign, as their manifesto was a sensation of tax-breaks for the rich and cuts on welfare. In the margin’s of error is that the Labour Party has a social-caring manifesto and where they are putting forward meaningful policies. Even if Jeremy Corbyn are seen as Marxist, but he is more consistent, than what the Prime Minister Theresa May. We can see how she lacks campaigning and being honest with the pledges. Prime Minster May are again nonsensical in her interview.

In Plymouth, Theresa May botched an interview, it is horrific how little she answered and how little she answered. As the Plymouth problems didn’t matter or if she even had been briefed about the situation. This is as if she didn’t want to mind it and thought it would be easy to answer the local press. Because with just looking into two of the four questions asked by the Plymouth Herald to Prime Minister May, she didn’t really answer with anything. It is not like the Conservative Party head honcho had any answers or thought true the implications of Brexit to the constituency of Plymouth. Take a look!

Q: “Prime Minister, welcome to Plymouth. We’re in one of the most marginal seats in the country here. Are you getting nervous, and do you see Plymouth as a ‘must win’ next week?” (…) A: “No, I’m very clear that this is a crucial election for this country” (…) “We stand at an important moment, we need to make sure we get the Brexit negotiations right, but also have a plan to take this country forward, to build a stronger, more prosperous future for Plymouth, for families here and across the whole of the United Kingdom” (…) “So I’m going out and about around the whole country, talking to people with that very clear message that they face a choice on June 8.” (Blackledge, 2017).

Q: “A lot of people in Plymouth voted for Brexit because they saw a better future ahead. How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth people better off?” (…) A: “I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK” (…) “There are opportunities when we leave the European Union. But we need to have the right government in place, the right plan to grasp those opportunities” (…) “We need to get Brexit right, just 11 days after the GE we will start those Brexit negotiations. I’m the Prime Minister, I’m the party leader with the plan for those negotiations” (…) “But it’s about more than this. it’s about building that prosperous future for families in Plymouth and around the whole of the country” (…) “I’m confident we can do that, I’ve got a plan for a stronger Britain, I’m confident we can build that stronger economy with better opportunities for young people, better opportunities for families, and I’m optimistic about that because I believe in Britain and I believe in the British people.” (Blackledge, 2017).

This here is a proof of the lacking policies and guidelines for the future with the Tories. If you believe the Brexiteers and the Tories after this one, than your blind. The blindness will be eating you and you would be walking in total uncertainty. Since PM May isn’t answer the questions. She is just bringing a word-salad instead of actually coming with wisdom of how she will deliver the promises. Like Plymouth doesn’t get any consideration or concern.

The constituency of Plymouth and the problems there are not worth her time. Instead more important to say the whole United Kingdom will be prosperous without the European Union. Even if there isn’t anything in the near future proving that the Brexit will be positive. If it will be so, it isn’t because the Tories have been prepared or had a well-figured out polices to become independent from the European Union. The Tories here is on the limb. Tories isn’t proving that they care about Plymouth and doubt that is the only constituency that May has no current plan to help. Peace.

Reference:

Blackledge, Sam – ‘The four key questions put to Theresa May that Plymouth wanted answered’ (31.05.2017) link: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/here-is-what-the-prime-minister-had-to-say-to-the-herald-this-morning/story-30363776-detail/story.html#QxRrRf1Fj11MiaRm.99

The Church of England: The General Election, June 8th 2017 (06.05.2017)

European Council (Art. 50) guidelines for Brexit negotiations (29.04.2017)

Brexit implications on the UK legislation concerning sanctions!

Her Majesty Treasury and Her Majesty Government, the Tories and their White paper on legislation concerning sanctions are interesting read, as you can see how combined the laws and the execution of the framework have been with the European Union, as well as the legality connected with the United Nations Security Council. This proves how laws and combined efforts have been the norm in Europe of late. That the United Kingdom government have complied and worked directly with Brussels and New York, to establish the information and the legal assistance to sanction state, businesses and individuals crossing into the United Kingdom.

Therefore, this White Paper from the HM Treasury says certain aspects the government have to work upon and how the kingdom have to make new laws to fix the issues. These issues has to be handled as the Brexit will certainly impact the legislation on sanctions and how the UK going to handle it. The words of the report is telling and expel the facts in a deep way, secondly the report also colorfully extend the needed for different sort of laws; that is both open-government and also making sure data get kept secret. This shows how much work the UK government have with rewriting and reforging their own legislation with the leaving of the EU. That cannot be worked out with a few phrases, but has to be build on a which paradigm and what precedence the Tories government seem fit. Just take a look!

“This consultation is about the legal powers we need to maintain sanctions as a viable instrument of foreign policy. It is not about the policy goals themselves or how we will align UK sanctions in future with those imposed by the EU or other international partners. However we recognise that sanctions require broad application to be effective and we will continue to work closely with allies and partners to this end” (HM Government, P: 5, 2017).

“The legislation will need to be in place before we leave the EU to ensure that we can preserve current UK sanctions policy, although entry into force will be timed to coincide with the date of our actual withdrawal. While the UK is a member of the EU we will continue to exercise all the rights and obligations of membership including with respect to the Common Foreign and Security Policy” (HM Government, P: 8, 2017).

“Those subject to UK sanctions will be able to challenge their listing by requesting an internal review, where this is consistent with our obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). The sanctions will remain in place while the challenge or request is being considered” (HM Government, P: 21, 2017).

“The Government will always seek to sanction an individual or entity on the basis of open-source evidence which can be disclosed to the listed person in the event of a legal challenge. However, in certain cases the Government may wish to rely on sensitive material, the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security, international relations or another public interest. In order to protect the sensitive material from disclosure but make it available to the presiding judge, a closed material procedure should be available” (HM Government, P: 22, 2017).

“Asset-freezing regimes will contain grounds for permitting otherwise prohibited activity to authorise the release or making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources to pay for:

a) the essential needs of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies b) reasonable and necessary professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services c) the fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources and d) extraordinary situations or expenses. This will continue the licensing practice that the Government currently operates. Exemptions for country sanctions regimes will be further defined within either secondary legislation or by reference to statutory” (HM Government, P: 26, 2017).

“Any new sanctions legislation would provide the Government power to obtain and share information relating to sanctions. The Government’s ability to share information will extend to Government bodies, agencies, regulators, businesses, operational partners, other public bodies and international partners. It will be similar to the ability to obtain, use, and share information under current EU legislation and will be consistent with, and subject to the safeguards in, the existing UK and international provisions regarding the sharing of information” (HM Government, P: 36, 2017).

These laws that they have to fix and make are substantial if the United Kingdom still wants to comply with the United Nations Security Council, as well as if they wish to have good functioning body with the rest of the European Union. Even though the legality and the dominion will be all United Kingdom and their sovereign powers as a state, they still need to be in coherent with the rest of the world.

This shows that the powers of the Tories and the questions left behind and the unknown hurdles of the current leadership. As this is just one sort of legislation that has to be fixed in due time and with the process of both houses. That the importance of the sovereign state make sure that their laws are complied, that their statutes can be used and that the sanctions can be put on actors that breaches the codes of the United Kingdom. Certainly, the Tories Government and Brexiteers didn’t think of the issues complied with the legality of sanctions. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Public consultation on the United Kingdom’s future legal framework for imposing and implementing sanctions’ (20.04.2017) link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/609986/Public_consultation_on_the_UK_s_future_legal_framework_for_imposing_and_implementing_sanctions__Print_pdf_version_.pdf