MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “MI-6”

Two newly declassified notes from 1954: Proves further plans by CIA and British to overthrow the Iranian Government!

Newly declassified notes are telling a story, a very short story on how the Americans and British planned a coup in Iran. The idea was from the British who set the problem like this: “The British Foreign Office has informed us that it would be deposed to attempt to bring a coup d e’tat in Iran, replacing the Mosadeq Government by one which would be more “reliable”, it the American Government agreed to cooperate” (Department of State, 26.11.1954).

Therefore, they continue to explain their plans, as the British has informed the US Department of State, their possible hostile takeover and coup d’etat, this is if they could cooperate over a cup of coffee and biscuits, to find plans to change the government in Teheran.

Reasons for the hostile takeover was: “While the Embassy representative (Bernard Burrows) did not give details of the British reasoning, it appears that the Foreign Office has come to this conclusion because (a) British Intelligence has reported that an organization which could handle this job exists in Iran, and (b) the Foreign Office sees virtually no prospect of an oil settlement with Mosadeq and has little hope that his Government will be able to prevent a communist takeover” (Department of State, 26.11.1954). So, the problematic government was because it couldn’t settle an oil agreement and therefore, the British justified a takeover, also used the Cold-War threat, to entice the Americans. Clearly, they wanted to settle the score and make sure they got the oil they needed for a cheap price.

It continues: “Another obvious and vital consideration is the degree of assurance we can have that preparations for the move and our connection with it would not become known, and that the coup would eventually succeed. CIA believes that the project is probably feasible and that it could probably be handled in such way that British and American connection with it never be proven. However, there can never be absolute assurance in regard to a matter of this kind especially in a country like Iran. Many things could go wrong” (Department of State, 26.11.1954). So the cooperation between the US and UK was planned in way, that they hope they didn’t leave behind trace of their conspiracy to bring down the Mosadeq government. That their loyal and possible coup-makers will not spill the beans and say they we’re supported by foreign forces. Clearly, the conspirators and planners knew they we’re trying to deceive the Iranians.

The second note, which is stated on the ‘Memorandum of Conservation’ on the subject of “British Proposal to Organize a coup d’etat in Iran”, that is made on the 3rd December 1954. An important quote there was: “Mr. Nitze asked whether it would not be possible to test out the organization with which the British are in contact in Iran by undertaking a campaign against Kashani and the Trudeh without trying to displace Dr. Mosadeq. If such a campaign were successful it would give good evidence of the possibility of staging a coup d’etat to put in a new government. Mr. Burrows did not think this would be interested in an operation which did not involve the removal of Mosadeq” (Department of State, 03.12.1954). So after a week of informal talks between the British and Americans, they are discussing more clearly the possibility of an actual coup. But, the price of it has to be paid, that being removing Mosadeq totally from the throne.

The last part of the note was actually this: “It was agreed that no action would be taken at the present time but that we would keep the suggestion in mind. It was also agreed that there should be no further discussion between CIA and the British intelligence representatives on the subject until further notice” (Department of State, 03.12.1954). So this documents shows they are planning further coups in Iran, just a year after the planned one in 1953. The CIA was really ready for puppet government in the Middle East. Also, because the British wanted the oil secured, they could force another leadership in Tehran. With this history and trying to control the republic, you can understand why the Iranians doesn’t trust the United States and the United Kingdom today. 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

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: