I don't follow British politics very closely, but somehow I had managed to get a semi-favourable impression of Ann Clwyd. Not any more. This letter in the Guardian makes me sick:
Haifa Zangana (Comment, April 22) accuses the multinational forces in Iraq of using a "modern form of napalm" against the people of Falluja, "a crime that has been met with silence not just by Tony Blair but also by Ann Clwyd, his human rights envoy". In fact I raised the allegations with Foreign Office minister Elizabeth Symons, who told me in her February reply that "the reports are completely without foundation. Coalition forces have not used napalm - either during operations in Falluja, or at any other time." It's a pity Zangana ignores those Iraqis working with great courage to rebuild the country after the horrors of Saddam.There's no charitable explanation for this letter. Clwyd must know that the U.S. used a modern form of napalm in Iraq; incompetence simply can't suffice here as an explanation. It's just a lie - and a depressing one too, considering what Clwyd's job is supposed to be.
Ann Clwyd
Prime minister's special envoy on human rights in Iraq
I've never believed that offering a humanitarian justification for the war in Iraq requires anyone to lie about U.S. conduct. So why does Clwyd act as if it does?
Posted by Chris at May 3, 2005 03:41 PMWhy? Because it's illegal under international law, and admitting it means that she, and anyone connected with the governments that did it, can be prosecuted.
Posted by: Dave at May 7, 2005 07:00 PMAre you sure? I know that most countries ban it, but I don't believe that it's technically illegal under international law, and I don't think that she or anyone else could be prosecuted for it. Am I mistaken in this?
Posted by: Chris at May 8, 2005 01:11 AM