Windrush Scandal: Home Office ‘reckless’ and ‘defensive’, leaked review finds

Simon Israel-27 Jun 2019Senior Home Affairs Correspondent

The Home Office has been accused of being reckless and of failing in their legal duty to counter racial discrimination – by a Home Office commissioned review – into the Windrush scandal.

Channel 4 News has obtained damning extracts from a draft titled ‘Windrush Lessons Learned Review’ which reveals that “the department failed to monitor, or effectively evaluate, the effectiveness and impact of compliant environment measures.”

The review adds: “This appears particularly reckless considering the significant warnings that the Department was given about their potential consequences.”

The exclusive report also reveals numerous recommendations to right the wrongful detentions and deportations of some members of the Windrush generation.

In the draft review, led by Independent Advisor Wendy Williams – set up to establish what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again – she describes the culture in the Home Office as deaf, defensive, ignoring warnings and unwilling to learn from past mistakes – and writing of a “defensive culture that results in an unwillingness to learn from past mistakes”.

She writes: “Whilst everyone I spoke to, was rightly appalled by what happened, this was often juxtaposed with a self-justification, either in the form of it was unforeseen, unforeseeable and therefore unavoidable… or a failure on the part of individuals to prove their status.”

The review into the Windrush scandal focuses on the impact of Theresa May’s immigration laws in 2014 and 2016 that brought in measures intended to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. Six years ago her message was solely aimed at the growing clamour to get tougher on immigration.

But draft extracts from the review obtained by Channel 4 News claim that the implementation was flawed because “it failed to adequately consider the past… It failed to adequately consider the impact on people… It also failed to adequately mitigate equalities issues including the potential for discrimination, particularly in housing.”

The draft review also contains numerous recommendations including the suggestion that all Home Office staff need to be educated in the country’s colonial past.

Wendy Williams writes: “The Home Office should ensure that all its existing and new staff learn about the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world including Britain’s colonial history…”

The draft review also proposes that government ministers should admit that they were wrong and provide an unqualified apology.

“Ministers/Department should admit that it was wrong and provide an unqualified apology…the sincerity of this apology will be judged by how far the Department demonstrates contrition…”

A Home Office spokesperson told Channel 4 News: “We do not comment on leaked documents.”

Boris Johnson ‘might never enter No 10’ if MPs withdraw support

Constitutional experts say new Tory leader could be blocked from becoming prime minister without a Commons majority
Boris Johnson during a Tory leadership hustings in Manchester. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

Michael Savage-Sun 30 Jun 2019 00.05 BST

Boris Johnson could be stopped from becoming prime minister even if he is elected as the new Conservative leader, two of Britain’s leading constitutional experts have said.

With Tory MPs threatening to withdraw support for the party under his stewardship, Johnson is warned that he could be prevented from ever entering Downing Street should it become clear he cannot command a majority in the House of Commons.

It is the latest sign of the parliamentary crisis that could face Johnson upon his election. It risks involving the Queen in politics and could pull Theresa May back into the Brexit impasse; as the incumbent prime minister, she will be key in recommending to the palace who should be called to form the next government.

Johnson’s legitimacy would be challenged if just a handful of Tory MPs declare that they could not support his administration, according to professors Robert Hazell and Meg Russell from the constitution unit at UCL, University of London. With May already struggling with a tiny working majority, two Tories – Dominic Grieve and Ken Clarke – have already indicated that they would not be able to support an administration that would leave the EU with no deal, which Johnson is willing to do.

The professors conclude Johnson would “not necessarily” become prime minister should he beat Jeremy Hunt and become Tory leader at the end of July. The cabinet manual, which covers changes in government, does not deal with the unusual circumstances that have been created in parliament by the Brexit dilemma.

“The key test is whether the Conservatives’ new leader is able to command the confidence of the House of Commons,” they write. “Whether the new Conservative party leader can command parliamentary confidence is clearly in some doubt given comments from Conservative MPs that they may not be able to support the new government. The government only has a majority of three, including the DUP, so only a very few rebels is enough for it to lose its majority.

“One possible scenario is that a group of Conservative MPs is so concerned about the winning candidate that they declare their withdrawal of support immediately the result of the leadership contest is known – ie, before the new PM is appointed. This would pose a serious dilemma for the Queen and those advising her, because it would not be clear that the new Conservative leader could command confidence.”

This would pose a serious dilemma for the Queen and those advising her

Professors Robert Hazell and Meg Russell

One senior Tory said it was simply a statement of reality that Johnson would struggle to form an administration. However, he predicted that Johnson would be allowed to do so at the end of July, but would be likely to face a no-confidence vote when MPs returned from summer recess. “It’s very probable that he will be able to set up an administration and the crunch in terms of his legitimacy won’t come until September,” he said.

In their analysis, Hazell and Russell conclude that the Queen could make the new Tory leader a “provisional appointment” as prime minister, conditional on him demonstrating he has the confidence of enough MPs. “Alternatively, Theresa May could remain in place and facilitate a process in parliament to demonstrate that the winning candidate – or indeed an alternative candidate – can win a confidence vote, before recommending that person to the Queen.”

It is currently unclear who an alternative candidate could be. Labour would not have the numbers to form a government, so some kind of unity-government figurehead could be an option. Many MPs on all sides now believe that the crisis will end in an autumn general election, either called by Johnson or forced upon him MPs unwilling to leave the EU with no deal..

Shoot protesters while they rest — Israel’s new rules

A protester in central Gaza during Great March of Return protests on 30 March 2019.Mahmoud KhattabAPA images

Maureen Clare Murphy - 28 June 2019

Shooting “key instigators” during unarmed protests in Gaza when they’re resting. Opening fire on teenagers attempting to make their way to pray in Jerusalem when they pose no danger.

This is the routine, unjustified and criminal use of live fire against Palestinians by Israeli occupation forces.

An Israeli military docuent states that snipers are permitted to shoot Palestinians who it determines to be “key instigators” or “key rioters” during Great March of Return protests in Gaza.

The military defines “key instigators” as individuals who “direct or order activities” during the protest, such as “tactical placement” and setting tires on fire.

“Key rioters” are defined as those whose behavior “provide the conditions for which mass breach or infiltration” into Israel from Gaza may occur.

The Israeli military document claims that snipers are permitted to “shoot a key instigator” as he “temporarily moves away from the crowd or rests before continuing his activity.” The document presents such actions as an example of “restraint” and suggests that such precautions reduce the risk of “hitting someone else.”

Israel justifies the use of deadly force against protesters by calling Great March of Return mobilizations – demonstrations in Gaza’s east and north perimeter held on a regular basis since early last year – a “mob” or “violent riot” which poses a threat to the military and its infrastructure or in some instances civilians.

It also states that the Gaza boundary “separates two parties to an armed conflict,” a contention refuted by a UN commission of inquiry which has found that the demonstrations are civilian in nature. Human rights groups say that mass protests along the boundary are a civilian matter of law enforcement governed by the framework of international human rights law.

One such human rights group, Adalah, is demanding that Israel prohibits its use of live fire against protesters.

The concept of “key instigators,” Adalah states, “is neither anchored in international law,” nor was it defined by authorities during hearings at the Israeli high court last year following petitions by rights groups challenging the military’s open-fire orders.

The court “fully adopted the Israeli military’s position” at the time, according to Adalah, ruling that the use of live fire may be permitted only when there is “immediate and imminent danger to Israeli forces or civilians.”

More than 200 Palestinians have been killed during Great March of Return protests, among them 44 children, and nearly 8,500 injured by live fire.

The independent human rights experts tapped by the UN to probe Israel’s use of force against the Great March of Return investigated all protest fatalities occurring between the launch of the demonstrations on 30 March 2018 through the end of that year.

The commission of inquiry noted only one incident on 14 May 2018 “that may have amounted to ‘direct participation in hostilities’” and another incident on 12 October that year “that may have constituted an ‘imminent threat to life or serious injury’ to Israeli security forces.”

In all other cases, the commission found, “the use of live ammunition by Israeli security forces against demonstrators was unlawful.”

Retroactive justification

Suhad Bishara, an attorney with Adalah, stated that the “key instigator” idea was “created retroactively in order to justify the shootings of people who posed no real and immediate danger to Israeli soldiers or civilians.”

She added that the military’s attempt to justify the use of live fire against unarmed demonstrators “results from a total disregard for human life.”

Israel’s disregard for Palestinian lives is not limited to Gaza and was exemplified in the recent killing of a teenage boy as he attempted to reach Jerusalem to pray at al-Aqsa mosque with his family on the last Friday of Ramadan.

During Ramadan Israel partly lifts restrictions that prevent Palestinians in the West Bank from freely accessing holy sites in Jerusalem. Even with restrictions partly lifted, Palestinians must travel through military checkpoints and males between the ages of 16 and 30 were banned from entering Jerusalem during Ramadan this year.

On 31 May, that ban caused Luai Ghaith to drop off his nephew and 15-year-old son Abdallah near Israel’s wall so that they could climb over it and meet their family members who permitted to cross through the checkpoint on the other side.

After Abdallah and his cousin climbed over barbed wire and reached a buffer path between the barbed wire and the wall, the cousin saw an Israeli Border Police officer.

“He jumped back over the [barbed] wire and shouted to Abdallah to flee. At that point, Border Police officers fired two 0.22-caliber bullets at Abdallah, one of which hit him in the chest,” according to B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.

“Abdallah managed to leap back over the concertina [wire] and run several meters away before collapsing.”

Luai Ghaith told B’Tselem that his son “was so excited to be going to pray at al-Aqsa on the last Friday of Ramadan. The Israeli police officer who shot him doesn’t know any of that.”

“No justification”

At the same location, around an hour before Abdallah was fatally wounded, Border Police officers shot and injured a 20-year-old Palestinian attempting to reach Jerusalem to pray.

“There can be no justification for this type of gunfire, with its predictably fatal consequences,” B’Tselem states. “It shows just how little the lives of Palestinians count in the eyes of both the officers in the field and the entire chain of command that allows such actions to take place.”

Neither Abdallah nor the man shot shortly before him posed any danger to the Border Police officers who fired at them, according to B’Tselem: “This is not a case of mortal danger, or in fact of any danger at all.”

No one will be held accountable for Abdallah’s death, nor will the family receive any compensation as Israel has “passed legislation conveniently barring Palestinians from any viable option of suing the state for damages.”

More than 70 Palestinians have died by Israeli fire so far this year.

“The fact that the predictable and deadly outcome of this egregious conduct is met by public indifference and that the conduct receives the full backing of all official bodies demonstrates just how little worth is accorded Palestinian lives,” according to B’Tselem.

Trump Should Scrap His Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan and Focus on Gaza

The White House’s fantasy proposal is bound to fail.

Palestinians in Gaza City protest against the U.S.-sponsored Middle East economic conference in Bahrain on June 26. MOHAMMED ABED/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

BY HADY AMR, ILAN GOLDENBERG, NATAN SACHS- JUNE 28, 2019

Over the weekend, the White House released its multibillion-dollar plan for the Palestinian economy as part of President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century,” which his administration has billed as a broader program for Middle East peace. Jared Kushner—Trump’s son-in-law, senior advisor, and point person on Israeli-Palestinian issues—spent two days in Bahrain this week at a White House-led conference trying to generate international support for this approach.

The conference faced tremendous challenges: With the United States and Iran on the brink of a potential conflict, convening in Bahrain, which hosts a major U.S. naval base, cast the event in the shadow of U.S.-Iran tensions. No Palestinian government officials attended, and nearly all Palestinian businesspeople skipped the event as well because the Trump administration has alienated them. And the Israeli government was largely absorbed with a new round of elections set for September. The event did not seem to generate much interest in Trump’s plan or bring the sides even an inch closer to anything resembling a deal.

As for the plan itself, it outlines a constructive vision for a future Palestinian state but one that is detached from today’s realities. Israel still controls the economic life of the Palestinian territories, and little progress is possible without its support, yet remarkably the plan calls on Israel to do nothing at all to help the Trump team’s vision come into being.

If the Trump administration wants to help Palestinians and Israelis, it should shelve its fantasy plan, which the Palestinian leadership has already rejected, and instead focus on something much more tangible—addressing the ongoing Gaza-Israel conflict. Not only have thousands of people lost their lives in this conflict, including 280 Palestinians and two Israelis over the past year, but for many years, 2 million people have been trapped in a terrible humanitarian situation and residents of southern Israel have lived under the constant threat of rockets. This standoff seems intractable, but progress is possible—if Washington puts its considerable clout to work.

First, the United States needs to build the right international team, and, fortunately, one is available. The country should join existing efforts by Egypt and the Office of the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, which together have negotiated with Israel, Hamas, and the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority (PA) and PLO to keep a lid on the situation in Gaza. By adding considerable U.S. leverage, this coalition could together address the short-term humanitarian and long-term political causes of the ongoing conflict and escape the senseless trap of recurring violence.
Second, the United States should work to address the dire humanitarian situation. Currently, Gaza’s unemployment rate is higher than just about any country on Earth at 52 percent, and per capita GDP is under $2,000—20 times lower than Israel’s.

Gaza’s economic solution starts with freedom of movement. No economy can function when it is cut off from the world. The United States should encourage Israel to reauthorize the entry of a few thousand Gaza residents to work in Israel—a proposal that is supported by the Israeli security establishment. This can be done safely—after all roughly 100,000 West Bank Palestinians work in Israel every day, and before the shutdown of Gaza, . Israeli intelligence services are capable of finding a few thousand people out of 2 million whom they do not consider a threat.

With 97 percent of Gaza’s drinking water unfit for human consumption, and the area facing a chronic electricity shortage, the United States and its partners can lead an effort to get more water and electricity into Gaza—purchased from Israel or Egypt. Trump should also restart funding he cut to the U.N. agency responsible for education services in Gaza for 250,000 children who would otherwise be in Hamas schools.

Third, the U.S.-Egypt-U.N. triumvirate should get the international community behind a long-term political plan for a three-way agreement between Israel, Hamas, and the PA and PLO. Past failed efforts have all focused on two separate agreements—a reconciliation between the PA and Hamas or a long-term cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. The separate tracks have repeatedly failed, in part, because without all three parties as part of the deal, one of them spoils it for the other two.

Hamas would agree to a long-term cease-fire with Israel and destruction of all tunnels into Israel in exchange for a loosening of the blockade, something both have been considering for some time. Hamas would reaffirm the PLO’s role as the leader of the Palestinian people in exchange for a say in the PLO’s decision-making process. And the PA would assume partial responsibility for governing Gaza, relieving Hamas of some of this burden in exchange for a foothold in Gaza after a decade of absence.

 

Such a deal could work for Israel, which would get the quiet its citizens seek, and could work for Hamas, which has no interest in being responsible for picking up the trash. It would be most difficult for the PA and PLO, which would fear being stuck with Gaza, responsible for its fate but sharing power with a hated rival. Israel and the international community would therefore have to incentivize the PA and PLO by offering a significant move on Israeli-Palestinian peace to signal that this is part of a broader effort that leads to a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank.

The immediate humanitarian and economic measures we recommend are possible today and would make a huge difference. The political program is far more difficult, but by laying out the terms of a three-way Hamas-Israel-PA/PLO deal now, and building an international consensus around it, the United States could create a pathway toward resolution of the Gaza-Israel bloodshed and the Gaza-West Bank split.

A major U.S. effort on Gaza that can end the ongoing violence and save lives may not be a Nobel Peace Prize-winning endeavor, but it could make a much more meaningful difference toward peace than simply putting out another U.S. plan that is already doomed to failure.

Gulf rulers embrace Israel at Kushner’s Bahrain workshop

Bahrain’s foreign minister Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa shakes hands with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid. (Twitter)


Tamara Nassar -28 June 2019

After much anticipation and few expectations, the US-sponsored conference in Bahrain’s capital Manama ended on Wednesday.

Despite the lack of official Palestinian and Israeli representation at the gathering to launch the US-backed “Peace to Prosperity” plan for Palestinians, the conference featured unprecedented manifestations of warmth between Israel and Gulf governments.

Ministers from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar attended, as well as low-level delegates from Jordan and Egypt.

US presidential adviser and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner discussed the economic component of a yet to be fully unveiled peace plan in an attempt to garner financial backing for it.

“Peace to Prosperity” was published by the White House last week.

Iran at the core

On Wednesday, US treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin was joined on stage by the finance ministers of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the host state.

It was notable that Qatar was not invited to the table despite its minister of finance Ali Sharif Al Emadi being present at the conference.

Mnuchin highlighted the countries’ joint alliance against Iran and the establishment of the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center by the US, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman in Riyadh earlier this year.

“Not only are we here talking about peace and prosperity but we are sitting in a region right now that is under threat from bad actors that are exporting terrorists around the world,” he said.

The treasury secretary expressed confidence that the US could raise the funds for the $50 billion deal – which has been described as an attempt to buy Palestinian rights for peanuts.

“I know there is a lot of money in this room,” Mnuchin said.

Mnuchin’s words echo the attitude of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman towards the Palestinian issue as a mere nuisance standing in the way of closer ties with Israel in order to confront Iran.

“Israel’s never attacked us,” and “we share a common enemy,” bin Salman reportedly told US officials in more than one meeting, Adam Entous reported for The New Yorker last year.

“We’re going to get the deal done,” bin Salman reportedly told an American visitor to Riyadh in 2017. “I’m going to deliver the Palestinians and he” – Trump – “is going to deliver the Israelis.”

Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Danon echoed the sentiment on Fox News on Tuesday, saying Israel would “absolutely” collaborate with Gulf states “against the aggression coming from Iran. It is a threat to Israel. It is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.”

LISTEN: @BenjaminHallFNC spoke with @dannydanon after the U.S. slaps new "hard hitting" sanctions on Iran #nine2noon pic.twitter.com/l3cEKvGKN0

— America's Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) 25 June 2019

Danon penned an op-ed in The New York Times on Monday calling for Palestinian “surrender” and asserting that “a national suicide of the Palestinians’ current political and cultural ethos is precisely what is needed for peace.”

Read More

The G-20 talks about ways to empower women. But only two member countries are run by women.

Leaders pose for a photo at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan. (Kim Kyung-Hoon/AFP/Getty Images)

By Siobhán O'Grady-June 29 at 2:49 PM

At this year’s Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, leaders met to discuss a wide range of economic issues, including women’s empowerment and gender gaps in the labor force.

“We must continue to prioritize women’s economic empowerment and place it at the very heart of the G-20 agenda,” said Ivanka Trump, President Trump’s daughter and senior adviser, who addressed the participants. “This is a legacy worth fighting for and a future we can be proud to leave to our children.”

But when discussing gender equality among G-20 member countries, it’s hard to ignore the obvious gender gap in the G-20 itself: The group is made up of 19 countries and the European Union, and only two of the member states are led by women.

What that shows us is that little has changed in the past decade.

Since the 2009 summit in Pittsburgh, no more than four women have represented G-20 member countries at the group’s traditional summit at any given time.

From 2011-2013, appearances from five different female leaders, then-Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, then-Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, then-Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-Korean President Park Geun-hye, brought the total to four each year.

But in 2014 and 2015, when Kirchner was unable to attend the summit, she sent a male minister in her place, and the number dropped down to three.

And as Kirchner, Gillard, Rousseff and Park transitioned out of power, each was replaced by a man.

For the past three years, the only two women representing G-20 countries at the meeting have been British Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And soon even they won’t be in attendance.

This summit will be May’s last: She is slated to step down from her role next month and all of the final candidates to replace her as leader of Britain’s Conservative Party are men.

Merkel, considered by some to be the most powerful woman in the world, has already said she will not run for reelection in 2021, paving the way for the possibility she, too, could be replaced by a man.

Other female leaders have occasionally attended the summit in guest capacities, but overall, the gathering is dominated by men.

And the optics of the unequal gender representation are particularly striking when captured in the traditional “family photo” taken at each gathering. This year’s photo featured only three women: May, Merkel and Christine Lagarde, who attends the summit in her capacity as chairwoman of the International Monetary Fund.

And the equivalent “family photo,” of world leaders’ partners in attendance this year featured only one man: May’s husband, Philip.

(Du Xiaoyi/AFP/Getty Images)

Trump: 'Nobody’ blames Saudi crown prince for Khashoggi murder

US President contradicts own intelligence agency, dismissing Mohammed bin Salman's complicity in killing

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman shakes hands with US President Donald Trump, at the G20 leaders summit in Osaka (Reuters)

By MEE and agencies- 29 June 2019

US President Donald Trump said “nobody” has blamed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, following a meeting between the two at the G20 summit in Japan.

His comments contradict both an assessment by the CIA and a recent UN expert report which both judged that the crown prince must have been aware of the operation to kill the Saudi journalist in the country’s consulate in Istanbul in October.

When asked by a reporter about whether he has discussed the killing with the crown prince during their meeting, Trump said that "nobody so far has directly pointed a finger at the future king of Saudi Arabia.”

"I'm extremely angry and unhappy about a thing like that taking place,” he said.

“But as of this moment, more than 13 people are being prosecuted and I hear the numbers are going to be going up."

He added that Saudi Arabia had been a “terrific ally” and praised MBS for making advancements in women’s rights.

EXCLUSIVE: UN head 'hid behind protocol' over Khashoggi murder, says investigator

Read More »

“They're creating millions of jobs in this country,” he said.

“They are ordering equipment, not only military equipment, but $400bn worth and even more than that over a period of time worth of different things.”

Last week the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Agnes Callamard, released a damning report that found "credible evidence" linking the crown prince to Khashoggi’s killing.

The independent rights expert, who does not speak for the United Nations but reports her findings to it, called on UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to initiate an international criminal investigation into the case.

"I don't think the world can afford to turn a blind eye or to turn the page on a killing such as that of Mr. Khashoggi," Callamard said.

Riyadh initially said it had no knowledge of Khashoggi's fate, but later blamed the murder on rogue agents, and Saudi prosecutors have absolved the crown prince of responsibility.

But Callamard's report said probes by Saudi Arabia and Turkey "failed to meet international standards regarding the investigation into unlawful deaths".

Two of those suspected of high-level involvement in the killing of Khashoggi - Saud al-Qahtani, a top aide to MBS, and the country's ex-deputy army chief, Ahmed al-Assiri - have been dismissed from their posts but are not facing prosecution in the kingdom.

The CIA also concluded in November that MBS had ordered the killing of Khashoggi.

MBS's visit to the G20 summit was heavily promoted by Saudi social media.

The foreign ministry's Twitter account hailed the "robust partnership" between the US and the kingdom:

View image on Twitter

Foreign Ministry 

✔@KSAmofaEN

A Robust Partnership #CrownPrinceAtTheG20Summit

158

11:22 PM - Jun 28, 2019

118 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The account also showed off photos of the crown prince shaking hands with numerous other world leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

British-Iranian woman jailed in Iran ends hunger strike

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, imprisoned since 2016 on sedition charges she denies, began refusing food over two weeks ago.
Ratcliffe also ended his own hunger strike outside the Iranian Embassy in London [File: Peter Nicholls/Reuters]

 29 June 2019

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman jailed in Iran since 2016 on sedition charges she denies, has ended a hunger strike aimed at pushing for her release, according to her husband.

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a 41-year-old charity worker with the Thomson Reuters Foundation, began the hunger strike more than two weeks ago, on her daughter Gabriella's fifth birthday.

Richard Ratcliffe, her husband, told BBC radio that he had spoken to his wife on Saturday and she was ending the action.

"She's decided to stop her hunger strike," he said. "She said that in fact she'd had some breakfast this morning," added Ratcliffe.

"I'm relieved because I wouldn't have wanted her to push it much longer."

 

Ratcliffe, who has leading a campaign to try to win his wife's release from prison, also ended his own hunger strike in solidarity with Zaghari-Ratcliffe outside the Iranian Embassy in London.

 

Free Nazanin@FreeNazanin

1/2 Richard got a phone call from Nazanin from Evin prison this morning - to announce that she has broken her hunger strike. She had broken her strike with banana and apple and a small bit of porridge. Richard’s strike will also end today and we will be packing down our camp.

2,033

4:17 AM - Jun 29, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

423 people are talking about this

 

Zaghari-Ratcliffe was arrested at Tehran airport in April 2016 as she headed back to Britain with her daughter after a family visit. She was sentenced to five years in jail after being convicted of plotting to overthrow Iran's clerical establishment.

Her family and the Foundation, a charity organisation that operates independently of Thomson Reuters and Reuters News, deny the charge.

Richard Ratcliffe urged the next British prime minister to make her case a priority.

"My job would be, whoever the prime minister is, to push very hard for Nazanin's case," Ratcliffe told AFP news agency.

"It is not my job to play politics between who should be prime minister or not ... but to make sure that Nazanin's case is top priority."

Boris Johnson, a former UK foreign secretary who is seen as the favourite to become Britain's prime minister when the ruling Conservative Party elects its new leader next month, attracted criticism in 2017 for appearing to jeopardise Zaghari-Ratcliffe's case when he suggested at a parliamentary hearing that she had been training journalists in Iran prior to her arrest. Johnson later apologised for his comments.

Defuse US-Iran conflict through diplomacy

28 June 2019

The Persian Gulf region is being pushed to a region-wide catastrophe with global implications. This dangerous move’s architect is the United States President Donald Trump, a man of many contradictions. His administration is a mix of hawks and doves. So he blows hot and cold. In his confusion, he appears to be pushing for both war and peace at the same time. He sometimes listens to the hawks, sometimes to the doves, but often to neither and does what he wants. He is a foreign policy enigma. With North Korea, he made headway with peace diplomacy, but allowed hawks in the administration to undermine the gains. With Iran he offers talks, while his stance is belligerent.

Statecraft and diplomacy are not his fortes. The billionaire-tycoon-turned-president tries to bring in his banal business strategies and styles into international politics and diplomacy and ends up bringing about a situation worse than what existed. The Iran dispute is a case in point.
When President Barack Obama left the White House, the so-called Iran nuclear crisis had, more or less, been a dealt-with affair. In 2015, six world powers – the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany – and Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to curtail Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In terms of the deal, some economic sanctions on Iran were lifted.
But Trump, being an avowed Obama hater, has a fetish to undo what Obama had achieved. His un-statesmanship is not totally unexpected, given his businessman hubris.

With Israel egging him on and with Saudi Arabia doing the same by dangling before him US$ 450 billion worth new contracts to US companies, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, dismissing it as a useless deal. He re-imposed sanctions on Iran, vowing to bring Teheran’s oil exports to zero. He wanted the nuclear deal renegotiated to include a ban on Iran to produce or own missiles that can threaten its neighbours. Every country has the right to arm itself with whatever conventional weapon it can produce or accrue. But it is to possess weapons of mass destruction – WMDs which include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Trump’s action was condemned by the JPOA’s other signatories. They assured Iran they would continue to honour the agreement. The European Union promised Iran that it would device a mechanism to circumvent the US sanctions. But this promise has remained largely on paper.  In a desperate bid to salvage its crumbling economy, Iran warned that it would resume stockpiling enriched uranium in an obvious departure from its JCPOA commitments – and its deadline for this was yesterday.

The latest development came amid increasing tensions in the region. In the past few weeks, oil tankers have come under attack. As to who did it, nobody knows, although the US and its allies were quick to pin the blame on Iran.
One positive aspect of the Iran-US dispute is that neither country wants an all-out war. But this does not nullify the danger of war. The trigger could come in the form of an attack of a limited nature. It almost happened when the oil tankers came under attack last week. The attacks had all the features of a false flag operation. It was akin to the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident. On August 2, 1964, the US claimed that its warships were attacked by North Vietnamese forces in the Gulf of Tonkin. The alleged incident led the US to officially enter the Vietnam War. But as to whether the attack really took place remains unverified to-date. Generating causes to enter war is part of a strategy leaders of duplicitous democracies adopt to mislead their people into believing that they are morally correct and justified in dragging the nation to war. In recent months and weeks, the US has sent aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf and additional troops.

In another serious development, a US spy drone was shot down by Iran last week, prompting President Trump to order a military response. But ten minutes after US fighter jets were put into action, Trump in a display of his bipolarity between war and peace, ordered them to call off the mission and return to the base.
Trump does not want ‘boots on the ground’ but would prefer a limited strike to show his machismo, now that he had officially launched his campaign for reelection.

It is claimed that, through an intermediary, Trump had intimated to Iran that US fighter jets would bomb a few empty places chosen by Iran.  Teheran had rejected the proposal and warned of severe consequences if any attempt was made to bomb Iran. Why should Iran agree to a proposal to prop up Trump and suffer humiliation? After all, Iran is keen on seeing Trump defeated in the 2020 election and getting the new President to return to the JCPOA.
Spurned, Trump threatened the “obliteration” of parts of Iran if it strikes US interests.
Even a limited strike, Iran has warned, would be met by a powerful response. Besides, such an attack could also prompt Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen to enter the war. They could launch attack on Israel and Saudi Arabia, triggering a major escalation in the conflict.

Iran sees Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal as a declaration of war. In an angry reaction, Iran warned, “If we can’t export our oil, nobody can,” hinting at blockading the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has the military capability to block the Strait of Hormuz, the 34 km chokepoint through which 30 percent of the world’s crude oil flows. If this happens, the world oil prices could rise to US$ 200 from the present US$ 65 or so.  Iran also has weapons which may not match US weapons or bring the US to its knees, but its weapons are advanced enough to at least frustrate US war efforts and make Trump think twice before he takes any adventurous move.

Iran is not a political novice. In its 5,000-year history, it has faced many a war and emerged stronger.
With the chances of accidental war breaking out on the increase, UN member-states, especially, the parties to the JCPOA, should persuade the US and Iran to come to a negotiated settlement. Reports yesterday said diplomats of the JCPOA’s European signatories were meeting US officials in Paris and more talks are also due today in Vienna to explore whether the deal can be salvaged through diplomacy.