By Feroze Mithiborwala
Proof exists that Western Governments paid ransom money via Qatar to free ISIS held Hostages.
In the last month we have witnessed the brutal & cold-blooded beheadings of two journalists namely US citizens James Foley & Steven Sotloff, as well as British aid-worker David Haines. The ISIS ensured that the brutal videos were viewed across every TV channel & newspaper the world over.
Even as these very murders are being used as an instrument of propaganda by the US & British political elite to drum up support for another senseless war in the Middle East, we need to ask the questions as to whether the three unfortunate victims could have been saved. This even as Alan Hemming another British journalist being held hostage by the ISIS could be the next to be sent to his death.
The British PM David Cameron has used this tragedy to build the case in Britain to support the impending US-Nato led war on Iraq & Syria. Even as the Iraqi Government has requested foreign nations to assist in the war against the ISIS, no such appeal has yet been announced by the Syrian Government.
This would thus make any military action on Syrian soil illegal under international law & an attack on the sovereignty of a nation. The US-UK led Nato coalition have no intention of approaching the United Nations Security Council to approve the military strikes, as they are aware that both Russia & China will thwart their war plans with their veto. Last year in 2013, the British Parliament had rejected any British role in the US attack on Syria. British PM Cameron is thus is a very difficult situation once again. Both the French & the American governments have avoided a debate in their respective parliaments and senates, due to the obvious illegality of the entire venture.
As recently as the 12th of September, Mr. Philips Hammond, British Foreign Secretary said that “Britain will not be part of the airstrikes in Syria”. To which there was an immediate counter from 10 Downing Street stating that the government has “not ruled anything out”.
British PM David Cameron has taken recourse to sheer manipulation by stating that the UK Government does not need any permission from the Assad regime (Syrian Government) as “he had used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. He has waged war against his own people and therefore is illegitimate”.
On the first count, Cameron has taken recourse to sheer lies, as it has been proved beyond doubt that the “chemical weapons attack” was engineered by the Western backed rebels themselves, so as to blame the Syrian Government & pave the way for Western intervention. This plan was foiled—later, due to Russian mediation, the Syrian Government in a gesture of goodwill, agreed to destroy & handover all chemical weapons to the UN.
Cameron feigns sheer ignorance as he refuses to acknowledge the fact that the Syrian government led by President Bashar Al Assad enjoys the support of the majority of the population, a fact attested to by all independent observers. In the recently held elections on the 3rd of June, to which this writer was a witness, more than 73% of the population turned out to vote & 88% of the people chose Mr. Bashar Al Assad to be the President of Syria.
Mr. Philip Sands, Prof of International Law, University College of London states that, “David Cameron does not even have a wafer-thin legal justification to support UK taking part in airstrikes against the ISIS in Syria according to international law”. He further says that “there is no authorization from the UNSC, or apparent case of self-defense, or even a little precedent of intervention on humanitarian grounds.”
In the case of Iraq, since the Iraqi Government has requested military support in terms of air-strikes, it can yet be taken to the respective parliaments for discussion & approval. But in the case of Syria, the government has made no such request and thus it would be a breach of national sovereignty & international law.
Thus the recent cold-blooded murders of the Foley, Sotloff & Haines are being used by both Obama & Cameron to promote their war agendas.
Both the Foley & Sotloff families have gone on record stating that they were threatened by a counter-terrorism official from the National Security Council, who categorically stated that any contact or attempt to pay ransom to the hostage takers would be considered as “material support for terrorism”. Apparently, US & UK refuse to negotiate with terrorists and thus refuse to pay ransom to free their citizens. But is this true?
Consider the following :
• James Foley was executed on August 19, 2014
• Steven Sotloff on September 2, 2014
• And David Haines on September 13, 2014.
• Interestingly Theo Curtis, an American writer was released on August 24, 2014.
The first three were all held by the ISIS & executed, whilst Theo Curtis, held by the Jabhat al Nusra (Al Qaeda of Syria) was released due to the mediation undertaken by Qatar. Theo’s family stated that “they were not privy to the exact terms that were negotiated. We were repeatedly told by the representatives of the Qataris that they were mediating for Theo’s release on the basis humanitarian grounds, without payment of money”. The terms that Nusra finally agreed to were never made known to the public.
Also European hostages held in James Foley’s cell in Syria where he was being held by ISIS, also have attained their freedom. From information obtained from the former hostages, their families, negotiators & officials – upto $2.5 million was paid for each of the hostages. (Rukmini Callimachi, New York Times)
Also during this very period more than a dozen European hostages were also released by the Yemeni Al Qaeda, once again due to Qatari mediation.
In all of these cases, clearly ransom money has been exchanged for the safety of the hostages, though it has been denied officially.
In an interview, David S. Cohen U.S. Treasury undersecretary for terrorism states, “ransoms have become the main source of funding for al Qaeda-related groups in Yemen and North Africa and an important source for such groups in Syria and Iraq”. He estimated that $120 million in ransom flowed to such groups from 2004 to 2012 and that since then, Yemen’s Al Qaeda branch alone has collected at least $20 million.
“Absolutely, Western states were paying direct” in Yemen, said Alistair Burt, Britain’s state minister for the Middle East until October, speaking of his time overseeing the region. “Western states that frankly ought to have known better were covertly paying ransoms.” (Ellen Knickmeyer, Wall Street Journal, 29/06/14)
Interestingly, in May 2014, Qatar negotiated a deal involving US Soldier Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for Taliban prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay.
Thus clearly precedents exist whereby the governments of the US, UK & other European nations have all negotiated with terrorists & have paid out millions of dollars to ensure that their citizens are freed from captivity. Yet in the case of Foley, Sotloff & Haines, the governments deliberately chose not to.
Feroze Mithiborwala is International Correspondent, Medhajnews.com http://medhajnews.com/proof.html
15 September, 2014
Medhajnews.com