In the past, Nick Clegg has unequivocally condemned the blockade of Gaza, called for the EU/Israel Association Agreement to be suspended.
Now, he’s making speeches saying he got it wrong on Israel, speaking to pro-Israeli audiences while giving Palestinian campaigners the cold shoulder (see http://www.ldfp.eu/2010/11/15/mr-clegg-the-lib-dems-and-the-small-case-of-international-law/) and is about to author a change in the Universal Jurisdiction law to protect human rights abusers including representatives of the Israeli regime from attempts to bring them to justice.
I have raised at senior level the dangers of this stance, which runs the risk of unpicking years of carefully balanced and thought-out statements on Israel/Palestine (which in my view and that of many others could have gone a lot further in criticising discrimination and flagrant breaches of international law by successive Israeli governments, which have pandered to and increasingly contain people with outrageous extremist views).
We know that the Conservatives of the major political parties have the most one-dimensional view of this conflict, and will take the side of Israel. That does not legitimise the stance the Coalition government is taking on a fundamental issue of human rights. Rather than believe the spin that the change is ‘technical’, as I have been told by senior Liberal Democrats, I think it’s right to go public on this. Call it Conservative influence in Government, call it what you want, but Universal Jurisdiction is supposed to ensure that there is no hiding place for war criminals. The change of law has been condemned by a cluster of human rights groups including Amnesty who say it “will undermine the capacity of victims of serious international crimes to hold accountable alleged perpetrators who come within the UK’s jurisdiction by making all arrest decisions in such cases subject to political considerations rather than being based on the legal merits. Suspects may therefore find a safe haven in the UK, and the already considerable barriers to bringing such suspects to justice will be heightened.
“Instead of making it more difficult to arrest with a view to prosecuting such suspects, the UK should be seeking to enhance its capacity to do so, and mooted legislative changes are a step entirely in the wrong direction.”
There is no political sense in Nick Clegg pandering to the friends of the Israeli regime. These are people who are not Liberals and who would never consider voting for a party that gives the other side the time of day. He will gain no votes. Indeed, he will lose credibility among the many people such as myself who believe that the Palestinian people are long overdue justice, not collective punishment.
Oh, and Nick? If you’re really serious about being even-handed, then maybe you could answer positively to requests to speak to Lib Dem Friends of Palestine. It’s only fair.
(For those wishing to read up on the Universal Jurisdiction issue please have a look at http://www.ldfp.eu/universal-jurisdiction/)
Here is Nick Clegg’s November speech to a lunch organised by Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, so people can watch it and draw their own conclusions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-AZ_pdhBMY
In terms of universal jurisdiction, what Nick Clegg actually said was:
“If Britain is to play its role in supporting peace talks, then we must be able to deal with the Middle East’s key players, including when they visit this country. The law on universal jurisdiction for war crimes suspects was a landmark piece of legislation of which Britain can be proud. It is right that people suspected of such crimes should be held accountable by the courts. But the framers of the legislation never intended local magistrates to be able to issue politically motivated arrest warrants of people visiting the UK without reasonable grounds for doing so.
“I am pleased that the Coalition Government is moving towards changing the law, so that universal jurisdiction remains on the statute book, but with magistrates no longer issuing arrest warrants. The issuing of such warrants should be a matter for one of central government’s senior law officers, not for local magistrates.
“This will strike the right balance between upholding Britain’s great traditions of respect for universal human rights and avoiding accusations based on poorly justified grounds against visitors to the UK.”
He is absolutely right. The law of universal jurisdiction rightly allows people visiting the UK to be arrested on suspicion of war crimes. Having been arrested, such people can only then actually be prosecuted if the Attorney General rules that there is a serious chance of a conviction.
But local magistrates can issue arrest warrants in such cases, including when there is no chance of the Attorney General agreeing to a prosecution. Political activists have therefore been using local magistrates to obtain warrants for the arrest of visiting foreign leaders as a publicity stunt, even when the activists know that there is no chance of the arrest actually leading to a prosecution. Some Israeli leaders have been unable to visit the UK as a result.
The Coalition Government is clarifying the law so that local magistrates will only be able to issue these arrest warrants if the Director of Public Prosecutions agrees that there is a serious chance of a conviction. It will still be possible for war crimes suspects (including Israelis) to be arrested and prosecuted in the UK after this clarification. Israeli leaders must be able to visit the UK if this country is to play a full role in the Middle East peace process.
I’m grateful to Matthew for putting the view of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. In the interests of factual accuracy, though, I should point out that LDFI is a tiny organisation within the Liberal Democrats, and the last time Conference debated Israel/Palestine the LDFI amendment secured fewer than a dozen hands in support.
On Universal Jurisdiction, the content of Clegg’s speech is very different to the private assurances that this is a ‘technical’ change. The proposed change is a centralising measure designed to hand back to the State the ability to have arrest warrants issued. The effect of this is to allow safe passage to those of whom there is reasonable suspicion of serious human rights abuses. And of course the human rights abusers are going to be accused of being ‘politically motivated’.
The basic issue at stake is that a Liberal Democrat-influenced Government should not be protecting those human rights abusers, whether they’re in the Government of Israel or any other country. The argument that this is central to UK involvement in the peace process simply has me in stitches. For any peace process to succeed, the terms of engagement need to be fundamentally and radically altered; in any case there seems little hope of process while the Israeli Government includes parties of the extreme Right.
In the interests of balance I’ll quote without comment a section of an email sent to me following this piece:-
“Hi Gareth, It’s great that you still have a conscience but your leadership has clearly taken the Israeli shekel and they are just patronising you. Clegg is beneath contempt. Goldstone was clear and the most despicable thing one human being can do to another is to abuse their power. Clegg is no better than a thug on the street.”
Thanks, Gareth, although you’re perhaps overlooking the 2007 Conference motion opposing the proposed academic boycott of Israel, which was passed overwhelmingly – although, strictly speaking, that motion was from a Local Party and not from LDFI.
PS My previous posting appears to be showing up as non-visible text – like it is written in a white font on a white background, and so only shows up if you highlight it?