UK Pundit Calls British UN Resolution against Iran, Yemen ‘Politically-Motivated’

“The London-drafted resolution, which, undoubtedly, has come from the Americans, is a politically-motivated one which seeks to ensure that Saudi Arabia, a key friend and ally of the UK and US, is allowed to continue prosecuting a most horrific war against Yemeni civilians…,” Marcus Papadopoulos said in an interview with the Tasnim News Agency.

“Furthermore, the British are keen for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen to continue because this will mean that vast sums of money will continue to pour into the bank accounts of British defense companies, which are supplying the Saudis with the weapons which the Saudi military is using in Yemen against civilians,” he said.

Papadopoulos is an expert on Russia and the publisher and editor of Politics First, a non-partisan publication for the UK Parliament.  He earned his MA in Modern History and his Ph.D. in Russian history from Royal Holloway, University of London.  His comments and interviews have appeared in various news outlets, including RT, Al Jazeera, Rossiya 24, TASS and RIA Novosti.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Tasnim: As you may know, the United Nations Security Council is expected to vote Monday on a British-drafted resolution that would renew anti-Yemen sanctions and also seeks a “condemnation” of Iran for allegations of violating an arms embargo on the war-torn Arabian Peninsula state. Iran has repeatedly dismissed as “baseless” claims about arms supply to Yemen. In a Wednesday meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Iran’s permanent representative to the world body, Gholam Ali Khoshroo, warned the UNSC that its support for any unilateral measure can aggravate the situation in Yemen. Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia recently said that he opposed the draft, saying it should be about renewing the work of experts monitoring sanctions against Yemen, not condemning Iran. What do you think about the resolution and whether it would be approved?

Papadopoulos: Britain should be condemned by international humanitarian organizations across the world for the atrocious resolution, which it has put before the United Nations Security Council. The London-drafted resolution, which, undoubtedly, has come from the Americans, is a politically-motivated one which seeks to ensure that Saudi Arabia, a key friend and ally of the UK and US, is allowed to continue prosecuting a most horrific war against Yemeni civilians to ensure that Riyadh - and, ultimately, the US - is the dominant foreign power in Yemen.  Furthermore, the British are keen for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen to continue because this will mean that vast sums of money will continue to pour into the bank accounts of British defense companies, which are supplying the Saudis with the weapons which the Saudi military is using in Yemen against civilians. It is believed that Britain has sold more than six billion pounds worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia for usage in Yemen, with BAE Systems and Raytheon being the main suppliers. Once again, Britain is profiteering from war and murder; the UK economy has the blood of Yemeni civilians up to its neck.  I have long considered British Foreign Policy to be one of the most murderous and depraved in the world - and Yemen simply reinforces my conviction.   

Tasnim: The UN children’s agency has recently said the ongoing Saudi aggression against Yemen has killed or injured more than 5,000 children and left another 400,000 severely malnourished and fighting for their lives. UNICEF said nearly 2 million Yemeni children were out of school, a quarter of them since the start of the war. In the meantime, the Saudi-led war on Yemen has led to a cholera epidemic in Yemen, which is one of the worst ever recorded in the world. The epidemic is likely to surge again around March, according to media reports. What do you think about the Saudi crimes in the Arabian Peninsula country? Why does the UNSC not impose sanctions against Riyadh?

Papadopoulos: If there was any justice in this world, the Saudi establishment would be hauled before a court of law and tried for its monstrous crimes against humanity in Yemen.  It defies belief that the Saudis have been able to continue, unimpeded, with their annihilation of Yemeni civilians for three years now.  Where are the liberal and conservative politicians and journalists in Britain and in America who have bestowed on themselves the title of guardians of civilization in the world?  Why are they not castigating Saudi actions in Yemen?  Why are they not calling on their respective governments to cease selling arms to Riyadh?  And why are they not on the side of Yemeni babies and children who have been, literally speaking, torn to shreds by British and American weapons?  Those British and American politicians and journalists are abominable.

I yearn to see the day when the UNSC imposes sanctions on Saudi Arabia but, regrettably, I will have to keep on waiting.  Because all five permanent members of the UNSC have extensive dealings with the Saudis, in particular the US and the UK but also Russia, which is a grave disappointment especially when you consider that the Saudis helped to finance both Chechen wars and sent many Saudi and non-Saudi fighters to Chechnya to kill Russian soldiers and Russian and Chechen civilians.  One such despicable Saudi who committed heinous crimes in Chechnya was Ibn al-Khattab. 

Whilst countries are dependent on Saudi Arabia for their oil and/or want to make money from the Saudis, such as by selling them arms, then Riyadh will remain untouchable at the UNSC.  That is a terribly depressing reality. 

Tasnim: Some Western countries that claim to be champions of human rights are pursuing double-standard policies on Saudi Arabia's atrocities. How do you see the role of Washington and London in the Riyadh regime’s heinous crimes against Yemen?

Papadopoulos: The US and the UK are the two biggest violators of human rights in the world, followed closely by Saudi Arabia.  The case of Yemen is just one example of that - the list is endless, ranging from Vietnam to Chile to El Salvador to Cyprus to Palestine to the former Yugoslavia to Iraq to Syria to Yemen and so on and so on.  In the case of the UK, if there was a free and independent press in this country, then the British public would know the truth about Britain's behavior on the international stage and how British taxpayers' money is spent, such as on bankrolling terrorism, which includes the White Helmets in Syria.  But, alas, that will not happen because he who controls the media is able to mold public opinion.  That said, however, there may be a glimmer of hope, should Jeremy Corbyn become the next Prime Minister of the UK.  As Mr. Corbyn has said in regard to Britain's unfree press: "Change is coming."