BK would do well to remember what happened to Philip Yeo eventually.
Btw what has happened to Vivian, or could it be that he is playing a proxy war?
He is playing smart by staying out of it because he would be clueless as to why there is a battle taking place anyway - look how quick Shan was to respond to "brilliant" BK only to go quiet once YKW obliterated BK...
BK is still at it and adamant that everyone else has lost the plot because he sees the obvious dangers for this proposed shift in strategy:
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion...rce=Facebook&xtor=CS1-10#link_time=1499126816
International law serves as shield and sword but small countries must also be self-reliant
On June 5, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Egypt separately announced that they were breaking off diplomatic relations with Qatar.
In addition, Saudi Arabia closed its land border with Qatar. The three Gulf States - Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain - and Egypt:
• gave Qatari diplomats 48 hours to leave their territories;
• Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain also gave Qatari citizens and residents two weeks to leave their territories;
• forbade Qatar from using their airspace;
• forbade Qatar's ships from visiting their ports;
• announced that Gulf Air, Egypt Air, Emirates, flydubai, Air Arabia, Saudi Arabian Airlines and Etihad Airways will suspend their flights to and from Qatar;
• and announced that Qatar would be expelled from the Saudi Arabian-led coalition in Yemen.
On June 22, the four countries issued a 13-point ultimatum to Qatar and gave it 10 days to comply.
Following mediation by Kuwait, the Qataris were subsequently given a 48-hour extension and agreed to provide their response to the demands by yesterday. The four countries will meet in Cairo tomorrow to consider the response.
CUTTING TIES AND EXPULSION OF DIPLOMATS, CITIZENS
The first legal question I wish to discuss is whether the four countries have the right under international law to break off their diplomatic relations with Qatar.
The answer is yes. A country has the sovereign right to decide whether and, if so, when and on what terms to establish diplomatic relations with another country. By the same token, a country also has the sovereign right to decide whether it wishes to break off its diplomatic relations with another country. Qatari diplomats were given 48 hours to leave the territories of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt. Qatari citizens were given 14 days to leave Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain.
Are the actions of the four states consistent with international law?
I think the expulsion of Qatari diplomats in 48 hours is probably consistent with international practice. However, the expulsion of the citizens of Qatar has raised objections from several important quarters. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, issued a statement on June 14 stating: "I am alarmed about the possible impact on many people's human rights in the wake of the decision by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain to cut diplomatic and economic ties with Qatar.
"It is becoming clear that the measures being adopted are overly broad in scope and implementation and having the potential to seriously disrupt the lives of thousands of women, children and men, simply because they belong to one of the nationalities involved in the dispute.
"Among those likely to be badly affected are couples in mixed marriages, and their children; people with jobs or businesses based in states other than that of their nationality; and students studying in another country."
He said he was also extremely troubled to hear that the UAE and Bahrain are threatening to jail and fine people who express sympathy for Qatar or opposition to their own governments' actions, "as this would appear to be a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression or opinion".
Amnesty International has also criticised Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain. Mr James Lynch, deputy director of Amnesty's Global Issues Programme, said: "These drastic measures are already having a brutal effect, splitting children from parents and husbands from wives. People from across the region - not only from Qatar, but also from the states implementing these measures - risk losing jobs and having their education disrupted."
The human rights of Qatar's citizens and the human cost of the expulsion order appear to have evoked the sympathy of the international community.
As a result, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain have relaxed the edict in respect of Qataris married to their citizens. Qatari haj and umrah pilgrims have also been exempted by Saudi Arabia.
Egypt has decided not to expel Qatari citizens or to request that Egyptians in Qatar return home. Qatar has also decided to take its case to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
QATAR AIR AND MARITIME RIGHTS
The next question is whether the action taken by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to ban Qatar Airways and other Qatar-registered aircraft from entering their airspace is a violation of Qatar's rights under international law.
On June 8, the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Qatar wrote to the president of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requesting its intervention in the dispute, in accordance with Article 84 of the Chicago Convention. Article 84 prescribes the dispute- settlement mechanism under the Chicago Convention.
Qatar alleges that UAE, Bahrain and Egypt have acted in violation of the International Air Services Transit Agreement (IASTA).
Article 1 (1) of the IASTA imposes on a contracting party the obligation to grant to all contracting parties "the following freedoms of the air in respect of scheduled international air services: (1) the privilege to fly across its territory without landing; (2) the privilege to land for non-traffic purposes".
In its defence, the UAE has referred to UN Security Council Resolution 2309, which affirms that a state has sovereignty over its airspace and that states have the responsibility to protect the security of citizens and nationals against terrorism in a manner consistent with existing obligations under international law.
Qatar accuses Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt of violating Article 9 of the Chicago Convention. Article 9 permits a contracting party, for reasons of military necessity or public safety, to prohibit the aircraft of all states from flying over certain areas of its territory. In the present case, only one state has been targeted and the requirement of "military necessity" and "public safety" has not been invoked or proven.
Qatar also accuses Bahrain of seeking to create a military buffer zone, beyond Bahrain's territorial airspace, and to prohibit Qatari aircraft from entering the said zone. According to Qatar, the so-called military buffer zone will be over the exclusive economic zone or the high seas. Qatar argues that Bahrain's action is a violation of Qatar's rights under Article 87 (1)(b) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).
The bottom line is this: The actions of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt would appear to have violated Qatar's rights under the International Air Services Transit Agreement, the Chicago Convention and Unclos.
Qatar has referred the dispute to the council of ICAO. We will have to wait and see how the council tries to settle the dispute.
Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have closed their ports to all vessels flying the Qatari flag. The UAE's Abu Dhabi Petroleum Ports Authority has expanded its ban to include "all vessels arriving from or destined to Qatar, regardless of its flags". Egypt has banned Qatari ships from its ports but they can still access the Suez Canal.
More recently, the UAE has announced that foreign-registered ships are allowed to call at UAE's ports, even if they are travelling to or from Qatar, as long as cargo of Qatari origin is not loaded or unloaded in the UAE and cargo of UAE origin is not loaded or unloaded in Qatar.
HAVE QATAR'S RIGHTS BEEN VIOLATED?
The question is whether Qatar's rights, under international law, have been violated.
Ports are treated by international law as part of the sovereign territory of the coastal state. A coastal state may deny a neighbouring state the right to use its ports. There does not appear to be any International Maritime Organisation (IMO) treaty which confers on states the right for their ships to enter the ports of other states. The conclusion is that there is nothing Qatar can do legally to challenge the ban imposed by its neighbours on Qatar's ships from entering their ports. In view of the above, IMO would be unable to help Qatar.
The world is a dangerous place for small countries. This is why, as a matter of survival, they stress the importance of the rule of law in relations among states and rules-based regional and world orders. International law can, to some extent, serve as a shield and a sword for small countries.
By hosting a major airbase of the United States, 11,000 of its military personnel and the forward headquarters of its central command, Qatar has every right to assume that the US would protect it against its neighbours.
Contrary to Doha's expectation, the leader of the superpower has expressed support for its big neighbour against Qatar. Institutions like the Defence Department and State Department took some time before lending balance to the White House position.
The lesson learnt is that, at the end of the day, a small country must develop the capacity to defend itself. It cannot depend on others to do so.
• The author is chairman of the board of governors of the Centre for International Law at National University of Singapore.
(BK had posted this article and commented as follows:
Bilahari Kausikan: Another false analogy.)
Another (doomsday) view on the ongoing rift (mere fantastical meanderings in my mind though):
The Saudi-Qatar rift has elements of world war potential
See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
The First and the Second World War were the culmination of rivalries that go as far back as over a thousand years, when Charlemagne subjugated the Saxon tribes inhabiting modern Germany, and creating the Carolingian Empire. The political successors of Franks, France, and Saxons, the latter morphing into the Holy Roman Empire, then Prussia, then Germany, would continue to fight border wars until the bloodiest of them all, World War 2, inflicted enough destruction to both to force them to give up military means for the reciprocal arrangements.
The First World War was triggered by a regional episode, the assassination of the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand, by Serb nationalists that put in motion the alliance of the German world, Austria and Prussia against the British, French and Russian one.
Just like the two world wars in Europe were triggered by a single event, so can long standing, unresolved rivalries for power and influence over the Middle East result in the mother of all wars.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have collaborated in the recent years to overthrow the Assad presidency in Syria and replace it with a Sunni Muslim leader that would allow the creation of a pipeline from Qatar to Europe, for the benefit of the Gulf countries.
The failure of the American-Saudi-Qatari coalition however re-opened old wounds. In the recent weeks, the Saudi-led bloc, including Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain has broken all ties with Qatar, accusing it of working with terrorist groups and having too close ties with Iran. Since then, having cashed in on the support of US President Trump, Saudis have given a list of 13 demands to Qatar, which the latter has no intention to comply with.1)
In the meanwhile, very much like WW1 preparations, the game of alliances has started: Qatar, having lost the protection of the Arab world, sought it elsewhere, and found in Turkey.2)
As for now the Iranian bloc, Iran itself, Iraq and Syria, is standing on the sidelines, and watching the developments.
Iranians, Turks and Arabs are the three peoples who have been contesting each other’s dominance over the Middle East for the past 1400 years, and are now moving towards the next chapter of their confrontations.
The historical background
The first Iranian-Arab conflict is as old as the history of Islam itself. By 632 AD, then Zoroastrian Persia (the Western name of Iran) had undergone a 30 year-long nonstop conflict with the other regional mammoth, the Eastern Roman Empire. When the Muslim forces under Mohammad and then the Caliphs launched their attacks, Persia, weakened additionally with an ongoing civil war for the Sassanid throne, could barely mount any resistance.
Iranians converted to Islam, but it soon became evident that their culture was significantly more sophisticated than that of their rulers. By 850 AD, Iranian dynasties broke free from the leadership of the Arab Caliph in Baghdad and went on to restore the Iranian language, costume and political institutions in what is known by historians as “Iranian intermezzo’’ They eventually ousted the Caliph from his capital.
Arab dominance over Iran lasted only two centuries, but a new player would soon arrive on the scene. From the steppes of Central Asia, broadly known as Turkestan, in the 11th century, nomad Turkish tribes under Seljuk and his successors broke into Persia and quickly subjugated it, creating the Great Seljuk Empire, which would quickly expand to include the Arabic peninsula, Mesopotamia, Syria, and would then wrestle from the Eastern Roman Empire Armenia and Anatolia, while converting to Sunni Islam.
Even the Arab Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty, who returned to Baghdad, would become a vassal of the Turks. While the ruling dynasty among Turks would switch from Seljuks to Ottomans after the Mongol invasions, the Arab world would essentially remain under Turkish rule until the end of the First World War, save for the brief period of the Ayyubids of Kurdish descent, followed by Mamelukes. Ottoman dominance can be even further exemplified by the abolition of the institution of the caliphate by Ottoman rulers.
Even after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab world has failed to unite again, divided by the Sunni-Shia schism and local dynasties.
The Persian world on the other side, just like it managed to break free from Arab rulers, would break free from the Turkish Seljuks as well, becoming once again its own master under the Khwarezmian dynasty. Very much like in the previous time, it would be short lived, due to the invasion of another nomadic people of the steppe, the Mongols; and just like in the previous times, Iranians would manage to oust foreign rulers and reorganize themselves under the Safavids. To signify their independence, Safavids adopted the Shia version of Islam, a choice that still lasts today, as a breakaway from the Sunni Arabs and Turks.
Safavids and the successive dynasties ruling Iran would remain the main opponent of the Ottoman Empire’s rule of the Middle East until the first half of the 20th century.
Back to the present
Since then, Iranians have switched from a monarchy to a theocratic republic, Turks have switched from a monarchy to a secular republic, while Arabs are still struggling to find a uniting leader: the Arab nationalist movement (Baath) under Saddam Hussein that waged war against Iran, echoing the Muslim invasion of Persia, ultimately failed. Saudis, who have quickly amassed enormous wealth thanks to oil revenues, are now ambitiously and aggressively trying to assert their dominance over their neighours. Battle lines are being drawn: Turkey and Qatar on one side, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain on another and the Shia bloc of Iran, Iraq and Syria for a three-way dance that might have been ignited by the Qatari-Saudi rift.
Over a thousand of years ethnic and religious rivalries are readying to culminate in what, thanks to technological development, could easily be the bloodiest chapter of them all.
https://gefira.org/en/2017/07/03/the-saudi-qatar-rift-has-elements-of-world-war-potential/
