What struck me about the Spencer landmine ‘angle’ is that even with my disinterest in her at the time, I clearly remember thinking at the time of her death, that this at least, could have been the most viable motive for a potential murder.
After noting the controversial sale of arms to Indonesia by the British Government in 1997, I had a little poke around.
However, after looking for a few of days in 1998 or 1999, I found very little in the way of ‘meat n veg’ analysis on the land mine topic. It was very much the trivial marriage/pregnancy rigmarole making the circuits, therefore I gladly gave up.
Nonetheless, since 9/11 for some reason, it seems that more people have awoken to the potential land mines issue. Nowadays, the marriage/pregnancy angle on Diana’s death easily retains the number one slot, with land mines the secondary choice for motive.
The Land Mines Case
This is unacceptable by hardened JFK research standards, yet, wholly understandable when dealing with the share majority of people embroiled in the Diana fold.
Had people interested in the Diana case not succumbed to the E Channel-like musings of the Al Fayed and Gregory media circus and focused instead on issues like land mines and the intrigue behind places like Angola and Bosnia, then there is a very good chance the case for conspiracy would be in far more credible hands today.
In saying that, the land mine issue is not a clear one. It just so happens there are a number of myths about Spencer and her land mine campaign, seldom engaged by her supporters that have compounded some tall tales and ignored potentially more serious ones.
Part thirteen of this series is very long, thus it has been necessary to cut it into three sections. Section A (this one), deals with the myths concerning Bill Clinton and Diana. Section B discusses the outright lies spouted by Jeff Steinberg of the La Rouche organisation, which has undermined some of their more verifiable findings concerning African wildlife foundations.
Section C Examines Jon King and John Beveridge, two of the most gullible people I have ever come across. They fell badly for Steinberg’s wild musings on Diana, the ludicrous Prince Michael of Albany and their star witnesses Simone Simmons.
The Bill Clinton Cowed by Spencer Myth
Journalists like John Pilger (amongst others) and film makers like Adam Curtis have been tracking and reporting on the UK’s pre-eminent role in arms exports since the seventies.
In 1980, France and the UK successfully blocked a UN resolution for a total ban on land mines (1). According to the Stockholm Institute International Peace Research yearbook of 2010, France and Britain ranked third and fourth respectively on the list of the world’s top ten arms exporters (2).
This information could make for a heavy conspiracy brew, concerning the Spencer case. Oddly, enough it is not as clear cut as that.
While true, she helped broaden knowledge of the Ottawa Treaty, and it is true that both France and the UK signed it in December of 1997. One has to think how dismal a failure had the operation to kill her been, if such a reversal had occurred.
Usually when assassinations happen there has to be some benefit, or a change of course. This clearly did not happen. One hundred and fifty six countries have now ratified the Ottawa Treaty.
A point made by Keith Allen in his movie and one echoed by a growing number of people is that President Bill Clinton, who had been pro land mine abolition, changed his mind after Spencer died.
Allen says that had she lived, she would have pushed him along. This sounds compelling, particularly given the proximity of Clinton’s backdown on the issue some 19 days after her demise.
The big problem (unless I am sorely mistaken) is to do this to Allen, Noel Botham the three Johns; Morgan, King, Beveridge and many others who support this view have twisted time and space around.
They seem to claim it was Diana Spencer herself who inspired Clinton ever onwards in his anti-land mine crusade.
Diana as Clinton’s Inspiration
Not only that after apparently meeting with the Clinton’s in June of 1997, she inspired Clinton to announce a blanket ban on land mines at the 1997 Oslo accord in September of that year.
Yet, this is sophistry of the highest order, Clinton’s anti-landmine crusade went back until about 1993, some three/four years before Spencer’s own work began. In September of 1994, Clinton had addressed the UN General Assembly about a blanket ban on anti-personnel mines (3).
There are also political realities to consider, Clinton had been embroiled with the military lobby in dispute over the issue a long time before Spencer had turned up. If Clinton had promised to support Spencer’s initiative (of which there is no solid evidence anywhere) coming from a charming chameleon like Bill, I doubt it was sincere.
For all of President Clinton’s sentiment, according to John Sweeney, his initiative never seems to have dealt seriously with other munitions that could have easily been categorized as ‘mines’, nor did it seem that Spencer was fully aware of the broader issues.
Indeed, Sweeney believes that Spencer, while giving attention to the landmine problem, was in fact something of a diversion for the arms industry.
His documentary ‘Diana: The Wrong Crusade?’ screened in August of 1998 and highlighted many problems the signers of the Treaty had. An example of which, by 2011, was the fact that the use of cluster bomb and anti-tank munitions (a very real concern back then) still have an ambiguous place in international law.
The manufacturers of these munitions still have the power to label and categorize the weapons they produce. Furthermore, the manufacturers are under no obligations at all to assist in the clearing of the minefields.
According to Sweeney, Diana’s fund raising and consciousness-expanding exploits were actually saving munitions manufacturers millions of dollars by having aid agencies clear up a good chunk of the mess they left behind. (4)
Myths in the Minefields
Diana’s depiction as a ‘loose cannon’ by Earl Howe and the criticism she received from the Conservative Party, supposedly showed her maverick-like qualities in defiance of the establishment. (5)
Yet, this is also not entirely true. Despite her encounters with the Royals, she was still the darling of politically neutral charities like AIDS and cancer, where she had met all manner of Tories at establishment fund-raisers.
When married to Charles, Spencer had seen no problems ignoring anti-nuclear protests and hanging around on nuclear powered submarines like the HMS Trafalgar. While one could argue she was more naïve at the time, later on during her land mines campaigns, she never expressed regret for being duped into promoting the British arms industry. (6)
Hence, the reaction seen in the following link at the bottom of the page show a woman more disappointed and jilted at rejection from these once friendly elites and politicos, concerning her involvement with mines rather than being fearful of them (7).
A classic example of how many Spencer conspiracy advocates lack research skill in their chosen field, is the continual misappropriation of extremely questionable sources of information and witnesses in and around Spencer’s life.
While one understands the cynicism concerning the likes of Martin Gregory or Rosa Monckton, these are ardent defenders of the Spencer death-as-accident line.
On the other hand, it seems that any fool spouting conspiracy is beyond reproach, and gains instant credibility. Two cruel cases in point is uber conspirahypocrite Jeff Steinberg of the La Rouche organization and Simone Simmons, who was Diana’s one time ‘Faith Healer’.
These people, like Al Fayed, have swanned around Spencer conspiracy circles, unopposed for an extremely long time.
I examine these dubious individuals in Princess Diana Debacle Part XIII: Section’s B and C.