Archive 2003
The UK government's attempts to appear to be independent of the US grow more pathetic. Announcing a 'decision' to install so-called 'air marshalls' on planes just before the US makes it clear that this is going to be mandatory fools no-one, except maybe Tony Blair himself in his little fantasy world. Apart from the usual American arrogance of suddenly dreaming up new rules for other nations to follow the whole idea of air marshalls is counter productive.
It falls into the age old US trap of believing that more force against whatever is considered wrong or evil will reduce that wrongness. It achieves the opposite. Arming the police in the UK - being called for again currently - will not reduce the use of guns against the police, it will increase their use. We have only to look at the relative level of killings: more than three times the rate in the US than England and Wales in 2000. Escalating the weaponry just increases the death rates.In the broader context of terrorism, Israel has not yet learned that the use of ever-increasing force does not reduce terrorism and the US is presently not learning the same lesson in Iraq. The answer is to attack the root causes of terrorism and choke off its blood supply. When the resentments and unfairnesses are reduced, the mass of people withdraw their active or tacit support of terrorists. As politicians are so fond of telling us, whilst busy prosecuting their wars, there are no military solutions, only political ones.
The frantic anti-terrorism activities: the concrete barriers, 'air marshalls', police with automatic weapons at airports etc disguise the hollowness and downright deceit of Western governments. The anti-terrorism laws are so stringent now that I cannot give examples, as I would probably be accused of encouraging terrorism, but examples are blindingly obvious to everyone. Enter into the mindset of a suicide bomber and look at the Western way of life and you will see countless ways of destroying hundreds of people in situations where there is and cannot be any security. So far, the 'forces of evil' have, presumably, chosen not to pick such targets, but let us not kid ourselves that it is because of all this increased security. Such security is primarily concentrated on public buildings and military installations, not on behalf of the ordinary people going about their daily lives. The picture that Western governments paint of fanatics who kill indescriminately is false: terrorists do indeed commit evil acts but they are not indescriminate. There is a deadly dance being enacted in front of our eyes with unspoken rules and movements. The time to really worry is if and when the rules are thrown away.
We have to acknowledge and hang on to any signs of hope these days. It can therefore be seen as hopeful that two US Federal Courts have ruled against the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and that the US Supreme Court will consider this matter next year. There is the usual whingeing from The White House, condemning the prisoners in advance - are there no laws of contempt in the US?Meanwhile the Privy Council Review Committee in the UK has recommended that the Terrorism Act should be changed with reference to foreigners held here without trial - a practice referred to negatively by Amnesty International and which creates the UK's own Guantanamo Bay.
I welcome too the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on indefinite detention and the growing number of MPs who are willing to speak out. Maybe the tide is turning towards civilised values. Maybe.
I note that Blunkett et al are still defending the indefensible: by saying yesterday that the 'terrorists' held in the UK are a danger to the UK and the world whilst also saying that they are free to go to any country that will have them, David Blunkett displays staggering illogicality. If these people are such a danger then it would be foolhardy in the extreme to release them into the world. The fact remains that these people have not been charged with anything, there is insufficient evidence for the courts and they are denied access to lawyers and even to any indication of what they are suspected of doing - or perhaps they are 'guilty' maybe just of thinking. Justice? The UK and US governments are presently kicking justice in the face.
But let us hope that 2004 brings changes, changes back towards democratic values which have suffered so much these last two years.
One or two extracts from Ariel Sharon's speech on December 18th - the 'ultimatum' speech - it can be read in full at http://www.pmo.gov.il/english/ts.exe?tsurl=0.41.7635.0.0."In the past three years, the Palestinian terrorist organizations have put us to a difficult test." - just the three years that Sharon's been in power. He unconsciously (I assume) highlights the cause.
"I would like to emphasize: the Disengagement Plan is a security measure and not a political one." Again Sharon demonstrates that his thinking is always in military terms, never in political terms.
"There will be no peace before the eradication of terror." Back to front. Terrorism will never be defeated until there is substantial peace: a peace wanted and accepted by both sides. In other words, a political solution. Only then will the terrorists be marginalised. The tragedy for Israel and the Middle East is that Israelis did not elect a politician in 2001, but a military leader who only understands one thing: how to fight. What is needed on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides are leaders who are willing to take a leap of faith - to commit to a process and work not only to progress it but to bring their people along with it. A similar process to that in Ireland, which may still unravel, but there are few in that land which are not grateful for the progress made so far.
"Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements". This is dishonest and Sharon knows it. Land is currently being expropriated to build the so-called fence which makes the Berlin wall look like a fence in a child's toy farm. Only in October this year were plans announced to build 530 new homes at Beitar Elit near Jerusalem.
One more observation. The US reaction to Sharon's speech was reported to be negative, but you may not have seen, heard or read in the general media that this criticism has since been modified out of existence. The White House is apparently "very pleased" with the speech. The Jerusalem/Washington axis is solid and remorseless.
The capture of Saddam Hussein is a time for rejoicing, but not unreserved rejoicing. He can no longer be seen as a possible leader but this does not stop him from continuing to be a focus for Iraqis who are against the invasion and occupation. The occupying forces could easily turn him into either a martyr or a symbol of their oppression - indeed there are such signs already. This is why the choice of how he is tried - as tried he must be - is crucial. I find it difficult to agree with the view that he should be tried by the Iraqis, not because they are incapable of providing justice or a fair trial. It is because there is no legal infrastructure in Iraq, no known and trusted mechanisms by which everyone can see that justice is done and seen to be done. Somehow an international court, free of outside influence, has to be established. Anything less risks more violence for a longer period and I believe that the vast majority of Iraqis do not wish that.
The collapse of the EU summit on a constitution is very regrettable, as a stable, united and strong Europe has such potential to be a force for moderation in world politics. It seems to me that the present arrangement for voting rights, whereby Germany gets 29 votes to Poland's 27, for instance,is a nonsense. Either each country has an equal say - which would be wonderful but probably not achievable at present, if ever, or Poland has to accept that, due to relative size and contribution to the EU's affairs, she does not merit 27/29ths of Germany's rights. Hard to give up what has been agreed (the UK still ridiculously clings to concessions wrung out of Europe by Margaret Thatcher - when are we going to have a grown up UK government), but cooperation is about seeing the other perspective as well as one's own. Both Poland's and Germany's refusal to give an inch is petty and serves no-one's purpose.
The proposed French ban on wearing religious symbols on state property, widely seen as an attempt to stop the Islamic custom of hijab, which takes the form of headscarf or veil for women, is a thinly veiled (forgive the pun) effort to force Islamic women into Western (French) dress and flies in the face of honouring difference and respecting religious customs.
It also flies in the face of the basic principles of French culture: liberty, equality, fraternity. It is denying the liberty of the individual to dress as s/he wishes within public decency - and whatever views non-Muslims have on the veil, it cannot be regarded as indecent. It is dishonouring equality in terms of blatant discrimination against specific minorities. It is certainly not a fraternal proposition. If France wants minorities, especially the Islamic minority, to assimilate French culture, this is counter-productive to that aim and 'Frenchness' cannot be measured in terms of forms of dress anyway. Honouring peoples' religious beliefs and customs is a mark of a civilised society. This proposal takes France backwards towards religious intolerance, hatred and conflict.
The latest pronouncement of George W Bush on Iraq - denying those countries to bid for reconstruction work in Iraq who have not contributed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq - is crude and infantile in the extreme. We know that the US Administration since George W Bush seized power is run by small people, small people who cannot think strategically or have any sort of world perspective, but this is just bizarre.
It contradicts the attempts to portray the US occupation as 'liberation'. It implies that reconstruction work is in the gift of the US: so what happened to the aim of establishing a free Iraq? Well, we know this was just window dressing and Iraq as a fiefdom of the US is further confirmed. It also implies that 'to the victor, the spoils', without consulting those who are theoretically grateful: if Iraq were truly grateful to the US, Iraqi institutions would allocate contracts liberally to the US and not to those who they saw as not helping them. It confirms that Bush is more concerned with domestic policies and being re-elected, than either world opinion, or the effects of such policies on the world - it holds the world in contempt.
The oft-stated aim of bringing democracy to Iraq is also fatally compromised. It says: you can be democratic once we have secured lucrative contracts for US companies, no doubt locking Iraq into long term commitments that any future Iraqi government could not rescind. Finally, it is morally bankrupt: it says that we will only help others if we get something in return and that only people who follow the same principles will gain. The gain is merely economic and economic gain at the expense of moral and ethical respect is hollow indeed, as the US will find in the future.The Bush Administration is avowedly Christian. There is nothing in Christ's teaching which says that I am owed here on earth for the good deeds that I perform here on earth (I am giving Bush the benefit of believing that the invasion was a good deed). The Christian message is one of love amd love asks for nothing in return. It may be that politics and Christianity and politics can co-exist (although Tony Blair also shows no sign of squaring the circle, either) but at present both Bush and Blair are professing their Christian belief and practising something else. Is this not called hypocrisy?
Tony Blair was absolutely right in being firm about Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth Conference. The world knows what Robert Mugabe in doing to Zimbabwe and to have given way to pressure would have betrayed the ordinary people of Zimbabwe and given encouragement to dictators or would be dictators elsewhere. What is much more difficult to determine is how those ordinary peopel can be helped.
I have had no time yet to read through it, but the so-called 'Geneva Accord' is to be welcomed in that it demonstrates that there are people on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who not only want peace but are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to pursue that aim. It would give world leaders pause for thought if it were possible to obtain a view from both societies i.e from all Israelis and Palestinians instead of their representatives. The referendum in Ireland certainly put a brake on the more hawkish of politicians and factions, although, alas, spoiling tactics threaten the progress there. In stark contrast to the Geneva Accord is the depressingly familiar news that Israel is to offer 98 year leases on a further 13 plots of land in the Ariel settlement on the West Bank. These leases cannot be honoured or enforced in the long term as the land does not belong to those that offer them.
Sometimes I despair when I read and hear the pronouncements of the UK government. Whether labelled Labour or New Labour, it was supposed to be about social justice, about creating a better and fairer society. Instead it is all about creating more markets, more privatisation, more competition. It subscribes to the discredited Thatcherite 'trickle down' effect: that if you allow/encourage individuals to compete and make as much money as they can, then everyone else somehow will benefit. We know this does not work and the evidence is again available that the gap between rich and poor is increasing. Moreover, we see a Labour government, after six years, still not willing to re-distribute income in an open and honest way. There is a fundamental dishonesy about this government when Gordon Brown can only pursue his aims of social justice secretly and indirectly - and therefore inadequately.There is also a more fundamental malaise. This government still subscribes to the market economy and economic growth based on material well-being. It colludes with the aspirations of the many in having a second car, an exotic holiday, the latest home entertainment system. It neglects a more fundamental purpose in striving for economic growth: that of enabling those without the basics - home, job, adequate food etc - to gain those basic needs. We can argue about how to achieve economic growth but a government which does not honestly seek to re-distrubute wealth to provide the basics for all its people is failing in one of its primary functions. Anything less than this is colluding with the law of the jungle which is the unfettered capitalist market system. A jungle in which the 'winners' shrug when they pass the 'losers'.
The debate in the UK about the introduction of tuition fees for university students betrays just how embedded are the Thatcherite notions of humanity. The emphasis on how students should pay for higher education contains the assumption that people study for their own sake, that it is a purely selfish course of action and that it therefore follows that the beneficiary should pay for the benefits. This assumption fits the capitalist market forces ideology which is so dominant and and so damaging. There used to be an earlier assumption about education in general and higher education in particular. This assumption, whilst acknowledging the actual or potential benefits to the individual, saw education as an investment that society is willing to make in order to benefit society. This investment is not solely geared to economic activity and jobs, as is the present pre-occupation. Education in the broader sense (which of course also happens through life's experiences) is vital for the maintenance and development of decent civilised societies. The imposition of significant debt enslaves rather than frees: it makes people more fearful of contributing in their own unique way for fear of losing their jobs or not progressing in their careers. Non-vocational education benefits society - and extends down the generations - far more than it benefits the individual. We need people who have received exposure to ideas and concepts, and who have gained the capacity to appraise and challenge existing concepts and to develop new ways of thinking about the world more than ever. Higher education provides a fast track to such a pool of talent, enriching that pool which naturally arises from lifelong learning.
The political talk is all about the war against terrorism and of course there is such a war. I certainly do not want to see the people who carry out bombings as in Istanbul this week prospering. Sooner or later, however, Bush and Blair need not only to think about the causes of terrorism but to talk about the causes of terrorism and to act on the causes of terrorism. There are few willing to organise or carry out such acts who can fairly be described as fanatics. The majority either have a personal grievance or are persuaded into acting by being reminded of the general wrongs done to their culture or religion. Yes. we must be resilient and ruthless as far as the hardcore are concerned but we could reduce the numbers of footsoldiers, supporters and those who turn a blind eye if we in the West addressed some of the glaring inequalities in the world. The success, in economic terms, of free market capitalism looks increasingly shallow against the effects on societies who espouse different, maybe more human/humane values, or those who were just at the wrong stage of development at the wrong time.
There was a comment about Bush's state visit in terms of 'no carriage procession' that 'we don't do carriage processions'. No, American presidents don't, not because, in this case, they don't want to - think of the PR value in the forthcoming election of pictures of Bush being driven down The Mall in an open carriage with the Queen. It's because it is too dangerous. The danger is not so much from Islamic terrorists or eco-warriors or whoever. It is the grim lesson learned domestically, the lesson learned that in the American culture of the gun, that no president is safe from his own citizens. It is sad that this is yet another American export to the rest of the world, that here in the UK gun culture is increasing. I hope we never see the day that a UK Prime Minister faces a gun rather than placards or rotten fruit.
I heard an apologist for the present US administration make mention of the use of force to bring democracy to non-democratic nations. It is an absurd notion that you can bring democracy about by force. This is the fault line that runs through successive American administrations, that by bringing down, destroying, a repressive regime, they are doing good. The destruction, at which the Americans with their overwhelming power are very good, does not serve democracy. It sends the message that only superior force is effective. In this way we see in Iraq, as elsewhere, the lessons being learned: build up your military strength, weaken the opposition by force, for in this way you will achieve power. Of course, having achieved power in this way, why should the winners then hand power over to a democratic process?
There can be no doubt that the US (and the UK perforce goes along with this, having no independent view) is 'cutting and running' in Iraq. The most likely outcome, sadly, is that without a constitution, any elected Iraqi assembly can then create its own rules, which may well not be democratic, however this term is defined. If an elected assembly so decides, how could the US argue? Worse, Iraq could degenerate into anarchy. Having invaded and occupied the country, the US and UK have the responsibility to work to an Iraqi agenda - an inclusive process of consultations - to create an Iraqi-determined form of government, which may or may not be democratic in the Western sense. If they cut and run then a crime against humanity will be committed against the Iraqi people - a crime to be added to the war crime already committed by the act of invasion
The 'state visit' of Bush to Britain is preposterous and is getting more farcical by the day. The accounts of what the Americans want(ed) in terms of security would indicate that the President is visiting a really hostile country rather than the homeland of his greatest ally. Well, the UK is a really hostile country for Bush if you remove the politicians. The majority of people in the UK appear to have opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and have not changed their minds. The advocates of the war say it is time to move on: it is indeed, but not with the two war criminals in charge of their respective countries. For war criminals they are: Iraq was not an imminent threat and, unless international law is changed, aggression against a nation that poses no imminent threat is illegal. If there were new leaders and control of the occupying forces by the UN, then the reconstruction of Iraq might proceed legally and maybe more peacefully. The present US haste to get out of Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Bush trying to hang on to power. Hopefully the American people will see through him and hopefully the British will also take their revenge on Blair. They deserve political oblivion in their own lifetimes as well as the damning verdict of history.
Have you noticed that in any debate on Iraq - at least in the UK - the pro-war advocates always challenge the anti-war advocates by saying words to the effect 'If we hadn't deposed Saddam, the Iraqi people would still be being tortured. Is that what you want?' This really is not the point. Firstly - again in the UK - regime change because of Saddam's excesses was not the reason for war - it was WMD and an imminent threat. Secondly, if regime change had been the stated reason, it would have been illegal under international law, which is why it wasn't used. So the riposte (given that WMD have not been found and there was no imminent threat) is 'So you believe it was OK to break international law by invading Iraq for regime change?' There can be a legitimate debate about this: no law can be regarded as inviolable under all circumstances, but we have to be very careful when we do break the law and be clear about the consequences for us and others.
I am not at all sure about the mechanics, the cost and the effectiveness of what is being proposed, but for once I am in agreement with David Blunkett on the issue of ID cards. In principle compulsory ID cards pose no threat to civil liberties, they merely serve to confirm to those who have a legitimate reason for knowing, in particular circumstances, that I am who I say I am. The misuse of ID cards - either by individuals or by the state - could of course pose serious threats to civil liberties. It is the practicalities that need examining, not the principle.
The Red Cross (ICRC) does vital humanitarian work around the world and I am sure that it carries it out in a professional and impartial manner. Yet, with the attacks in Baghdad and the ISRC's withdrawal from that part of Iraq, I wonder if the Red Crescent should be provided with more international support to enable it to carry out similar work in sensitive Islamic areas? The Red Cross itself is so familiar that we in the West associate it with humanitarian aid and nothing else, but it is a cross and has reminders of the Crusaders' emblems. I do not think it too fanciful to suppose that this association is made by some and adds to the anti-Western sentiments. There is also the need to provide aid - in whatever part of the world - in the form that is most acceptable. The Red Crescent may be the better organisation at present for Iraq.
The Conservative Party in the UK are all excited at the 'election' of Michael Howard as leader. What election? There is the assumption that all Conservative MPs support him, but this is just an assumption. An equally valid assumption is that Howard was the only person willing to put himself forward for the job. No-one knows what level of support he has in the Parliamentary Party or in the Party as a whole, because no-one has been asked. This will probably come back to haunt him: in bad times every single Tory MP could say 'Well, I wouldn't have supported him if there had been an election, I always had my doubts'.
George Bush is now saying that it is his vision to bring democracy to the Middle East. Firstly, what right does any nation have to seek to change the form of government in another nation? Secondly, democracy takes many forms. The original Greek deomcracy meant that each citizen voted on every issue. The current UK democracy means that the people have a limited say around every five years in the election of one person, after which all decisions are taken by MPs. As we have seen over Iraq, MPs can and do take decisions against the wishes of the majority. Someone from Mars might view the UK system as an elected oligarchy. Forgive my cynicism, but the desire on the part of the US to bring 'liberty' to other nations, especially in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, is more to do with increasing influence and power, with the obsessive wish of the US to control the supply of oil.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre needs to distinguish between the words "Jewish" and "Israel". They are not synonomous. To be anti-Jewish is indeed anti-semitic, but to suggest that an EU poll which highlights Israel as a major threat to world peace is anti-semitic is confusing the terms: it would make anti-semitic the thousands of Israelis who oppose their government's actions in Palestine. To suggest too, because some citizens of their countries have so voted, that the EU should be withdrawn from the so-called Quartet group trying to find a way to peace in the Middle East is frankly ludicrous. First of all, as we have seen over Iraq, European nations by no means follow their citizens (even if the poll reflected the majority view in Europe) and secondly, the US, another member of the Quartet, is openly and persistently pro-Israel. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, highly respected for its work, has done its cause no good at all, merely demonstrating a paranoid reaction to a perfectly logical belief: that the way in which Israel treats the citizens of the territories it occupies beyond Israel is indeed a significant threat to world peace. Israel is at the centre of a set of tensions which threaten the stability of the Middle East and thus the world. This does not make Israel wrong or 'the problem' as such, but it means that Israel, as a so-called grown up democracy, has a duty to act fairly and responsibly. Since the advent of the Sharon government Israel has acted increasingly irresponsibly and unfairly, but I suppose in criticising Ariel Sharon I am being anti-semitic. By this logic I may be accused of anti-semitism if I criticise Michael Howard in the way I criticise Tony Blair.There is the start of a new discussion on the US president's faith. Apparently he is being criticised for praying at the bedside of a soldier wounded in Iraq. What do people expect a Christian to do? The only possible criticism might be that of offending the soldier if he were not Christian. Similarly I see no problem with Bush and Blair praying together, both being committed Christians. I suspect that there would be no criticism of two Muslim heads of state praying together, indeed, with the rather stricter requirements of Islam, it would be amazing if they did not. What opens Bush and Blair to criticism is not their faith but whether they see the 'war on terrorism' as a war on Islam. In other words, whether they are as fundamentalist in their belief as the Islamic fundamentalists they criticise. It is fundamentalism - I am right and the others are wrong - that is dangerous at any level, not religious belief as such.
The Terrorism Act of 2000 was intended to give a Home Secretary powers, for 28 days, to allow police to stop and search anyone who might be suspected of being involved in terrorism, whether or not there is any demonstrable cause for such suspicion. The Act was clearly intended to be used for specific situations and for a limited period. It now turns out that London has been under such a draconian law (you could be stopped, searched and detained whilst, for instance, on your way to the cinema) continuously since February 2001, as David Blunkett has routinely renewed those powers every 28 days. This is a cynical exploitation of poor drafting. I do not believe that the British people wish there to be a law which enables the police to stop and search anyone at any time on the excuse that they might just be involved in terrorism and I believe Parliament did not so intend. It is open to abuse and any law which relies on the good sense or goodwill of the enforcers is bad law. At a time when we have seen evidence of racism in the police, it is reasonable to deduce that some police officers could use these powers to harrass anyone who appears to be of Middle Eastern origin, for example. A permanent power to stop and search terrorist suspects is perfectly reasonable within a requirement of the police to prove that they had reasonable grounds (even if subsequently found to be baseless) for such action. The Act needs amending.
It was all too predictable that David Blunkett's department tried to suppress (censor) the BBC's expose of racism in the police. This government has been obsessed with controlling the media from the start. We should be grateful for the BBC in sticking to its guns this time, although of course the journalist may still face charges. There is of course no evidence that the police is any more or any less racist than any other organisation. Tribalism (although we do not call it this in the West) runs deep in the human psyche.
There were two items recently which indicated the bias of the UK media. Reporting from the Middle East, in the wake of the killing of ten Palestinians, the BBC correspondent used the Israeli phrase 'targeted killings' and also referred to the (relatively puny) 'rocket attacks' (home made rockets) on Israel and referred to Israeli 'retribution'. The implication is that Israel is merely responding to Palestinian aggression. It ignores totally the cold-blooded murder of Palestinians by attacks from the air - causing also, inevitably, civilian deaths. It is as if, at the height of the troubles in Ireland, the BBC had reported without comment, if not favourably, the British air force killing IRA suspects by missile attacks within the Irish Republic.The other disturbing report was in the Observer newspaper - supposedly liberal - in which the view was put forward that 'coercive' methods short of physical torture are justified in extracting information from suspected terrorists. 'Coercion' included the familiar litany of hoods, nakedness, lack of sleep, food, covert administration of drugs, solitary confinement in dirty and wet conditions, no access to lawyers of course, threats against the detainee and his family, no information to anyone about where or whether the person is being held etc. How can we pretend to be defending freedom, democracy, human rights - civilisation as we define it - if we condone such inhumane and uncivilised behaviour? There is an old English saying: 'Two wrongs do not make a right'. We were and are right to criticise the practice in South America of the 'disappeared ones', but the US and maybe, for we are not told, the UK are doing just what we condemned in South America.
There is a word called perseveration, which is the continued pursuit of something to no purpose, blindly, without thought. The American Administration demonstrates this faculty in its condemnation of Yasser Arafat, in its blind pursuit and condemnation of terrorism without considering the causes. No link is made between the veto in the UN about the Israeli 'fence' and the attack on US personnel. It does not absolve the terrorists from responsibility for their actions but the time is long overdue for the US to take a long hard look at its own actions. The patience of the Arab world in going along with the fiction that the US can act as any sort of mediator in Israel/Palestine has maybe finally run out. There is a need for a genuine mediator, one without overwhelming power and one which is unbiased. The US cannot be diplomatically effective in the Middle East, it can only bully and impose its will. Who knows, a small country with a UN mandate might be more effective. The US has demonstrated too often its partiality and unmitigated support for one side.
The evil spreads. The US in Iraq have apparently been infected with the Israeli disease of collective punishment and are laying waste crops of farmers who do not provide information about those who are attacking US troops. No matter that they may not know. No matter also that the reason for the US troops to remain in Iraq is to provide security in order for the country to be rebuilt. Some security: to be threatened by the occupying force, to be regarded as guilty by reason of your nationality. Destroying crops is but one step away from the abhorrent Israeli habit of destroying houses, another step away from the even more abhorrent Israeli habit of killing anyone who happens to be in the vicinity of a 'terrorist' and one step only away from the Nazi habit in occupied territories of burning villagers in their homes and churches following a resistance attack. It is very slippery slope towards barbarism. The US is well on the way to becoming a barbarous empire, as empires tend to become. There is hope and despair intermixed: despair at the human misery yet to be inflicted and hope that the end may be becoming dimly visible.
I wrote recently about a couple, married for 60 years, never apart, having to live in separate care homes and the local authority reneging on their agreement to provide a taxi so that the husband could see his wife regularly. This story has come to a predictably sad end: the wife died alone and her husband had not been able to be with her for several days. My anger at this lack of humanity is mixed with an immense sadness for both. Needless pain. An unnecessary increase in the great loss that he has to bear. As for those responsible for the decision, whilst I understand the pressure of budgets and resources, a fundamental ethical principle of fidelity was breached: the responsibility to honour commitments to individuals even if the general provisions change. We may decide to withdraw benefit X for people who qualify, but not withdraw it from those already receiving it. See Towards a new political ethics
Let us hope and pray that both in the US and the UK the next elections will provide the narrowest of majorities for whoever gets into power. There is no democracy when the only influence the people have on government is at national elections. In the meantime all we have is an elected dictatorship, as evidenced by Tony Blair saying he had no reverse gear and promising 'consultation' whilst ruling out any consultation on measures already in the pipeline. This is not democracy, in the way it was not democracy when Tony Blair took the country to war in Iraq against the clear wishes of the majority. Let us have 'weak' government, for weak governments have to listen to the people.
Israel's attack on Syria represents a significant escalation of the Israeli 'game' (a lethal game) of an eye for an eye etc. It shows contempt for the principles of international law and is wantonly foolhardy with the lives of millions of people in the region. When will the Israeli people wake up to the fact that the present wave of terrorism on both sides started with the election of Ariel Sharon? When will the Israeli people put aside their cloak of victimhood and confront their responsibilities in the Middle East and their share in the terrible bloodshed since the 2nd World War? Yet again, Israeli actions feed terrorism.
Now that Robin Cook has apparently said that Tony Blair knew that Iraq had no WMD that could be deployed rapidly, thus effectively accusing the PM of lying, will we see the Downing Street machine hounding Cook as it hounded the BBC? I think not, yet Robin Cook is far more senior than either Andrew Gilligan or, with due respect, Dr David Kelly. So ignoring it could be seen as admitting it.
The UK government says it has given up spin but what did we hear Jack Straw saying after the interim US weapons inspector's report? That it proved Saddam Hussein was a current threat. Since when did programmes, intentions, constitute an actual here and now threat? We all know, have known for years, that Saddam Hussein would have built weapons had he been able to, but all the evidence indicates that he didn't, or destroyed them, or hid them so thoroughly that they could not be deployed quickly. WMD may eventually be found, but the US and UK governments could at least be gracious enough to acknowledge that the proof has not yet been forthcoming. The only logical conclusion, if the intelligence is believed, is that Saddam Hussein is playing a very long game, waiting to deploy his extremely well hidden WMD at the right moment - 'The return of Saddam!' I have not heard this conclusion from the US or UK administrations. Perhaps they believe this - if they did we would be the last to know.
Yesterday, at 1am, Israeli bulldozers, under cover of shelling and shameful darkness, demolished 18 houses in Rafah refugee camp in Gaza. The operation lasted until 5am. 270 people have been made homeless and they were not allowed to remove any of their belongings. Such nightime operations bring reminders of the Gestapo, the KGB, of Kristallnacht. Such cowardly and evil acts are carried out, routinely, by Western civilisation's representative in the Middle East, by America's most cherished ally, recipient of more American aid than any other country. It is indefensible, it is routine and the world looks on. It does not even get reported. We do not have to look very far to find the roots of terrorism: Israel is one of the most fervent cultivators of those roots,
There was a splendid documentary by John Pilger - Breaking the Silence - broadcast recently in the UK on US policy in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. For those people who missed it and for those who will never have the opportunity to see it e.g. Americans, here are a few interesting points which arose.William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century considers the US to be "too slow to get involved" in other nations' affairs and also rated as "ludicrous" the assertion that the US has been involved in at least 72 countries since the second World War.
The US now has 152 military bases around the world for achieving "full spectrum dominance"
In February 2001, Colin Powell said of Saddam Hussein: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours". So we are asked to believe, in the climate of sanctions, that Iraq became an "imminent threat" to her neighbours and to the US and UK in two years.
In July 2001, Condaleeza Rice said of Saddam Hussein: [we are] "able to keep arms from him, his military force, his military forces have not been rebuilt"
John Pilger interviewed Douglas Feith and John Bolton, both Under Secretarys of State for Defense. Douglas Feith appeared not to know that the US (and UK) supplied Saddam Hussein with WMD: "I don't believe that's accurate", even when John Pilger referred to the appropriate Congressional Report and named the companies involved. In the interview with Douglas Feith, whilst on the subject of civilian casualties in Iraq, the army colonel present terminated the interview, insisting that the tape be stopped - which resulted in a blank screen. Rather reminiscent of the sort of censorship which went on in the Soviet Union.
At the end of the interview with John Bolton, who also believed that Iraqi civilian casualties were "absolutely minimal", John Bolton asked of John Pilger: "Are you a Labour Party member? Are you a Communist Party member?" The old paranoia remains.
The trials of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg regarded 'unprovoked aggression' as an evil war crime. As the programme stated, there is a case against Bush and Blair in this respect which needs answering.
At the end of the programme John Pilger put forward the proposition that there are two superpowers in the world and a battle between them: the US and public opinion. We all have a responsibility to consider the evidence and decide, in general, which side we are on. Watch the programme if you can.
My quarrel is with the American and British governments. The programme also provided an example of what ordinary decent Americans think. Rita Lasar lost her brother in the second tower - he stayed to help others. She is distressed and angry at the way the US administration has explicitly used his death (Bush mentioned him by name) to justify killing civilians in Afghanistan. She has even travelled to Afghanistan to help victims. She is one of many, in the US and elsewhere, who form part of that power of public opinion. That power is potentially immense and it stems from a need and wish for decency and fairness. It is the true voice of civilisation.
One thought re the Hutton Enquiry. Don't you think it was remarkably convenient that Alastair Campbell's diary came into the public domain when it did? Anything which puts Alastair Campbell in a bad light does not matter: he's going anyway. It neatly places Tony Blair as the good guy, wanting to do the right thing (one last service for his master?) and puts Geoff Hoon as very much involved (all steamed up as much as Alastair Campbell is very much steamed up), thus destroying Hoon's credibility of not being involved. The really nice touch - which the main actors, apart from Hoon, would have really appreciated is that it was disclosed after Hoon's evidence, thus preventing him from refuting it. Oh, but I forget, this government has given up spin and media/public manipulation. We have to believe that Lord Hutton can see through the evasions that have been evident on all sides during the enquiry. It has been fascinating to see how documents have been brought to light over the period of the enquiry and it makes you wonder how many documents have quietly been lost or forgotten. Whatever revelations there have been, let us not kid ourselves that the Hutton Enquiry is an example of open government.
Thank you, the person at the BBC who mis-read Kofi Annan's speech to the UN and put it out at 7am GMT yesterday that he was considering the UN taking part in pre-emptive strikes. Kofi Annan said a few things, but not that. Two relevant extracts, perfectly consistent with what he has already said are:"Where we disagree, it seems, is on how to respond to these threats. Since this Organisation was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter. Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked, retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations. Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group. Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed. According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions. This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last fifty-eight years. My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification. But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action"
and on the review of how the UN might need to change:
"The Council needs to consider how it will deal with the possibility that individual States may use force “pre-emptively” against perceived threats. Its members may need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorisation of coercive measures to address certain types of threats – for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction. And they still need to engage in serious discussions of the best way to respond to threats of genocide or other comparable massive violations of human rights – an issue which I raised myself from this podium in 1999. Once again this year, our collective response to events of this type – in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in Liberia – has been hesitant and tardy."
So Kofi Annan is not saying the UN should join the party in carrying out pre-emptive strikes, he demonstrates his concern about this sort of action and merely alludes to "coercive measures" and the need to be quicker at responding to crises.
I for one am glad that he is confronting the issue and being cautious in terms of what the collective solution might be.
Call it Schadenfreude if you like, but I was delighted at the silence with which the collected representatives of the world received Bush's speech at the UN yesterday. It sent a more powerful message than any words or arguments. Would that it were heeded.
With the ever increasing evidence that the chances of re-election for George Bush recede daily, then we must bear in mind this real possibilty. If, when the election is imminent, his chances are really low, then do not be surprised that a crisis of such magnitude arises that he has a 'reason' to delay the election. Not long ago such a thought would have been unimaginable, but the US and UK are moving so quickly towards an authoritarian and repressive climate that we need to think the unthinkable. Both the US and the UK have leaders who have a dangerous mix: a wish to retain power, an absolute belief that they are right, the use of fear as an argument for their actions and an absolute belief that they have a responsibility to exercise their power and override the wishes of their people. Such a mix is part of the ground in which fascism flourishes. We are also part of that ground: we need to make it as unfertile as possible and make it clear that we are not prepared to be dragged in that direction.
It has not been given yet, but the BBC is putting it out that Kofi Annan is looking at the possibility of 'pre-emptive strikes' against nations. Let us wait and see what he actually says. What he said yesterday in a speech included: "Paradoxically, terrorist groups may actually be sustained when, in responding to their outrages, governments cross the line and commit outrages themselves – whether it is ethnic cleansing, the indiscriminate bombardment of cities, the torture of prisoners, targeted assassinations, or accepting the death of innocent civilians as “collateral damage”. These acts are not only illegal and unjustifiable. They may also be exploited by terrorists to gain new followers, and to generate cycles of violence in which they thrive."
This does not appear to be consistent with what the BBC is reporting. I have given my views on this elsewhere (Why the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is wrong). It will be a sad day indeed if the UN has been infected with the same virus which is weakening Washington and London.
A virus which says "I/we are right, know best and have the right, indeed responsibility to impose my rightness on others".
There was a lovely news item about UK jobs going to India, not just call centre work but financial consultancy work. People may bemoan the effect on British jobs but we have no God-given right to jobs/affluence. A step towards a greater equality of jobs/economic prosperity: this is a by-product of globalisation (or is it just the benefits of new technology?) that I can applaud.
Bearing in mind that there has to be an exceptional and overwhelming case for making legislation retrospective, one has to draw the conclusion that the Government is being remarkably petty in retrospectively barring convicted criminals from sitting in the proposed new second chamber, which will be just as unrepresentative as the current chamber. Everyone is drawing the same conclusion: that it serves to deprive Lord Archer from resuming his seat. The Government has far more important issues to be concerned with than this. On this issue alone it is deliberately turning its back on the opportunity to inject more democracy into British politics by insisting on appointing members. At the same time it wrings its hands at voter apathy. May not the two be connected? This Government has shown contempt for its own elected backbenchers (when are they going to rebel?), so why should it show anything but contempt for the voters? When it is in danger of being voted out. Then we shall see it come fawning and lickspittling up to the electorate. Hopefully, as with the Conservatives, the electorate's memory of the Labour Government's actual attitude and acts will be long enough to send them packing. Whether their replacements will be any better is doubtful.
So the US, far from criticising or condemning Israel re its attitude towards Yasser Arafat, actually vetoes a UN resolution resolution specifically demanding that Israel not deport or threaten the safety of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The resolution (the UN has not yet published the full text) also called for "the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction" but this was not enough to prevent the UK from abstaining, considering "the text of the resolution as insufficiently balanced and therefore unhelpful in implementing the Road Map". Presumably the removal of Yasser Arafat, in Israel's words "in a manner and at a time of its choosing" is not considered unhelpful to the Road Map by the UK government. Like throwing a match into a petrol tank is not unhelpful to making the petrol safe and less likely to ignite.The US explained its veto in terms of the resolution being flawed because it failed to include "a robust condemnation of acts of terrorism, an explicit condemnation of Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigade as organizations responsible for acts of terrorism, and a call for the dismantlement of an infrastructure which supports these terror operations wherever located." This reads rather like the need to recite a mantra (one-sided, naturally) a mantra moreover that is so specific and vindictive that it reminds me of my late father's remedy for a dog that is not house-trained: 'rub its nose in it until it stops'. The US is quite fond of rubbing Palestinian noses in the dirt, whilst saying nothing as the Israeli armed forces continue to murder Palestinian children with helicopter gunships.
I did not believe that my despair at and contempt for the grotesquely-biased attitude of the US/UK axis could increase, but it can and does. With that despair and contempt also comes anger that such leaders as Bush and Blair can cause and continue to perpetuate such human misery in the world, whilst protesting their Christianity and their so-called defence of civilisation. Because I live in part of that axis and have been brought up with, in theory, the same values, I also feel a deep sense of shame to be in any way associated with it.
Following the Israeli Cabinet's decision to approve the assassination of Yasser Arafat 'in principle', I have not heard the protests from Washington and London. Here is a so-called civilised state saying that it is OK to assassinate the elected leader of a body of people for which it has responsibility and the self-proclaimed guardians of so-called Western civilisation are silent. Presumably therefore, Bush and Blair would accept in principle a Palestinian assassination of Ariel Sharon, or an Iraqi assassination of Bush or Blair, as Palestine and Iraq believe those leaders are guilty of state terrorism. I think not. Israel knows precisely where Arafat is. If they believe he is guilty of fomenting terrorism, then there is a due process of law. This is one price we pay for civilisation, otherwise we are no better than the terrorists and are simply following gun law. Unfortunately, the US and Israel are doing just that. It is no surprise that they are paid back in kind, and before we get into the 'who started it' debate, Jewish settlers took Palestinian land in the late 1940's and the US and UK invaded Iraq without Iraq having already attacked either country. We may not like the way the Palestinians and Iraqis retaliate, but it is retaliation.
Colin Powell is only accurate in a narrow technical sense when he says that America only rampages (not his term, of course) around the world as liberators, not occupiers and that the US has not taken any territory. It is true that American bases around the world technically still belong to the host country: Guantanamo Bay is not technically American, a fact which is being cynically exploited by the Americans to the detriment of the wretched inmates. As we are seeing in Iraq (and probably in Afghanistan, but not much is publicised about this), American military conquest is followed by American economic subjugation: the Halliburtons follow the troops and the rest of the American economic apparatus follows the Halliburtons. The statements also about terrorists infiltrating Iraq have a really stale and hackneyed ring to them. All we have to do is substitute 'communist' for 'terrorist' and we are back to all the old Cold War rhetoric. When is America going to grow up and stop defining itself in terms of opposing a self-defined and to some extent in the case of terrorism, self-created enemy? On the subject of bases, why, in the post-Cold War world, does the US need all those bases anyway? They are not defensive: they did nothing to stop September 11th. They serve only to flaunt American power, in a vain attempt to gain obedience and respect. Obedience and respect do not co-exist and sooner or later Americans have to choose which they want from the rest of the world.
I had high hopes of Tony Blair when he took office,after the horror of the Conservatives years. There was the hope of developing a fairer society, of a man who would be honest, ethical, trustworthy. How sad then to see him in Parliament yesterday, talking of Geoff Hoon's "leadership" and the "magnificent" victory in Iraq. Everyone knows that Geoff Hoon's evidence to the Hutton Enquiry displayed anything but leadership: it was either done by his subordinates or by No 10, but it was nothing to do with him. Tony Blair is either knowingly being 'economical with the truth' or he is living in his own fantasy world. Either way he is failing to live up to our original expectations and to the standards of his office.
Tony Blair, Jack Straw, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld et al should note: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin). This message is not just for the politicians. It is for all of us. We have a right and a duty to resist the erosion of freedom in the US and UK through the counter-terrorism legislation that has been and is being enacted. If we do not, then we do not deserve liberty or safety.
Sadly it is too much to hope that there are statesmen (the term is apt as so few senior politicians are women)out there who could respond appropriately to the pathetic pleas from the US for help in Iraq. That is simply to say, 'Yes, we are willing to help Iraq to stabilise and reconstruct itself, if the whole operation were put under the control of the UN'. No seeking individual gain e.g. re contracts, or even control over personnel. The responsibility should lie where it should always have lain and remained: with the UN. The UN is there to carry out projects that are beyond the powers or scope of individual nations or 'coalitions'. The lasting cost of the Iraq disaster will be the continuing freezing out of the UN by the US in her overweening hubris. Statesmen from other nations have the opportunity to put the UN back in the centre. I fervently hope that domestic and international politics will not scupper this chance, but I am not very optimistic.
Eight year old Aya Fayal, murdered by gunshots from an Israeli settlement as she rode her bike near her home in Khan Yunis. 10 year old Sana Da'our, murdered by a missile from an Israeli helicopter gunship in Gaza city. Just two children murdered last week. Two people out of nearly 500 killed this year. Why is it that the only news we get from Palestine is either the killing of Hamas militants or suicide bombings? Are these Palestinian children not human beings? Are they not as worthy as the Israeli children murdered by suicide bombers? Yet there is a deafening silence in the Western media and silence too in Downing Street and The White House. Those being murdered have names, families: two last week were called Aya Fayal and Sana Da'our. Not statistics: two small bodies now lying in the cold earth.
The beginning of Autumn. Autumn itslf is not depressing but it is depressing to see pictures of Iraq: power shortages, lack of running water, raw sewage in the streets, aid agencies having to pull out. Saddam Hussein was awful, but the Iraqis have lost immeasurably as well as gained. The gain too is only potential: the occupying force may be relatively benign, but Iraqis still do not run their own country. It is little use the US and UK governments blaming followers of Saddam and/or foreign militants. The US and UK created the situation and are not doing the obvious things to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Some of the military power could be used to ensure hospitals are provided with essential drugs for instance. If it is argued that security is the highest priority and takes all the military resources there at present, then the occupying powers need to send more: the taxpayer will just have to cough up (with the deserved political fallout following on). The US and the UK cannot duck their responsibility: they invaded and occupied a foreign country against the wishes of the vast majority of the world's population. It was simply naive to expect that the Iraqi people would all just bow down and express their humble and grateful thanks to their 'saviours'.
A couple who have been married over 60 years and have never been apart have to live separately because the wife needs nursing care whilst the husband only needs residential care. This I can just about understand and accept, especially as it was agreed on the basis that a taxi would be provided daily so that the husband can visit his wife. However, Social Services has reneged on this agreement: the spokeswoman spouting the usual weasely words about scarce resources etc - the beancounters' perpetual refrain. The frequency of the taxi facility has not just been reduced, it has ceased. Apart from the moral obligation to honour an agreement, what a miserable attitude to two people nearing the end of their lives. No-one with an ounce of empathy would deny them regular access to each other. I am ashamed to live in such a mean-spirited country, where people are not seen as human, merely as users of resources.
Meanwhile, as the UK is occupied domestically with the resignation of Alastair Campbell and internationally with Iraq, Israel continues its vile policy of assassinating Palestinians. No mention of this on UK mainstream television that I saw, just as the fact that the bombing of the bus was not reported as retaliation for an earlier Israeli killing. State terrorism goes unremarked and certainly unpunished.
"Q1057 Mr Illsley: But you are adamant that you never throughout the whole of this went to the intelligence services and rejected a piece of evidence that they put forward, enhanced it, exaggerated it, doctored it?
Extracts from memorandum of 17/9/2002 from Alastair Campbell to John Scarlett (Chairman, Joint Intelligence Committee - responsible for the September Iraq dossier) re a draft of the dossier:
"He [Tony Blair] felt we don't do enough on human rights, and Saddam's disregard for human life is an important point. He felt there should be more made of the points in the box on page 45". [One of six points made by Tony Blair forwarded in this memorandum.]
"My detailed comments on the draft, which is much stronger"
"1. In light of the last 24 hours, I think we should make more of the point about current concealment plans."
"3. Can we say he has secured uranium from Africa."
"9. On page 16, bottom line, 'might' reads very weakly"
"11. On page 19, top line, again 'could' is weak 'capable of being used' is better."
"14. The nuclear timelines issue is difficult. I felt it worked better in the last draft Julian showed me: namely 'radiological devices' in months: nuclear bomb 1-2 years with help; 5 years with no sanctions"
Of course, Alastair Campbell would say that these are merely presentational issues and that the JIC still had 'ownership': indeed they may have rejected these suggestions (16 in all in this one memorandum). It is difficult though except by clever use of words to reconcile the 'absolutely not' answer to the Foreign Affairs Committee with the sort of detailed recommendations revealed here, with the explicit use of the Prime Minister's name in support. All sixteen points, with the exception of point six, are requesting that the dossier be strengthened.
At what point do points of presentation become political influence? At what point does a civil servant stray away from the facts when faced with such requests from his political masters? How can we have confidence that intelligence reports are not subtly (or not so subtly) altered in order to serve the purposes of the Government of the day?
I regret the loss of life in Jerusalem when a suicide bomber blew a bus up and I regret the assassination of a Hamas leader by Israel. There is a difference beyond that regret. I can understand why Palestinians resort to terrorism, having been driven from their homes and imprisoned in ever smaller concentration camps - which is a fair description of life in the West Bank and Gaza. I cannot understand, even at the strategic level, Israel's state terror: assassinations rather than following a judicial process. Israel's state apparatus clearly knows precisely where the Palestinian leaders are: there is the option of arrest. It is not only counter-productive in terms of progress to any peace process, it is wholly unacceptable for a state openly to use the tactics of terrorism. It reduces Israel to the status of a Libya.
The Americans were driven out of Vietnam. The latest violence in Iraq suggests that the same process could happen there. Back in August 2002 I suggested (Iraq - the saviour of the world?) that "Iraq, ironically, can be seen, albeit unwittingly and unwillingly, as the cause to slow or stop this further slide into a world totally dominated by the U.S." This was in the hope that war might be averted. Iraq, tragically, may still serve as a 'saviour', in the worst possible way, paying for it with Iraqi, American and British blood. One question which will remain unanswered for some time is "Will the Americans ever learn?"
One of the side effects of the Hutton Enquiry is the further light shed on the undermining of the Civil Service by this Government: the creation by Tony Blair of a group of unelected and unaccountable advisors whose advice he takes in preference to the better-staffed and hopefully better-informed Civil Service. As with his Cabinet, the Civil Service is there to do what it is told and to shut up. Not that the Civil Service is blameless: where were/are the resignations in protest at its treatment?
John Prescott follows dutifully in his master's footsteps: a reception centre/detention centre/transit camp/prison/concentration camp - take your pick - for 750 asylum seekers is to be built (on a greenfield site - what happened to your brownfield site idea, Mr Prescott?). This in spite of not only disagreement from locals but from an enquiry and the planning officials. Again this Government dishes out the message: 'We will go through the democratic process because (at present, until we have amended a few more laws) we have to, then we will do what we set out to do in the first place.'
Have you noticed the latest example of Israeli discrimination? In a chilling parallel with South Africa's Apartheid period, Israel has passed a law forbidding Palestinians married to Israeli citizens to live in Israel. They must live apart or move to the 'Occupied Territories'. The law only applies to Palestinians. It does not apply to any other group of people. Thus acts a state which our Western leaders hold up to us as a model of Western democratic civilisation.
There has been speculation recently about the need for a law to prevent people suing for injury whilst they are carrying out a criminal act. This is in relation to the possible civil action against Tony Martin by the burglar he shot and wounded. There is, unless English Law has changed considerably since I studied it, no need for further legislation. Judges have the power to determine the size of the penalty, so it is perfectly possible for a plaintiff to secure a technical victory and be awarded for example £1 in compensation and ordered to pay the costs of the hearing. We have too many unnecessary laws already.
Maybe I am being over-sensitive but the way in which the refuse collectors run to and from the lorry seems to symbolise the unfair pressure put upon employees in the quest for 'efficiency'. There is no doubt that employees can be expected to work hard, but the ability to work at a run does not seem fair. There is also the pressure that others in the team may put on one member when that person is feeling under par. The practice appears to be exploitative.
The Americans finally allowed Saddam Hussein's sons to be buried. Is it contempt, is it ignorance, is it arrogance that causes them to disregard Islamic beliefs and practice? To keep the bodies for 12 days? To meddle with dead bodies? The Americans are guilty of uncivilised behaviour on two counts: to dishonour the practices of another faith and to treat two human beings as less than human. Whatever the crimes of the two men, and I have no doubt that they were many, nothing justifies treating human beings, especially after death, as less than human. It is simply barbarism. Unfortunately it starts from the top when we read of Colin Powell (once thought of as the good guy in the Administration) referring to Saddam Hussein as trash waiting to be collected. Such are the words and actions of the country which regards itself as the custodian of civilisation.
As Ariel Sharon refuses to countenance dismantling the obscene wall within Palestinian territory we must not be fooled, in the fullness of time, to regard its inevitable demise as an Israeli 'concession'. It's an old trick: take more and more and then claim to be generous with your concessions.
A Newcastle hospital follows clinical judgements and treats people according to their needs, which has meant responding to emergencies, thus delaying some appointments for non-urgent patients on the waiting list. By doing this, it failed to meet the Government waiting list target by just .07% and will consequently not only lose a star, but its funding will be reduced. In contrast, the Bristol Eye Hospital has admitted that it has cancelled follow-up appointments in order to meet the waiting list targets for new patients. It has also admitted that some patients have not only suffered further eye loss as a result but also blindess. This is the crazy world of incessant (and costly) measurement, targetting and punishment. It would be ludicrous but for the sad fact that there are people who could see but who now cannot, all due to bureaucratic idiocy.
If we look at the behaviour of the Americans and British in Iraq, it gives the lie to their words re weapons of mass destruction. If WMD exist, the coalition forces would be running around in circles desperately trying to get hold of them before the Iraqi resistance. They would have accepted any help in this, including from the UN. It also stretches credulity that the people who allegedly are refusing to divulge the whereabouts of WMD for fear of Saddam Hussein are also refusing to divulge their whereabouts to the Iraqi resistance, or if they have done so, that deployment would not have been made. It is absolutely clear that, if WMD exist, they are not (yet) deployable. Which gives the lie to Tony Blair's '45 minute' statement and the reason for the invasion. There was no immediate threat to anyone.
Tony Blair is going around in circles so much over the weapons of mass destruction that he is beginning to achieve the impossible: making George Bush look reasonable, if not honourable and straightfoward.
Michael Shirley. The latest name on the list of people wrongly convicted of murder. He served sixteen years before being finally released on evidence that was available right from the start. He served longer than he need have done because he was refused parole as he continued to protest his innocence. When is this nonsensical and cruel rule of in denial of murder going to be scrapped?
Thomas Merton wrote a letter to Antonio Cuadra, presumably in the '60s (it can be found in his Collected Poems, New Directions, 1977, p372) which is concerned with the Cold War - USSR being Gog, USA being Magog - but it contains insights which are very relevant today. I may write about it in more detail in the future, but some snippets: "The bright weapons that sing in the atmosphere, ready to pulverise the cities of the world, are the dreams of giants without a center" - applicable to the current American administration, as is "an age in which politicians talk about peace is an age in which everybody expects war: the great men of the earth would not talk of peace so much if they did not secretly believe it possible, with one more war, to annihilate their enemies forever". There is also, from a Trappist monk, some deep awareness of the cultural and spiritual damage done by the Christian West: "they [Christian missionaries] could not recognise that the races they conquered were essentially equal to themselves and in some ways superior"
A wonderfully worded insight: "If I insist on giving you my truth, and never stop to receive your truth in return, then there can be no truth between us". How relevant this is to, amongst others, the gulf between the West and the Islamic world.
Finally, of the Holy Spirit (and I'm positive Merton did not see the Holy Spirit merely as 'Christian'): "if we cannot see him [the Holy Spirit] unexpectedly in the stranger and the alien, we will not understand him even in the Church. We must find him in our enemy, or we may lose him even in our friend".
We urgently need our world leaders to be open to these sort of insights. Read Merton, he has much to say.
It is a silly but dangerous game that Little Bully Boy Bush is playing - and Bush, in spite of being the most powerful man in the world, is a little man. Having had his Afghan War, his Iraq War, LB3 threatens North Korea, Syria and Iran in turn. Like all petty-minded bullies LB3 believes everyone will just cave in. One day, one state will not just cave in. Hopefully, before then, the 'international community', whatever that means, will have persuaded the American community that LB3 is a danger to them as well as to the rest of the world and being still, in spite of LB3, a democracy, will have rid the world of a dangerous little man by voting him out of office.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, Tony Blair is being equally silly in immediately refuting Peter Hain's vague reference to the possibility of increasing the tax rate for the much better off. Like all 'developed' nations, the UK has progessively reduced corporate taxation in fear of the multi-nationals taking their investment elsewhere. It is depressing that Tony Blair is also running scared of the so-called super executives taking their so-called expertise elsewhere. It is depressing because Blair's assumption is that money is the primary motivation for such people, that the prospect for someone on £800,000 per year of paying roughly £80,000 more tax per year (a 10% increase of the top rate) would be sufficient to drive them out of the country. That the difference between take home pay of roughly £480,000 per year and £400,000 per year is crucial. I believe Blair is wrong: many people at all levels not only work for motives other than money but they are also willing to pay reasonable taxes for good public services. If Blair is right, do we really want such mercenary people in charge of our major employers?
Why is it assumed in the media that the 'Iraqi resistance' is being carried out by people 'loyal to Saddam Hussein'? Is it not equally likely that Iraqi resistance is by people saying 'Thanks for liberating us, now get out and let us run our own country.'
No-one knows if GM foods are safe and it is likely that some forms of genetic modification will be safe and others less so. Science cannot always, or even generally, provide assurances in pilot schemes. There are potentially enormous benefits in GM foods but equally enormous risks. There are two specific areas that need to be assessed and accounted for before large-scale GM production takes place (already too late for this in the US). The first is to ensure that the current diversity of food plants is maintained so that the GM process is not irreversible. The second is that someone accepts responsibility from the outset for the risks to health which so far have not been quantified. So I would be quite happy for a GM programme to proceed if the developing companies or their governments guaranteed to maintain stocks of non-GM crops so that the process could be reversed and if the developing companies or their governments guaranteed to compensate victims of GM crops, when proved, in the future. My view is that neither companies nor governments are willing to guarantee the funds necessary to underwrite such risks, but if they are not, the programme should not continue.The GM issue is more important than for example medicine where there are risks with new drugs. These risks can be justified by the potential benefits in curing diseases which were incurable before. We could spend money on conventional agriculture and feed the world. GM is not essential to avoid mass starvation. It is an option and responsibility therefore needs to be accepted in exercising that option.
The Conservative's 'big idea' for the NHS is even worse than Labour's foundation hospital idea. A 'patient passport' would enable me to choose where to go for an operation, or top it up with more money to go privately. I have three general hospitals within about thirty miles. Precisely how can I choose, say, which hospital and which consultant is the best for my heart operation. Further, not just any heart operation, but for my triple bypass, or my mitral valve replacement. There can be no effective choice without information. The information required and the requirement to keep it up to date and accessible to patients at this level (Surgeon A at hospital X has a better record than surgeon B at hospital for bypass surgery, but the reverse is true for valve replacement) is just uneconomic. This is without taking into account just why the records are different e.g. hospital X takes on more difficult cases, is it the surgeon or the post-operative care that are the main factors etc. It is yet another example of meaningless consumerism and the provision of pseudo choices.
Beverley Hughes, Home Office Minister, has stated quite clearly that the government is not in the business of providing asylum for members of Saddam Hussein's family in connection with the possible application of two of his daughters. Apart from the basic error of ministerial interference with the due process it is a blatant example of guilt by association. There is no logic in the assumption that Saddam Hussein's family are not deserving of asylum, just because he is/was their father. If they have disqualified themselves by their actions then the due process should consider this. Otherwise we are on the slippery slope which leads to the destruction of Palestinian homes. The sins of the father should not be visited upon the children.
The G8 summit of developed nations was pre-occupied with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction - both of which are a threat to the developed nations. They had less to say about such things as water for the developing world. The developing world by and large is not threatened by weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. How sadly predictable.
So the UK Government are happy with workers' rights being defined at a European level unless this means extending them. This is a Labour Government? Ah, no, it's New Labour. Perhaps we should add one more American import into our vocabulary: as the neo-conservatives have high-jacked American policy, so the neo-conservatives of Tony Blair, Jack Straw, David Blunkett etc have high jacked the Labour movement.
"The central and most important goal of the new Government will be mass immigration to Israel. Aliyah is the lifeblood of Zionism, it is the engine which drives the economy. We must open up new horizons in this field , and can achieve this objective.We will work towards strengthening the pioneering endeavor of settling the entire country. Jerusalem, the united and undivided capital of Israel will remain a focus, and we will work to expand the city, develop it and emphasize its centrality in the lives of all Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora."
Words spoken by Ariel Sharon to the Knesset, February 17th 2003. What do you think he means by "the entire country"? What do you think of his total claim to Jerusalem? What chance do you think the Road Map has, particularly when, in the same speech, he refers to the "groundless demand of the 'Right to Return', the sole purpose of which is to allow the entrance of masses of Palestinians into the Israel"? Jews can, indeed have the right to 'return' to Israel, even if it was 3,000 years' since their ancestors were there, whilst Palestinians who were born in what is now Israel have no right to return.
The narrow approval of the Road Map by the Israeli Cabinet contains fourteen reservations/conditions, including refusal of the 'right to return' for Palestinians. How hopeful are you that Israel is serious about peace?
Do you think that the Middle East Road Map has any chance of success? If you do, then just read what one member of Ariel Sharon's Government said this month. In an interview, Benny Elon, Tourism Minister, was talking in these terms this month. " the unpleasant fact is that the largest ghetto in the world is right here. We are surrounded by hundreds of millions of enemies, and we have to deal with this cleverly - and not by giving them land, as if that's what they're missing..."
" The formation of a Palestinian state on this side of the Jordan River will eternalize terrorism forever...Jordan must be the Palestinian state"
"So [in Sharon's oft-quoted words from late 1998], let everyone get a move on and take more hilltops, take more land. Whatever we take - will be ours, and whatever we don't take, will be their [the Arabs']."
In case you think I'm misquoting, just read it for yourself at http://www.freeman.org/m_online/may03/elon.htm
If my link doesn't work (they don't always) just type in Benny Elon into Google and it's right at the top of the list.
Still hopeful?
In connection with the arrest of Asif Mohammed Hanif's family members on charges of failing to report planned terrorist activities it is salutary to note that, if those family members were living in the West Bank or Gaza, Israeli forces would have immediately demolished their houses, whether or not the family members were still inside. These demolitions are reminiscent of the collective punishment meted out by Nazi Germany on French homes and people following attacks by the French Resistance. Another sad parallel between present Israel and Nazi Germany.
The US, in presenting the draft UN resolution on Iraq, which effectively gives the 'coalition' an indefinite time to run Iraq, is embarking on an experiment. The lessons of an early transfer of power in Afghanistan have been learned and Iraq is even more strategic than Afghanistan. The experiment is this: can we provide ourselves with enough time in order to initiate and consolidate the Americanization of Iraq? If we can do this in such a strategic Middle Eastern country we can do it anywhere. Iraq provides a crucial step in the relentless pursuit of American hegemony - the polite way of saying world domination.
Foundation hospitals. The whole concept is flawed because it is based on providing consumer choice. Choice is assumed to be always desirable, but I do not want for example to choose my gas or electricity supplier. I simply want a reliable service at a reasonable price, not the unnecessary complication of making a choice. Similarly I simply want to be assured that my local hospital is competently staffed and equipped to the national standard. I do not want the effort and quite frankly the responsibility to choose a consultant. I do not have the information to make that choice and exercise that responsibility and money spent in providing that information would be better spent on the service itself. The argument runs that competition is the most effective way of reducing costs and improving standards. My answer, as argued elsewhere, is that there is a difference between basic services and non-essential consumer products. I want to choose a car, a stereo etc and competition is appropriate in these areas. There is a limit to the appropriateness of competition as a mechanism to facilitate efficiency. If there were no limit we woould have several parliaments, several monarchs, several armies. It is ironic too that private companies merge to create 'economies of scale' amongst which are duplicated functions such as Sales, Human Resources etc. So reducing competition can create greater efficiency. Clearly the mantra 'competition and choice are good' is too simplistic.
The media has been full of the two British suicide bombers who killed three Israelis this week. The coverage has not been so prominent on the killing of James Miller, a British cameraman, by Israeli tank fire in Gaza on May 2nd. This week was an average sort of week for Israeli killings of Palestinians: nineteen dead, including four children. This week also Israel will have received fifty seven million dollars in aid from the US. Fifty seven million dollars a week. The US gives Israel three billion dollars a year, has given ninety seven billion dollars to Israel since Israel was established. There is a deafening silence on this issue. Oh, the US does give aid to the Palestinians: around one hundred million dollars a year.
We all thought that when Bush used the word 'crusade' after September 11th he was referring to Christianity vs Islam, but it was not a slip of the tongue and neither was he referring to the religious divide. What has become clear is that America is indeed on a crusade: to convert the countries of the Middle East, not to Christianity but to follow a copy of the American form of government. The American form of government is generally called a democracy. Well, forgetting the small matter of Florida for the moment, American democracy is subverted by money. If you have access to money you can pour out a stream of propaganda in your favour and persuade quite a few people to vote for you. If you have access to money you can buy influence - this not only subverts the democratic process during an election campaign, it also sets up the inevitable expectation of payback. In crude terms 'I helped put you there, now I want something for my money'. The American system is fine in principle but compromised in practice. Here in the UK we should be encouraging the on-off debate about limiting election expenses and the state paying for those limited funds, otherwise we will drift inexorably down the flawed American path.
Richard Perle on BBC's Newsnight made the astonishing statement that 'Democracies don't start wars' - part of the argument for converting Saudi Arabia to a democracy. Like it or not, Nazi Germany was a democracy when Hitler started his quest for a 1,000 year Reich. The UK, France and Israel were democracies when they attacked Egypt following the nationalisation of the Suez canal. The US started the Vietnam war: there was no Vietnamese attack. Afghanistan may have harboured terrorists but it did not attack the US, the US attacked Afghanistan. There is still no evidence that Iraq posed a credible threat to anyone but the US still attacked Iraq by force. Democratic government worldwide - which seems to be the American strategy - will not neatly lead to world peace.
The casual way in which the American administration shrugs off criticism is noted: the detention of children at Guantanamo Bay; the low priority given to protecting the ancient treasures in Baghdad; the refusal to allow humanitarian flights into Iraq; the allocation of contracts to US companies; the exclusion of UN involvement in any way, including independent weapons inspection. All this underlines the fundamental world view of Bush et al: it's our world and we will do as we please with it. Wake up, Tony Blair. The American Empire exists. You have a choice: continue to be an American colonial governor or start representing the UK, go back to being a Prime Minister of the UK, stand up for your people.
If it is true that Blair and much of his Cabinet would have resigned if the pre-war vote had gone against them, then the Labour and Conservative MPs who supported the Government have a heavy responsibility to bear. This responsibility not only includes the human cost of the war, the weakening of the rule of international law and the UN. It also includes, by not saying to No to the US, collaborating with US imperialistic ambitions, of acting like an obedient colony. It includes too the responsibility for colluding with the underlying axis of evil - America and Israel - which not only created and maintains a totally unnecessary confrontation with the Arab world, but also carries out gross violations of human rights in Palestine: roads for Jews only; bulldozing of homes, sometimes with their occupiers still inside; casual appropriation of more land; even more casual snuffing out of thousands of innocent - often children's - lives; the treatment of a whole race of human beings as if they are inferior. No UK MP can evade responsibility for Palestine: the land was administered under a British mandate when Jewish terrorists started to appropriate it for Jews only (and continue to do so). Britain promised non-Jewish Palestinians their own homeland. This country has reneged on that promise for over fifty years. The British Parliament needs to stand up to the American/Israeli lobby and do everything possible to achieve a fair deal for the people of Gaza and the West Bank. We owe them, rather more than we owed Black South Africans under apartheid and on the same scale as we owed the victims of the slave trade.
Geoff Hoon (on BBC's Question Time) betrayed the coalition's attitude to Iraq in referring to "allowing" them to create their own form of government. What arrogance. What right has any nation to consider it is in a position to allow another nation to manage its own affairs. Needless to say, the audience picked up on this. There were also, quite rightly, views from the audience to the effect that the West has no right whatsoever to impose or even expect Western-style democracy in other areas of the world. Certainly the UK 'democracy' is being run at present on the basis that 'You voted me in, so I can do as I choose for the next five years', including passing legislation that only a few years ago would have been regarded as repressive. Democracy is not the main question. Creating and maintaining a civilised society are issues that at present the West is neglecting, to the peril of all.
So the attack on Iraq was nothing to do with oil and now we hear of plans to run an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel. Will a newly independent and democratic Iraq have any say in this? As with the the crass issue of playing cards with the "most wanted" list and the term "road map", the US seems unaware of how insensitive and insulting its actions and statements are.
Having been away and unaware of world events, it is depressing to see the same attitudes prevailing. Yet there is hope that Iraq may yet prove to be a turning point. Genuine popular opposition to the US occupation and the inability so far to find weapons of mass destruction may just slow down US imperialistic ambitions. Who knows, Bush and Blair may just find themselves having to fend off accusations of being war criminals if the attack on Iraq does indeed turn out to have been illegal under international law. Meanwhile it is depressing but predictable that the US can fly in its chosen Iraqi 'leader' whilst turning away humanitarian flights.
It would be quite preposterous to suggest that all US troops are Republicans or all UK forces support Tony Blair. So why are all Iraqi forces portrayed as Saddam hardliners? They are fighting for their country. The argument about having a gun at their heads is equally specious. The UK, like most countries, has a long record of shooting deserters.
Colin Powell semms to have become a fully-paid up member of the right wing gang in Washington with his threats against Syria and Iran. It really is the language of the schoolground to talk of being for or against us. Powell is surely intelligent enough to distinguish between being pro your Arab neighbour and being pro Saddam Hussein. His trip out of Washington into the real world comes not a day too soon.
There is some comment about re-establishing the world order: dialogue between the various factions in Europe and between Europe and the US. Europe certainly needs to heal its wounds but I do not believe any immediate diplomatic agreement with the US is worthwhile at present. The US, unfortunately, needs to be told "No" many times by the rest of the world and be seen to be isolated often enough before any multilateral agreements can be made to stick. Tony Blair did the world a great disservice, in his hubris, of believing he could sup with Bush and make any difference to US policy. Changes in US policy have to come from within and I believe they will only happen when the US has been sufficiently chastened: by foreign policy disasters and domestic economic meltdown. It appears that the US is preparing to run Iraq without UN authority or manipulate the UN to its own ends: even Colin Powell was using the 'dominate' word. The UN needs to exert its authority as the supreme power in the world. The supreme power must not be the US and the US, if it had any sense, would not seek such a role. The only legitimate way to run Iraq on a temporary basis after the war is by the UN having full control. The US and others should put their resources (of all kinds) at the disposal of the UN. We all know that this US Administration has no intention of serving the UN: it is too arrogant and too full of its belief that it holds the monopoly of truth.
Another example of hypocrisy. Whilst there are complaints that Iraq is parading POWs in front of the television, in breach of the Geneva Convention, the UK media is showing the same pictures, thereby compounding the fault and distress to families. With modern technology there is no excuse. If it was deemed to be in the public interest to show evidence of what the Iraqis are doing, the faces and any other personal details could have been obscured. It is done for instance to obscure the number plate of the Prime Minister's car, even when being driven away at high speed.
So the 'war of liberation' of Iraq is turning into something else, if the raising of the American flag in captured Umm Qasr is any benchmark. Will the American flag be flown from public buildings in Iraq during the 'military government' of Iraq?
We are told that the war with Iraq is a part of a struggle to defend and maintain Western civilisations' standards. A young American woman, Rachel Corrie, wearing an orange fluorescent jacket and using a megaphone, is run over, not once but three times and killed by an Israeli buldozer. The Israeli Defence Force says it was a "regrettable accident" and blames her:"We are dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger". Megaphones must truly be terrible weapons. When the Palestinians tried to hold a memorial service, they were sprayed with tear gas from tanks, shots were fired and, most ghoulishly, the bulldozer appeared again. Israel is regularly lauded as a bulwark of Western democracy in the Middle East. Just whose civilised standards are we supposed to be fighting for?
Thoughts and prayers for the first casualties of the Iraqi war. Our soldiers are just as innocent victims of the war as Iraqi soldiers and civilians. They all deserve our prayers for as bloodless a war as possible.
The Americans have a strange psychology in terms of naming events and processes. 'Desert Storm' could be an exotic dessert: turkish delight and candy floss? 'Shock and Awe' betrays the narcissistic side of the American psyche: it is the Iraqis who are clearly expected to be in awe of American power and at the same time it says 'Look how powerful we are'. It too has associations with a marketing campaign.
So Bush and Blair have their war. The world is diminished by the resort to force when other means were available and working. The uncivilised 'might is right' principle still prevails. When will the human race grow up?
Whilst the world is preoccupied with Iraq the Israeli killing machine goes on. Nine Palestinians killed, including a four year old girl and an American woman crushed to death as Israelis bulldoze Palestinian buildings. Weep for them: it is all the world can do at the moment.
So Australia joins the few administrations around the world willing to ignore the wishes of their people and use force against another nation without either being attacked or obtaining specific UN authorisation. The peoples of the USA, UK, Spain, Australia and possibly Turkey share the shame of being citizens of these countries.
There are no words to express the utter contempt for George W Bush's latest ploy. Attempting to buy off Pakistan by dropping sanctions and trying to appease Arab and Arab-sympathetic opinion by resurrecting the so-called 'road map' for the Middle East is as transparent as it is naive. The US again shows its contempt for the intelligence of people around the world. It is on a par with withdrawing aid from Turkey when the Turkish Parliament voted against allowing access to Iraq by US troops. The pattern has long been clear: we will help you if it is in our interests or if we need you (really need you) and we will punish you economically, politically or militarily if you thwart us.
If, as seems likely at present, there is no second UN resolution on Iraq, Tony Blair has an honourable way forward. He can simply say: I am committed to disarming Saddam. I am only prepared to act under the authority of the UN. Consequently, I cannot authorise the use of force by British troops at this time.The US administration has effectively prepared the ground for this, however clumsily. Blair keeps his party together and the US is seen to act unilaterally, as we have known all along they would.
So the UK government is going to make life harder for the homeless and increase the prison population still further. There is apparently no need anymore for people to beg. Perhaps the government has evidence of just how much support the homeless get, above zero? Perhaps the government can also say how asylum seekers can support themselves without begging, when they are denied support if they do not register immediately on arrival? Other than relying on the efforts of charities - doing the states' job for it. If the French veto a second resolution on Iraq we can expect howls of protest from the US re weakening the UN etc etc. Let us remind ourselves of the fact that the US has vetoed more than 30 Security Resolutions on Palestine alone. I make no apology for quoting one in particular, that of May 31st 1990:The Security Council,
Having considered the letter dated 21 May 1990 from the Permanent Representative of Bahrain to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chairman of the Arab Group for the month of May 1990 (S/21300),
Having listened to the statement by His Excellency President Yassar Arafat,
Reaffirming that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Gravely concerned and alarmed by the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
Bearing in mind that any deliberately planned act of violence in the region is a blow to peace,
1. Establishes a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be dispatched immediately to examine the situation relating to the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. Requests the Commission to submit its report to the Security Council by 20 June 1990, containing recommendations on ways and means for ensuring the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians under Israeli occupation;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the Commission with the necessary facilities to enable it to carry out its mission;
4. Decides to keep the situation in the occupied territories under constant and close scrutiny and to reconvene to review the situation in the light of the findings of the Commission.
The US did not abstain or vote against a resolution which tried to place resonsibility on the UN to monitor what was going on, but simply vetoed it. There was no criticism of Israel, which always causes an American veto. It simply was a matter of refusing to allow the UN to become more involved.
So let us remember, when the US talks of the UN's relevance being weakened, of this one example amongst many when the US has failed to support UN efforts to monitor and establish the facts of what is going on. The US prefers ignorance in order to progress its own aims and those of its allies.
In this context I was appalled by the US criticising the UN weapons inspectors for being "too even-handed". The UN absolutely has to be even-handed in all its activities if it is to have any credibility.
I read recently (in Edinburgh's Botanic Gardens) that the whole future of cultivated rice was threatened by disease and was only secured by the introduction of varieties of wild rice. Rice is the staple food of millions of people. Is it not at least careless, in the sense of not caring, that Western 'GM' companies develop GM crops (for their profit), risking through one-way pollination of wild species the diminution of bio-diversity and thus the availability of such a staple crop if a similar intractable disease occurs. Can we trust scientists to be so thorough that GM crops will not succumb to some future disease? Should we not at least be maintaining colonies of wild species of all GM crops to provide a bank of natural, in the real sense, varieties as a safety net? It may be of academic and commercial interest to the West. It is a question of life and death to millions in the East. In his efforts to persuade us, Tony Blair is getting terribly muddled. He used to say that the reason for a possible war was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if Saddam Hussein did not do this voluntarily. He now adopts a 'moral' reason: that Saddam Hussein should be deposed beacause of his human rights record. Problem: if there is a 'moral' justification, the weapons of mass destruction argument is irrelevant; if the 'moral' argument is used, Saddam Hussein has no motive for destroying weapons of any sort, as Tony Blair now believes he should be deposed anyway. There is also the seemingly intractable problem of the lack of proof of such weapons: sorry Tony, we cannot just take your word for it. Tony Blair seems to have forgotten that we live in a parliamentary democracy. Not only does he ignore the fact that the majority of the voters does not share his wish to attack Iraq but he is not willing to consult Parliament before proceeding. Perhaps Blair sees himself as another Cromwell? Our 'chief of men' however asks us to believe and trust him without being able to show evidence. He chooses not to acknowledge that the chickens that started flying with Bernie Ecclestone are steadily winging their way home. Note too that in his response to the wonderful turnout in London on February 15th he started to talk in terms of regime change, shifting his ground from the weapons of mass destruction argument. The US Administration is saying that the UN would make itself 'irrelevant' if it does not authorise force against Iraq. The UN is not 'irrelevant' in making a choice for or against force: it is expressing what it as a body believes is in the interests of the world. The US is apt to confuse what is in the interests of the world with its own interests. This is precisely why the UN is relevant and serves a useful purpose. If the UN were to become just an executive arm of the US it would indeed have become irrelevant. Tony Blair's famed rapport with the people (if not with Jeremy Paxman) took another dive with his response to the question about praying with George Bush. His denial that they prayed together sounded like a lie. They are both Christian: what is more natural for Christians than to pray together? Why should Tony Blair be ashamed of this? His credibility ebbs away daily.
Colin Powell's presentation. Assuming the tape about the 'modified truck' was genuine, there is the presumption of guilt. In the absence of the tape saying something like 'we've got this truck stuffed full of anthrax, what shall we do with it?', why should we assume that there is no innocent explanation? We know, however, that in the current climate, not only is Saddam assumed to be guilty, but so is anyone who is non-white and/or non-Christian.
Another prediction: the faltering, if not terminal decline, of the Western economic system. Japan ran out of room to manoeuvre in reducing interest rates to zero years ago, the US is close to the same brick wall and the UK is heading in the same direction. When are the Western democracies going to realise that real money has to be spent on public services and some of that money has to be raised from corporations?
No attack on Iraq: Oxfam are appealing for people to send an email to Tony Blair on this. Click on Oxfam to send your email.
The acquittal of Sally Clark brings the distress to an end of another family who have become victims of British so-called justice. The adversarial system whereby both defence and prosecution are seeking to win, rather than seeking the truth, will continue to encourage the witholding of vital evidence. It is time that both prosecution and defence lawyers are bound, under pain of really severe penalties, to disclose everything they know. It also highlights yet again the hideous rule of 'in denial of murder': if the evidence had not come to light and Sally Clark had continued to protest her actual innocence, then she would have stayed in prison for ever. This rule should go, now.
We shall see, but if there is no change in Israel's expansionist policies and her remorseless persecution of ordinary Palestinians, then every Israeli citizen, voters and non-voters, share the responsibility. They had the chance to change course and declined it.
The ICC has said the cricket in Zimbabwe goes ahead. So English cricketers will almost literally step over the bodies of dead and starving black Zimbabweans to play their game. A prediction: the US, as it did to start the Vietnam War, will 'find' (ie. plant) the 'smoking gun' in Iraq in order to justify its murderous imperialist ambitions. A pity that it will take decades before the truth comes out, as it did with Vietnam.
So Donald Rumsfeld sees 'old Europe' as a 'problem'. The story of motes and beams is alive and well in Washington. As a British subject, not alas, a British citizen, I wish he would also see Britain as a 'problem'. We could then be sure we are getting something right.
I understand that Government ministers, sweeping through London in their chauffeur-driven cars, are to be exempt from the new congestion charge. No wonder politics and politicians are held in such low esteem.
There are more and more advertisements for picture mobile phones. There is something really depressing about the energy and money spent on luxuries for the developed world whilst so many millions of people do not even have access to clean water and basic sanitation. Israel's refusal to allow Palestinians to attend a conference in London proves again that the Israeli regime is not interested in peace. It illustrates again the fundamental truth about Ariel Sharon: that he is a fighter, not a leader, that he has to have an enemy to oppose. For once, however, the UK government spoke out against Israel So Jack Straw is trying to make another link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq: any "rogue state" and terrorism are part of the "same picture". Having failed to establish Al-Qaeda links in Iraq, presumably he means that terrorists looking for weapons of mass destruction are more likely to acquire them from such rogue states. Given that Iraq appears a)not to have such weapons and b)appears not to be willingly supplying such weapons, then presumably Jack Straw believes that terrorists prefer to filch such weapons from countries like Iraq rather than from such countries like the UK and the US. I ask you, if you were such a terrorist, would you prefer to steal such weapons from Iraq or North Korea, or from the UK or US?