Archive 2004
The response to the natural disaster in the Indian Ocean is massive and appropriate. Why does the world community not respond in a similar way to man-made catastrophes such as is happening in Darfur?
(I say 'man-made'. These conflict-based disasters are always caused by men, never by women.) We have compassion for those suffering from random acts of nature, but not the same level of compassion for those suffering from homelessness caused by deliberate acts of men, for those bereaved by deliberate killing.
The time is long overdue for a sufficiently large force under UN command to be able to intervene in such blatant cases of ethnic cleansing and murder. A force not under the control of the powerful nations, used at their whim.
It is high time the UN became more democratic - more countries being involved in decision making and no vetoes for instance - so that there is not only an effective deterrent for such action, but swift reaction if that deterrence does not work.
The Palestinians have no credible infrastructure, they have been living in refugee camps for over half a century, their homes and crops are destroyed, thousands have been murdered by the Israeli occupation forces, their
police force is not allowed to carry arms, they are not allowed any armed forces, they have no independent access to the outside world, yet Tony Blair says it is up to them to make the first move. It is up to them to renounce terrorism, to find, try and punish terrorists.
With what? After they have achieved this impossibility (which, in infinitely more favourable circumstances, did not happen in the North of Ireland before the peace process got under way) then the infinitely gracious Israelis will respond. Maybe.Sometimes I wonder if Western politicians are literally insane. They have no grasp of reality, of history. They appear to live in an Alice in Wonderland world in which to believe something is to make it true. Tony Blair actually caught himself in mid-lie in Parliament the other day in referring to the Belmarsh detainees. He said, in terms of their guilt, 'we know..' and had to change it to 'we believe...' Yes, like he 'knew', then 'believed' Iraq had WMD. If you know, Tony, then charge them. If you merely believe, then charge them or let them go. You used to be a lawyer, used to uphold the rule of law. The biggest continuing lie of course is the existence of an organised body of terrorists called al-Qaeda which is out to destroy the West. In the same way that the invasion of Iraq was founded on a lie, so are the draconian anti-terrorism laws in the UK. Alone in Europe we have suspended human rights as if the enemy is at the door with tanks and we are all about to be murdered in our beds. We are not and Tony Blair knows this better than many other things he claims to know.
Taking off a play because of violent protests against it has sinister implications. I do not defend the play as such: I have not seen it and it may or may not be artistically worthwhile.
The issue is not to do with religious tolerance, or if the Sikhs are over-sensitive etc. It is to do with the rule of law. The play apparently breaks no UK laws. Maybe there should be further legislation, but violence is not the way to persuade lawmakers to change the law.
The message at present is quite clear: the police are unwilling or unable to uphold the law, violence will enable you to get your own way. There is a further, even more sinister implication. The BNP and similar organisations do not need me to tell them that here is a wonderful
opportunity to make political capital. An ethnic minority violently preventing law-abiding UK citizens from going about their lawful business etc. They do not need that sort of propaganda.
It also makes a mockery of all the Government talk about people feeling safer as they go about their daily lives.
I do not mourn the disappearance of David Blunkett from the political scene. His assault on civil liberties was pernicious and in spite of the Law Lords' ruling, ongoing.
I wish I could say that I have some sympathy for him at a personal level, but his reference to himself as a "little lad" as a child and to his own "little lad" to whom he is seeking access betrays the motive for this desire.
He projects his long held view of his "little lad" status onto the boy, who for all we know is doing just fine. His claim to be exercising responsibility seems more like a selfish desire and if we are going to be hard on him (and he sets himself up to be upright man of integrity)
then where was his sense of responsibility in beginning an affair with a recently married woman? David Blunkett, sadly, is another example of the 'strong man' who, like the oak, cannot bend and is brought down in the storm. I hope I am wrong but he may be heading for a serious emotional breakdown.
I would not wish that on anyone.
Three cheers for the Law Lords in condemning the imprisonment without trial of foreign nationals in Belmarsh prison. Three cheers for not only upholding an absolutely fundamental principle in any country that regards itself as in any way civilised:
that everyone is entitled to be charged and tried by due process of law for any suspected crime; but also for the way in which this was done. The trenchant way in which the Government is seen as a greater threat to our way of life than terrorism was timely and needed to be said at this level.
I note that Jack Straw is already attempting to say that the Law Lords are wrong and that there is some sort of due process. How can there be due process when the internees are not even told what offence they may have committed? We can also expect this spin-ridden administration to smear the judiciary in terms of being out of date, fuddy-duddy, liberals soft on crime, terror etc
whilst portraying the Government as on the public's side. I know, given the choice, to whom I would entrust my liberty: Tony Blair or the judiciary. Tony Blair is a non-starter in that two horse race.
I have enormous reservations about the proposals in the Mental Ability Bill going through Parliament.
I do not have any major reservations about the principle of a person having a say in when and how to die: it seems clear that medical science has advanced to the stage where people can be kept alive where there is in effect no life as such.
The reservations concern the possibility that verbal wishes may be sufficient to allow doctors to terminate treatment. This opens up a huge possibility of abuse: an elderly rich man suffers a major stroke, is unconscious and his relatives claim he said that in that event he wanted to have any treatment stopped.
No-one can prove or disprove that. 'Living will' wishes, like normal wills, should surely have to be in writing, drawn up whilst the person is mentally competent.
Secondly, it appears that food and water are considerd 'treatment'. This stretches the definition too far and witholding basic requirements so that a person starves to death is not acceptable. I cannot believe that anyone could propose or support that.
With more and more evidence of the pace of global warming and the known effects - the destruction of whole countries such as Bangladesh - it is tempting just to get angry and blame the obvious high energy users.
There is no doubt that a relatively few governments, enterprises, individuals could make a significant difference.
However, we in the developed countries, individually, can also make a difference. We can all turn lights off when not in a room, turn the central heating down or have it on less, cycle or walk short distances rather than using the car etc etc.
Small, simple things, but each small saving adds up to a reduction in the need to produce energy and in the effects of both producing and spending that energy. Why should we assume that it's up to someone else when we know we can contribute.
We have a choice: to be part of the problem or part of the solution.
I am not against ID cards in principle but the Government proposals appear to be a way of exerting control over the population.
Why else would they spend so much money on a complicated system - that could go on much worthier causes - and propose such a high fine (£2,500) on non-compliance.
The fine in particular seems aimed at pre-empting any campaign of protest/civil disobedience. Yet again a Labour Government lurches still further to the right, in fact towards the infrastructure of a police state.
The speed at which David Blunkett has moved to set up a process at public expense to, what, 'clear his name', 'establish his innocence', is impressive.
Contrast that with the remedy other people in the public eye have: a slow libel case at their own expense. Contrast too the process which David Blunkett sees as appropriate for foreign nationals thought to be, possibly, involved, in some unspecified way, connected
with terrorism: indefinite internement in Belmarsh prison without charge and without trial.
Justice is indivisible: it should be carried out within the same principles (although the process will vary) for parking fines right through to mass murder.
David Blunkett's enquiry into his conduct, far from demonstrating open government etc, is another example of double standards, of privilege exercised by those in power.
David Blunkett is like the person who walks down the street wearing a silly hat and one trouser leg rolled up - what for: to keep the elephants away - and justifies his action by the absence of elephants.
Unless and until we get clear and credible evidence of terrorist activity/plots, then I refuse to believe the scaremongering that prompts his latest assault on civil liberties.
The lies over Iraq have ruined any chance for me and many others to take what this government says on trust. There is an old and wise adage: better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man goes to jail. David Blunkett seems happy to turn that on its head,
in spite of the reminder recently of the miscarriage of justice following the Birmingham bombings, even after due process of law. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law: Prime Ministers and terrorists alike. Reducing the burden of proof, indeed the need for any proof at all, reduces our society to the arbitrary
whims of whoever is in power at the time. May we be saved from this 'democracy'.
The world should be grateful for Hillary Anderson, Fergal Keane and their crews for their incredibly brave reporting in Darfur, bringing factual evidence of what is happening there to light.
The action, or lack of it, makes me wonder yet again about double standards in Western politics. The US, via Colin Powell, declared it to be genocide, but no action is proposed. The UK makes noises, but again no action. Yet here is a situation in which the West,
especially the US and UK, with their record of unilateral interventions, could be both useful and start to address and reduce the mistrust they suffer in the world.
The African Union has agreed to send 3,000 troops. Why shouldn't the US, UK and other countries agree to send troops and materiel, to be deployed under the control of the African Union.
Why cannot the US in particular swallow its pride, its need to be in charge of everything, and put itself forward in the service of others.The double standard? Europe, via NATO, decided that the dominant state, Serbia, in the former republic of Yugoslavia, had proved itself unfit to govern the state of Kosovo and removed Kosovo from Serbia's control. The situation in Sudan is exactly parallel. Why does one rule fit Europe and another Africa?
The tragedy of Fallujah unveils. The US is doing what it does best: destroy. It is nauseating to hear American soldiers express intentions such as 'We will hunt them down and kill them'.
What sort of training do they receive, to use language which refers to other human beings as if they were animals, vermin? Meanwhile, the 'insurgency' flares up elsewhere, which is quite predictable.
I saw the interviews with an Iraqi who had a soft drinks business in Fallujah totally destroyed by the Americans in the initial invasion - anything which had plastic bottles and plastic beads which looked like chemicals was clearly a weapons facility.
He watched the second, or is it the third, invasion of Fallujah in despair and said that, although he did not like Saddam Hussein, it was better then, there was some security.
People like him - who seemed absolutely normal in every way - have three choices: leave, endure or fight. Is it any wonder that so many are choosing the last option?
Aides close to Ariel Sharon have apparently said of Yasser Arafat that he "Had more Jewish blood on his hands than anybody since Hitler."
What does this make Ariel Sharon, who certainly has more Palestinian blood on his hands than Arafat had Jewish blood on his. The Israeli claim is a cheap and meaningless one, since both Sharon's and Arafat's respective tally of victims are as nothing to that of Hitler.
George Bush has probably clocked up - in terms of civilan deaths - more than either of them already.
I note that Palestinian policemen in Ramallah are being allowed to carry weapons - but only for the three days around Yasser Arafat's funeral. After that they revert to being unarmed.
This just indicates the nonsense talked about Arafat not being able (or willing) to rein in the terrorists and the ongoing requirement of the Americans amongst others that the cessation of Palestinian violence is a precursor to any peace talks.
How do they think the Palestinian police (killed in considerable numbers by the IDF) can control Hamas - by asking them nicely?
Faint signs of hope that the US has not lost all civilised values in the ruling by Federal Judge James Robertson that the military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees are not lawful and proper.
He also said "The detainees at the Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba may be prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions and therefore entitled to the protections of international and military law - which the government has declined to grant them" The US 'Justice' Department plans to appeal.
Even if the Bush administration eventually gets its way, this ruling is significant in that it clearly shows politicians using every means possible to get their way in spite of the opposition of the judiciary.
The deaths of the Black Watch soldiers are a tragedy for them and their families but it arouses a deep anger in me, not for the first time.
This is not so much do with whether or not it was the right decision to send, although I disagreed with that. It is the memory of Tony Blair blithely saying that they will be home by Christmas.
It was entirely predictable that some may not be home for Christmas, but the way that Tony Blair does his 'walking on water' act - 'trust me, it will be OK' is nauseating.
It shows a disregard for the feelings of those who are taking the actual risk: all Tony Blair is risking personally is his political career. Let us be clear why those troops were sent:
it was to bolster the myth that there is a multi-lateral coalition in Iraq. The reality is that it is an American occupation aided by a few troops from a few other countries,
being asked to give their lives for the sake of a reckless adventure undertaken by a reckless American president.
The thought suddenly occurred to me today, based upon the simple psychological concept of projection -
that we see in others what we cannot see in ourselves - that the reason why George Bush and Tony Blair, together with the fundamentalist Christian Right, view the Muslims as fundamentalist fanatics is that this
mirrors themselves. Bush and Blair have an unshakeable conviction that they are right - based on their religious beliefs - and that therefore others e.g. Muslims, are not only wrong but also believe that they hold the monopoly on truth.
In fact not all Muslims, not all Christians, not all Jews, not all Hindus etc etc think as Bush and Blair. I believe that most people acknowledge that, however passionately they believe in something, circumstances, evidence, may change and with it their convictions.
I would like my leader to be open to change, open to be persuaded by others, whilst being clear at any point in time what s/he believes in.
As I write it appears that George Bush may well get back into the White House. This will be a tragedy for the world, including the US.
It is a sad day when the citizens of a democracy vote in such a divisive leader, who does not listen to others, who imposes his will upon his country and the world, to the detriment of both.
With another four Bush years the world will grow more dangerous, the poor will get poorer, the desperate more desperate. Lovers of freedom will have to endure another four years of waiting for the tide to turn,
but I hope that those lovers of freedom will not be silenced, will continue to speak out against injustice in all its forms. The world needs their voices more than ever.
The Independent Media Center's London offices were raided by the FBI on October 7th 2004 (or some other US body - the UK government - in Parliament - has categorically denied any involvement) and disks seized.
So far no explanation has been provided for this action. The Independent Media Center is a highly respected worldwide alternative source of news and opinion and it is extremely disquieting to hear of this action.
It is also extremely disquieting to hear that non-UK agencies can seize material in the UK without the involvement of the UK authorities.
There is a petition to protest against this action, which can be accessed at http://solidarity.indymedia.org.uk/. The petition ends on October 31st. If you have difficulties accessing the site, please persevere.
It clearly is still being rebuilt and I am currently unable to access it to restore the link to this site. Freedom of speech is worth a little effort: it seems it is in more danger than we would have assumed.
I despair of Tony Blair and his government. With the proposed order which will enable juries to know about an accused's 'bad character' in cases involving theft and child abuse, there is a further reduction in basic justice and a civilised way of administering the law.
It panders to popular feeling before an election - ask yourself why these two categories of offence have been singled out - and will ensure that more innocent people are sent to rot in prison.
Just examine the absolutely fundamental principle of justice: that a person is assumed innocent unless proved by the evidence about the particular charge(s) that s/he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
There is nothing here about 'well, there's flimsy evidence about this crime, but s/he committed X similar crimes, so s/he is likely to be guilty of this one'.
That is not justice, it is prejudice. There is only one way to maintain safe justice: to consider the particular charges, only the particular charges and the evidence linking those charges to the defendant.
Yes, this will mean some guilty people going free. That is the price of justice, of living in a civilised society, of believing that one crime (or many) does not condemn a person for ever.
There has been considerable disquiet at how the police 'trawl' for suspects: this order will increase the risk of this occurring and the risk that anyone with a conviction (or even past suspicion) will be placed in the position of having to prove innocence rather than the prosecution having to prove guilt.
Proving innocence without an absolutely cast iron alibi would be difficult for anyone in any circumstances.It is even more depressing that both main opposition parties did not oppose the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 which paved the way for this proposal. Our mainstream politicians are not serving the interests of the people, are eroding basic freedoms, are increasing the possibility of less benign regimes abusing the powers that the Home Office in particular have now got. Many do not realise just how imperilled the foundations of our democratic way of life are. It is time to wake up, to speak and to be heard.
With the decision to compensate Israeli settlers in Gaza and the reports of right wing threats against Ariel Sharon it is salutary to remember a factor in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that tends to be forgotten.
There is a familiar charge that Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea. That is the justification for Israeli strikes into the occupied territories, but it is only true of some Palestinians. I have no doubt that most Palestinians just want a decent life in their own country and would leave Israel alone.
There is a minority seeking the destruction of Israel. It is forgotten however that there is a corresponding division in Israel. I have no doubt that most Israelis just want to live in the territory defined generally as pre-1967. There is a minority of Israelis, of which the settlers are the most visible, both in Gaza and the West Bank, who would like to see
a greater Israel and to push the Palestinians out into the Moabite desert. There is no justification and no excuse for such expansionist intentions, but we are left with the tragedy of the enduring conflict, with its dismal tally of dead on both sides. It is that a small minority of each side is motivated to continue the struggle to exterminate the other.
When is the majority in the region, assisted by world leaders, going to put a stop to this deadly nonsense.
There is the usual claptrap being talked about the request for British troops to assist US troops in Iraq being a purely military decision. Unless you live in a military dictatorship all such decisions are political.
Imagine a scenario - which happened at the end of World War 2 - in which the military say that a nuclear attack would end a conflict and save many lives in the longer term. Would the politicians simply accept this as a miltary decision? Of course not.
It is dishonest - but we are used to dishonesty in politics - to pretend that politicians just accept military recommendations. The military are accountable for the quality of their judgements and the effectiveness of their actions. Politicians are accountable for the decisions they make as a result of those judgements and actions.Equally, it is rubbish to suggest that George Bush is sanctioning current action in Iraq without regard to his re-election. Every decision, two weeks before the election, has to be so considered. I do not like Bush, but it is perfectly reasonable for him to weigh up the effects on his re-election chances of any major decision. The proposed action in Iraq is deemed to be positive re the US election: were they deemed to be negative they would have been postponed for a fortnight.
No sooner did Israel announce that the attacks on Palestinians in Gaza had ceased(not their words, of course) then they start up again.
The last few weeks have seen Israel kill 129 Palestinians: this was supposed to be in retaliation for the killing of 2 Israeli children. That is not retaliation and we know that many Palestinian children were killed as well as innocent civilians.
There is no justice, no sense of any lawful or justifiable process, just blind, indescriminate killing, the presence of evil intentions and acts on both sides.I note that an Israeli report expresses the fear that Israel will become a pariah state if the present policies continue. The sooner the better: then a solution will be found.
I note also that commentators are starting to compare US tactics in Iraq with Israeli tactics in Gaza and the West Bank. The axis of evil is being recognised.
If UK troops are sent to the American sector and are allowed to operate within the UK terms of engagement it might just show that US methods play a significant part in the Iraqi resistance.
How much is due to the Americans' brutality and how much is the relative calm in the British sector due to their more humane approach?
Jack Straw has criticised Israel for a disproportionate response to attacks from the Gaza strip and I agree with him - it has been grossly disproportionate.
The irony of these comments is that Jack Straw could make them against the Government of which he is a prominent member. As there were no WMD in Iraq and therefore no threat, let alone actual attacks on any coalition country, the invasion of Iraq was even more disproprtionate than Israel's operations in Gaza.
Tony Blair has finally apologised, partially, for Iraq and that only for other peoples' mistakes, but his very statement contained yet another lie.
He said he had already apologised but his previous statement only said that "I can apologise", in other words 'it is possible' but falling short of actually doing so. Charles Kennedy accurately raised the question that, in the absence now of WMD and therefore of a threat, regime change (which Blair seems to be proud of) is the only remaining
justification for the invasion. This is illegal as Charles Kennedy pointed out. Tony Blair did not acknowledge, admit, this truth, merely sneeringly saying that the Liberal Democrat's policy would have left Saddam Hussein in power.
This is quite correct, but there are other, just as odious regimes, where we do not interfere - because it is illegal. It would be honourable, understandable and worthy of respect if Tony Blair were to acknowledge that, with the benefit of hindsight, the invasion was illegal
but also that, in retrospect, whilst not justifying an illegal action, much good will/may flow from it. In other words, I did the right thing for the wrong reasons, broke international law, but isn't that forgivable.
Many people would respond more positively to that than this pig-headed insistence of having no regrets and having to be dragged kicking and screaming for any sort of apology.
It is quite preposterous that the Government and its spin servants (aka ministers) trot out the justification for the Iraq war on the basis of Saddam Hussein's intentions.
Since when were the military sent to die as a result of mindreading? If the investigation had shown advanced facilities, all ready to produce WMD, there might have been a retrospective case, but to rely on such arguments that he retained the scientific knowledge is just so much rubbish.
The UK could get rid of all its chemical and biological weapons and dismantle the production facilities, but short of forcefully extraditing or executing the scientists, the scientific knowledge would remain and therefore a future capability.
We all knew that Saddam Hussein wanted to retain or rebuild his military capability: the justification for war rested on his having done that, not his fervent wish to do so.Not only that, it is becoming more clear that the intelligence was mis-used - Michael Howard said as much at the Conservative Conference. (I wonder if he could be persuaded to repeat the words in the House of Commons) In other words, Andrew Gilligan was right and the fault lies with the way the politicians used the information.
There is also the not unimportant finding that Saddam Hussein was far more interested in attacking - or defending himself against - Iran. He posed no direct threat to the UK, the US or any other member of the coalition and everyone knows and understands this. That Iraq will, eventually, be better off without him is not the point. Many countries may well be better off without their present leaders but that does not justify an invasion. The threat of terrorism is greater as a result of the invasion and Iraq was never part of the war on terrorism until the coalition created the breeding conditions in Iraq for terrorism to grow. Bush and Blair are not only responsible for the innocent blood spilled on all sides but for the growth of terrorism. It is they who have aided and abetted terrorism.
Yet another US veto on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Yet another 'self-defence' justification by the Israelis. Since when did humanity claim self-defence as a justification for killing children?
More Palestinian children have been murdered by Israel in the last week than were murdered by Palestinian rockets. Is this reasonable? How long, if ever, since more than seventy Israelis were killed by Palestinians in a week?
This does not justify Palestinian acts, but the Israeli response is out of all proportion. Israel knows it, the US knows it, the UK knows it, the world knows it.
When are we going to act on Israeli terrorism. To the UK's shame, again, we abstained on the Security Council vote, along with Germany and Romania.
Cherie Blair certainly knows it, but was heavily criticised when she accurately said that people without hope will take the sort of actions that the Palestinians take.
At least we can see why the Palestinians resort to terror, even if we do not condone or agree with those methods.
It is difficult to see why Israel acts in the same way - only worse.
It serves no constructive purpose and we all know that Israel is not in any danger of being wiped out. Israeli violence appears to be gratuitous, inhuman, vindictive.
The time is long overdue for Israel to start acting in both the region's and her own best interests.
The Gaza Strip. So deaf mutes are terrorists according to the Israelis. So people watching Israeli troops are terrorists according to the Israelis.
When will the world wake up to the evil that is Sharon's Israel? When will the world start taking action against a terrorist state which kills anyone and everyone who happens to be around, whether in Israel or in any other country?
When will the world start to see Palestinians as human being who have been denied basic human rights for generations - for longer than most people on earth have been alive?
When will the world's media start taking effective action to force Israel to allow the media to witness their brutality, all too often carried out in secrecy?
The plight of the Palestinians has been for generations, is now and looks like continuing to be, the worst example of humanity's inhumanity and brutality. It is time for action on the scale of the action against apartheid in South Africa.
Make no mistake: what Israel is doing is far worse than what happened in South Africa.
There is no way that Tony Blair can escape culpability on Iraq now that he has finally admitted he was wrong in trusting the 'intelligence' in Iraq and also saying that he was not sorry for removing Saddam Hussein.
This effectively says that the reasons for war, as given re the threat from WMD, were wrong, but the war was justified, in retrospect, by the wish for regime change.
He knows full well that the regime change reason is illegal in international law, which is why it was not used in the first place. The fact that he claims to have believd the intelligence is no excuse for breaking international law.
It is similar to someone who kills an intruder believing the intruder is armed, then on finding out he was unarmed, tries to avoid prosecution on the basis that the intruder was a bad person anyway. Like it or not, bad people, bad nations, bad governments have to be judged according to the law at the time.
Self-styled good people, states, governments cannot set the law on one side when it suits them, as Kofi Annan has recently reminded Bush, Blair et al. To act differently, outside the law, invites anarchy, where the gun rules. This is a fair description of Iraq today, all as a result of an illegal and ill-considered war.
The hook is large, long and sharp, Mr Blair and history will re-impale you on it even if you kid yourself that you are now free of it.I wish also that politicians had more integrity than to link Iraq with the war on terror. There was no link before the invasion and to repeat this amounts to a lie. It is sad when such lying is commonplace, but although we have come to expect this, we need not accept it. It needs to be highlighted and confronted persistently.
Tony Blair appears to have gone further in his crass remarks about the Iraq situation, likening it to the situation in 1941.
The title song to 'Dad's Army' - about the 2nd World War, which I disliked but that's by the way - included the phrase "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler". Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Blair? Only people in Iraq could compare their situation to that of Britain in 1941 and their awful situation is created by a combination of US bombing and terrorist attacks.
Terrorists which had no place in Iraq until 'Shock and Awe', abuse of Iraqi detainees and all the arrogance and ignorance of the US approach to conflict enriched the soil in which terrorism grows. Bush and Blair created the horror which is present day Iraq.
We have to 'see it through' but the people who created it should be booted out and leave it to others to clear up the mess.
I note that Israel has killed a Palestinian in Syria by means of a car bomb. Whilst I deplore Palestinian suicide bombers, Israel forfeits any right to defend its actions as justified by the war on terror when the Israeli state itself carries out such acts of terror on foreign soil.
Hypocritical is the mildest term for it. I note also that Israel is continuing its ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Tony Blair is proud of his stance against Slobodan Milosovic in relation to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
There is a deafening silence about Ariel Sharon's identical tactics, let alone bombing Tel Aviv as Blair bombed Belgrade. Are the Palestinian people less human than the Kosovans, Mr Blair?
Tony Blair really has no shame in telling us that there is now a 'second conflict' in Iraq and that we have all to be on the side of democracy (i.e. his side) and against the 'crucible' of terrorism which is how he now describes Iraq.
He also had the cheek to ask us to put aside the argument about the legitimacy of the war, but this is the whole crux of the matter. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, whatever its other faults, did not support Osama bin Laden, terrorism was not rampant in Iraq, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.
The terrorism which is now devastating Iraq is a direct result of the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq. Only a Prime Minister not guilty of taking this country to war could ask for us to put the past behind us and unite in finding a way out of this morass.
Tony Blair has no right, no moral authority to ask anyone to forget his mistakes. He does have a moral duty to ask forgiveness for those mistakes: primarily from all those, on all sides, who have been bereaved or injured in the conflict.
It is interesting that Kofi Annan has not only said that the war against Iraq was illegal, but also that he doubts that elections will be held in Iraq as planned.
Coupled with Kerry closing the gap with Bush, perhaps the UN Secretary General is anticipating a change in the White House, or maybe he just decided to say what he believes rather than sticking with the conventional diplomatic language. Either way, it's welcome.
Another 30 people killed in airstrikes on Fallujah. It is inevitable that some will be innocent men, women and children, yet the US blithely refers only to 'militants'.
The campaign in Iraq mirrors the campaign in Gaza and the West Bank more and more. If it continues, the same reactions will progressively harden: more hatred, more violence, more extreme measures on both sides.
When will the US/Israel axis learn that military superiority/solutions are not only not enough, not effective, but are also both non-productive even from the US/Israel perspective and most importantly inhuman.
It is always salutary to be out of circulation for a while: having been in sub-Saharan Africa for a few weeks a return to world and national news finds that, whilst events, some terrible, have occurred, the world is much the same as before.
However, contact with other cultures changes me, in what ways I do not yet know, except it has to do with ways of living, ways of being. What we in the West would regard as abject poverty is seen by some of those in such poverty (not all) as a good life.
It reminds me just how culturally conditioned we are as a species, how strong the need is to conform to our own culture. This raises yet again the doubts about bringing Western values to other areas of the world. And there was much more laughter, much more patience, much more caring in Africa than in the UK.
One thing which saddened me - but may not sadden the Africans - was the exporting of so many different Christian denominations to Africa. Is this healthy diversity or the grounds for future division and conflict?
I wonder about the fuss being made about Harold Shipman's widow being allowed her pension (from his earnings). She is innocent of any crime, what would be the purpose of punishing her? She lives with the knowledge of a life with a serial killer, his suicide and all the attendant media intrusion.
She should just be allowed to get on with her life. As for the sex offender who won a major prize whilst on parole - inciting the predictably vindictive response from David Blunkett - does every criminal have to go in sackcloth and ashes all the rest of his or her life?
Moreover, if this means that his victims can claim from his newly-won assets then some good would come out of it.
I do not begrudge the massive amount of money spent on the Olympic games infrastructure as that can be used into the future but the money spent on the opening ceremony is obscene in a world in which millions are starving.
Each country now tries to outdo the other in ostentatious spectaculars. To what purpose, except to say 'Look at us, how clever we are' It is not particularly clever to spend such vast sums on ephemera.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has authorised the cloning of human embryos. This causes me concern, not because of religious or ethical issues as such on a personal basis, but because of doubts about the power of such a body.
The issue does raise many questions for many people and as such any decision should be made by the people's representatives in Parliament on a free vote.
This is the accepted way of deciding highly contentious issues and this one is in the highest category in terms of controversy. As such it warrants consideration at the highest level.
Michael Howard is trotting out all the old, tired mantras on law and order to gain a few votes. More prisons, more stop and search, no early release from prison, the same old focus on punishment for punishment's sake. Except punishment for its own sake leads to more crime.
He cites 3,500 crimes committed by a minority of those released early but conveniently ignores the reduction in crime through the majority of people who are released early who do not re-offend: in other words he is effectively advocating a policy to offer the mackerel to catch a sprat.
Unfettered stop and search leads to more alienation of the easy target groups:the young and the minority groups. Such alienation runs counter to his other assertion to wish for more personal responsibility.
During the Balkan crisis, when Slobodan Milosovic was ethnically cleansing Bosnia, Kosovo etc, I came to the conclusion that he had forfeited the right to run the internal affairs of Yugoslavia and that the international community, via the UN, had an obligation to step in.
I am coming to the same conclusion in relation to Darfur: that Sudan has lost the right to govern that area and that a UN force - following the appropriate UN resolution - should secure the area and facilitate the return of those driven out.
It is a major step to put aside national sovereignty but such exceptional humanitarian reasons justify it. It is a tragedy for those driven out of Darfur that such intervention is made much more difficult because of the unjustified and irresponsible intervention by the US and UK in Iraq.
I am amazed at the apparent amazement of the US security officials at the 'detailed' plans relating to the targetted financial buildings. What do they expect?
I would have thought that, rather than use the intelligence to alarm people, it would be a cause for celebration: that plans for such attacks have at least been held up. It would be naive in the extreme to assume such planning is not going on. The very visible military-type presence looks like a political act, part of the re-elect George Bush campaign.
Ariel Sharon is up to his old tricks yet again: threatening action then trying to gain credit by choosing not to carry it out.. Announcing the decision (taken months ago)to build 600 new homes in the Maale Adumim settlement in the West Bank, already home to 30,000 illegal settlers, but not actually going ahead before consulting with the US
(no thought of consulting with the people whose land it is) should gain him no credit if and when the decision is rescinded. If it is not rescinded, then it is in direct contravention of the road map.
I am shortly going to a country which has suffered far worse terrorism than the UK and it reminds me that the UK Government,as do others, is using terrorism as a weapon in itself, to control people and to stifle opposition.
It is one of the oldest political tricks in the book: plant a significant fear in the minds of people and then claim to be the only one with an answer and that your measures are necessray in the light of the threat.
It may be that I become a victim of terror: real people are victims daily, but I am in more danger when I drive down the road, more danger when I walk alone at night, in more danger from family, friends and neighbours than strangers.
These greater dangers do not keep me awake at night, so fear of terrorism certainly does not. My wish is that the UK Government and other Governments do more to combat the causes of terrorism rather than trying to prevent possible terrorist acts.
I also wish to live my life relatively freely, not bound by all the recent laws whose main purpose is to sustain fear and whose main results are to imprison the suspects who cannot be tried and who therefore may very well be innocent.
By appointing Peter Mandelson to the post of EU Commissioner, Tony Blair has shown his contempt for the EU, who wanted two or three names; for his Cabinet, several of whom are unhappy; for his MPs, many of whom are unhappy; for the electorate, who are entitled to expect better than a friend of the Prime Minister to be selected.
He also does the cause of the UK's participation in Europe some damage, as he must be aware that many pro-Europe votes will be lost. His hubris rises ever higher, even after the criticism of the Butler report of his style of government. He believes the myth of 'Teflon Tony' and the country suffers for this. What will he have to sustain him after his fall?
The International Court of Justice ruled against it, the UN General Assembly has ruled against it, it is probable that the UN Security Council would rule against it but for the US veto, but Israel continues to insist that the 'wall' is justified.
The argument that it saves Israeli lives is specious: the wall, as Jack Straw has said in support of the UK's vote in favour of the UN resolution, is in the wrong place. It should be on Israeli territory, not Palestinian territory. I have no doubt that Israel will continue to flout world opinion as the present Israeli Government's mindset, like George Bush, is 'We are right, everyone else is wrong'.
Just like the old joke: Everyone is out of step except our Johnny.
The Government wants secondary schools to become specialist in one or a few subjects. All well and good, maybe, in densely populated areas where, for instance, a talented musician or mathematician might have the appropriate specialist school relatively close to them. (Although, by definition, not all will go to their local school, thus increasing traffic and parental costs.)
However, there are real problems with rural areas. How does the musician or mathematician get to the nearest specialist music or maths school, which might be many miles away? If indeed, there is one within reach at all? Another example of the hollowness of Tony Blair's 'equality of opportunity'. Another example of the lack of joined up thinking. Another example of something that appears to be attractive on the surface but has no real substance.
Quite appropriate for this Government.
"I do not think the United States is being unreasonable in saying we need to make sure there is proper security in place for these people." Tony Blair, 'these people' being the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Tony Blair is, or was, a lawyer who seems to have forgotten the age-old principle of everyone being regarded as innocent until proved guilty."I have to accept that we haven't found them, that we may not find them, we don't know what has happened to them. They could have been removed. They could have been hidden. They could have been destroyed." Tony Blair on Iraq's WMD, flying in the face of all logic, expecting us to believe that Saddam Hussein did have WMD, was a threat, but perhaps destroyed or hid those same WMD when he was attacked. "I do not believe there was not a threat in relation to weapons of mass destruction." A threat from, so far, non-existent weapons? Hidden? So well that Saddam Hussein couldn't find them to use them?
There is much talk of the need for joined up government. What the UK wants is a joined up Prime Minister.
More US air strikes on Fallujah which also probably won't make the headlines. Four 500 pound bombs and two 1,000 pound bombs, killing around a dozen people. It was the fifth air strike in two weeks. I think we can answer the question as to whether the new Iraqi administration was involved or gave permission for the attack with a negative. What was that about Iraqi sovereignty?
It isn't making the headlines very much, but the US is still attacking civilian targets in Iraq - around four air strikes in the last week and thirty or more Iraqis killed. No-one can believe that they are all terrorists, so the US continues to deliberately kill civilians who happen to be in the vicinity of terrorist suspects.
You would think that lessons would have been learned but apparently not. Whilst Saddam Hussein would most likely be found guilty by any court, anywhere, it is depressing that the US is still falling into the trap of not allowing him any access to lawyers, thus prejudicing the maxim 'justice must be seen to be done'.
Hopefully, now that he is, at least nominally, in the custody of the Iraqis he will be accorded his normal human rights. Not to do so is to descend to his level.
The US Supreme Court's decision that Guantanamo Bay detainees are human beings with legal rights is very welcome. It is essential that the legal infrastructure of any country is able to defend basic human rights against the abuses that governments can inflict on their own and others' citizens.
Judges can be and often are more effective bulwarks of civilisation and democracy than politicians and the ballot box.
David Blunkett again, throwing the weight of his own law, passed in 2002, against the Chief Constable of Humberside. Whether or not the Chief Constable should resign or be suspended is beside the point. Not for Blunkett the quiet diplomacy: he might just have had a quiet word with the police authority, or even asked them to consider suspending the Chief Constable.
No, he has to rant and rave from the rooftops on yet another ego trip. It has been said that he could be a future Labour leader. Heaven help the Labour Party if so and the country if he ever got to be Prime Minister.
When is someone in authority ie Tony Blair, a High Court judge or a European judge going to tell David Blunkett where to get off. His rantings about wanting to 'nail' an alleged hooligan in Portugal are not only prejudicial to justice but the issue hardly warrants the ill-conceived intervention of a Home Secretary. It is pandering to his own sense of self-importance and playing to the public gallery. I may have missed him wanting to 'nail' the killer of the British man who died in Portugal, but I doubt it.
He excuses himself for his intemporate language by citing passion for justice etc, but it seems that the targets of his ire are selected consciously. In other words, his targets are people who are unlikely to attract public sympathy.
Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows that it is not sympathetic to Tony Blair. However, I wish him well in his bid to sign up to the new European Constitution. We need a unified and coherent Europe which has the possibility of maintaining and encouraging a more civilised way of life than the current one extolled by the US. If Europe can establish an alternative system to that of the US, not to compete but to act as an alternative way of being, so much the better.
The sooner Tony Blair starts really selling it the better. It is ironic of course that Tony Blair appears not to believe in an alternative to the US model.
The US air attack on a so-called 'safe house' demonstrates the hypocrisy of the 'war on terror'. I do not think that anyone can justify civilian deaths except in the heat of battle or which are demonstrably accidental, a freak event. The 'safe house' in Falluja was not being used to attack coalition troops, it was not next to a legitimate target and no-one can seriously claim that a 'safe house', even if proved to be harbouring terrorists, is occupied only by terrorists.
Attacking such targets inevitably results in civilian deaths. Any deliberate action not in the heat of battle which must result in civilian deaths is either terrorism or a war crime, depending upon whether the perpetrators are groups/individuals or states.
There is the belief that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe you. Well, the lies over WMD and that Saddam Hussein supported al-Qaeda were believed by some for a long time. It is amazing that, given no uncovering of WMD and the findings of the 9/11 Commission, these lies are still being peddled.
If Tony Blair and George Bush were themselves misled into an honest belief in their claims before the war on Iraq, then they would have no reason now not to hold up their hands, say, 'sorry, we were misled, but we honestly believed what we were claiming.' Draw your own conclusions as to why they do not do this.
I get rather tired of the Eurosceptics and the UKIP tirades against Europe. Yes, there are silly decisions and we need to give more power to the European Parliament and less to the Commission, but the UK, with others, has benefitted enormously from being in Europe, not least in legal matters: mainstream European legislation is much more on the side of the individual and more humane that UK law.
Europe too offers a way of cooperation rather than competition and offers a potentially more civilised society than the US/UK model.
Is it appropriate to be sad or be angry at the (usual) lack of action at the G8 summit about Third World debt? Tony Blair puffs and pants about what he will do next year when he hosts the summit, but what about this year? It may just be money to the G8 nations: it is death to thousands of people in the debt-laden nations.
President Chirac is right: "There is no ready-made formula for democracy readily transposable from one country to another. Democracy is not a method, it is a culture. For democracy to take root solidly and durably in the Arab world, it must be an Arab democracy before all else."
This is a lesson that George Bush needs to learn. That and patience.
It could be argued that it is too little, it certainly does not get any appropriate level of media support, but at least Gordon Brown is trying to do something for the world's poor. See Gordon Brown: We need irreversible progress in tackling world poverty on the Independent's web site.
The lamentable shortfall in help is highlighted and mention is made of countries not yet meeting the target of 0.7% of GDP in aid. 0.7%: not much of a target is it? Yet it still is too much for some. US aid in 2001 was around 0.1% of GDP. The UK is around 0.3% of GDP.
I watched the interview with Mordechai Vanunu last night and was amazed at how anyone could psychologically survive 4,000 days of solitary confinement, let alone come through it apparently psychologically healthy. I fear however for his safety, simply because he has more than survived.
I have to assume that his brutal treatment was designed to break him: the fact that he is not broken is a a continuing slight to those who believe him to be a traitor (what and to whom did he betray anything - everyone knew Israel had a nuclear capability) He will be a target if he leaves Israel and within Israel he is prey to extremists - you can just hear the Israeli expressions of 'regret' at not being able to protect him completely.
I salute his bravery and I condemn the US for providing the knowledge and the funds for proliferating nuclear arms into the Middle East. I hope my fears are unfounded and that he can live a peaceful and fruitful life.
You may have missed the New Scientist article on Palestinian water. Briefly, Israel is expecting the US to fund a desalination project to pipe water from the Mediterranean to the West Bank, thus allowing Israel to continue to take most of the water from aquifers in the West Bank (never mind that Israel has no right to be there in the first place).
The article also states that Palestinians have 57 cubic metres of water per person per year against Israel's 246 cu metres. And the pipe carrying the water to the West Bank would run across Israeli territory.............
The article can be found at Israel lays claim to Palestine's water
President Bush is calling for the dismantling of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. It should rather be retained, like the Nazi death camps, as a reminder of the brutality of the Saddam Hussein era and of its continued use (abuse) by American troops.
No justice for the Deepcut families - yet. Justice will be done, except we must remember the saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Why do we have such little people in government?
For once the US did not veto a UN Security Council resolution (No 1544) which amongst other things included the words "Condemning the killing of Palestine civilians that took place in the Rafah area"
and "Calls on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, and insists, in particular, on its obligation not to undertake demolition of homes contrary to that law"
but what is the response of the Israeli ambassador to the UN? The resolution does not "call on Israel to stop its activity and did not call on Israel to stop the demolition of houses".
and
"We will continue to do what we must do to protect our citizens"So Israel, as usual, will ignore world and this time UN opinion. Israel will carry on its oppressive and murderous actions and let us be in no doubt about the motives. Palestinians in Gaza recently killed thirteen Israeli military personnel. As Israel is illegally occupying Gaza (and the West Bank), those military forces have no right to be there and in any other circumstances world opinion would quite straightforwardly see such attacks in the IDF as justified resistance against foreign occupation. Although Gaza is on the coast, Israel controls any access by sea (in contravention of UN resolutions). There is of course no access by air for the Palestinians. It is therefore not surprising that the Palestinians try any means at their disposal to obtain such meagre weapons as they can to resist a brutal occupation. When they have a partial success, as recently, the Israeli unspoken law comes into force: whilst the exact ratio cannot be formulated, clearly one Israeli life equals around five or six Palestinian lives. That is the reason for the present 'incursion': to take Palestinian lives in simple, cold-blooded, primitive and barbaric revenge. That is the mindset of the Israeli administration, in defiance of not only the world, but of many of its own people.
Let us also look behind the soon to be resurrected withdrawal from Gaza. The Palestinians will still have no access by sea or by air. They will still be living in a prison camp at the non-existent mercy of Israel. They will have no freedom. There will be two changes. One is a reduction in Jewish settlers illegally living in Gaza. The other is even more brutal treatment of any activity by the Palestinians other than total obedience, for we can be sure that Israel will use the so-called magnanimity of withdrawal to justify continued oppression. "We unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and look, they still attack us." We can hear the plaintive cries already. Of course attacks will continue until Palestine obtains justice. However wrong the tactics might be, and I abhor killings such as the pregnant mother and her family, people will fight for centuries for justice. The Palestinians are not an exception to that rule. As the state with the overwhelming power Israel has to recognise the age-old truth and put away military means and focus solely on a political solution. There is no other way.
I am not naive enough to believe all the hype about the openness of US government but it is a good deal more open than government in the UK. Would that we had Senate hearings, Congress hearings, admissions from the Pentagon that there are video tapes of the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the retrieval of photographs in Iraq. Here in the UK, if such evidence existed, we can be sure that it would never see the light of day. We have instead the Ministry of Defence still refusing any external enquiry into anything that happens within its remit.
We have only to think of Deepcut barracks, where the MoD still refuses an independent enquiry into soldiers' deaths, still accepting the verdict of the internal enquiries that people can commit suicide by shooting themselves more than once, in spite of expert testimony to the contrary. Whenever Geoff Hoon or some other MoD spokesperson pontificates about the thoroughness of internal enquiries they should have the word 'Deepcut' chanted at them. Geoff Hoon has apologised to one family for the way the matter has been handled (why not to all the families?) but is still refusing a public enquiry and is passing responsibility onto the coroner.Tony Blair, amongst many other things, promised open government when he came to power. Seven years' later we are still waiting. Cheryl James' family have been waiting eight years for a proper enquiry into her death at Deepcut and now have been told that an inquest into another death might, just might, be extended:
"It would also, as I understand it, be quite within the coroner's powers to extend the inquest into Private Collinson to cover all four deaths, if he thought there was reason to do so. There is therefore the prospect that the forthcoming inquest could be wide-ranging and thorough examination of precisely the kind of issues you would wish to see covered by a public inquiry." Our Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff (I know nothing, I wasn't told) Hoon.
Private Lynndie England justifies her part in the abuse of Iraqi detainees by saying she was obeying orders. I thought the Nuremberg Trials, apart from common sense and common decency, established once and for all that 'following orders' is not an excuse for war crimes and the treatment of Iraqi detainees amount, by the logic of the US, to war crimes. It may be difficult for a soldier, trained to obey orders without question, to exercise his or her own judgement, but obeying without question is for the heat of battle. This was not in the heat of battle and others have of course exercised their normal instincts as human beings and brought the practices to light.
"The Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war": Donald Rumsfeld, March 23rd 2003. Donald Rumsfeld has also stated that the abuse of Iraqi detainees happened on his watch. This phrase normally means accepting responsibility for happened on that 'watch', but there is no resignation. The US Administration had little credibility before. Now it is less than zero.
We are hearing yet again the arguments that what is happening to detainees in Iraq is not as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. We hear the argument that because so-called 'enemy combattants' at Guantanamo Bay have been placed outside the Geneva Convention that this led to confusion in Iraq about what is right and what is not. Firstly, no-one can condone or explain away the abuses that we have seen - which makes us wonder what we have not seen - by the label 'confusion'. They are just plain wrong by any standards and no-one should get away with a plea of mitigation by saying someone else did worse things.
Secondly, the principles on which Guantanamo Bay was established are also wrong, fundamentally wrong. No state has a legitimate power to define human beings in terms of who can be accorded fundamental rights and who cannot. If democracy and Western civilisation mean anything they must enshrine the rule of law and that all people are equal under the law. The cancerous thought patterns which brought Guantanamo Bay into being have spread, as cancer does, to Iraq. We suffer a slightly less, but only slightly less version of the disease here in the UK. Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act etc in the US have dangerously reduced fundamental principles of justice and fairness, creating an exercise of arbitrary authority.
The US has to take its share of the responsibilty for arbitrary, unfair and uncivilised responses in return: those responses are not right, or justifiable, but they do not stand alone. They stand in the context of the most powerful state in the world deciding its own rules to suit itself and its own ends. When power is exercised in this way, we approach the rules that govern the animal kingdom: the most powerful win out, the less powerful die. I thought that the human race had a higher level of consciousness than that.
Is this the beginning of the end for Tony Blair? Are we seeing what is called the 'tipping point', which is when an unstoppable momentum starts towards an inevitable conclusion? If so, it is no more than he deserves. No-one can be contemptuous of public opinion indefinitely without paying the price (apart from the fact that he made so many mistakes). Whilst I see Gordon Brown as far more genuinely Socialist, it is wise to be cautious: there were such high hopes of Blair when he came to power.
John Scarlett took responsibility for the fallacious dossier which Parliament used as the basis for approving the war against Iraq. This same John Scarlett has been appointed head of MI6, even as an enquiry is still being carried out into the quality of intelligence on Iraq, which we all know was seriously flawed. If he really is the best person for the job the pool of talent in our intelligence services is low indeed.
Whether or not the accusations against US troops in Iraq are well-founded, it points up the need, for both the US and the rest of the world, for the US to sign up to the International Criminal Court. Only this way, with an independent court of last resort will the world and the US be sure that justice is done. It is arrogant for the US to insist that its courts are spotlessly scrupulous and always right.
It is idle too for American generals to say that alleged actions are not the way the US behaves. Guantanamo Bay proves the opposite. It passes now for 'normal' practice but the use of hoods is demeaning, degrading and inhuman, as are the assertions of the private arm of the military presence in Iraq to say both that they were not informed what is acceptable and that their job is the 'break' suspects and that most 'break' quite quickly. Most people break under torture and most innocent people confess to anything just to stop the pain.
People seem to have forgotten that Arabs, Muslims, Iraqis, Palestinians etc are human beings and have the right to be assumed innocent - and treated accordingly - unless and until proved guilty. There are no shortcuts in following the rule of law without sacrificing the very principles of civilisation that Bush and Blair are so fond of saying they are defending.
It is sad to hear of the reports of both US and UK armed forces ill-treating Iraqis.
Whether or not you agree with the war, everyone hoped and expected the military to operate within both the letter and the spirit of international law and conventions. Everyone loses by these actions: the Iraqis, the perpetrators, the cause of peace and civilised standards. It is to be hoped now that justice is done and seen to be done on all sides.
I was deeply ashamed when I heard that the UK is actively recruiting dentists from Hungary. It's not a new phenomenon but there is something deeply immoral about a rich country not bothering to invest in its public services by training essential staff and preferring instead to lure people from poorer countries who are trying to be self-sufficient and raise their living standards by their own efforts.
This is nothing to do with the free movement of Labour (Labour in the economists' terminology) which is positive. The UK Government makes much of people coming here to 'sponge' off benefits whilst sponging off other countries in a different manner.
Predictably, the UK Government's response to the 52 diplomats' criticism is the usual one: we're right. you're wrong. No consideration of any possible truth in the accusations, no acknowledgment that these matters are not black and white. Not even, as yet anyway, a willingness to debate the issue with very senior and experienced people. What happened to the big conversation?
It makes a change to agree with Tony Blair on a matter of some substance, but I welcome the decision to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. Not only is this more democratic, but, as Tony Blair said, it enables the wider issues to be debated. For too long the tabloid press has been poisoning people's minds in their anti-Europe propoganda. Notwithstanding the bureaucratic excesses, the EU has been of great benefit to the UK, not least in a civilising effect in relation to justice. There are many people who have cause to be grateful for the presence of courts of appeal beyond the UK. The generally more socially-aware mainland European countries also have a moderating influence on the US/UK free market jungle that is so de-humanising.
Although we knew that Sharon's plan to pull out of Gaza has nothing to do with seeking a settlement, or peace of any sort, the comments of Benjamin Netanyahu, referring to the West Bank: “There we are going to invest. I myself am going to approve hundreds of millions of shekels to invest in the settlements beyond the main fence,” make it clear that Israel will continue to occupy and expand the illegal settlements in defiance of not only UN Resolutions but the principles of the Road Map. More proof that Israel is not interested in peace, just conquest and expansion.
The latest Israeli assassination (murder) of Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi provides a further example of state terrorism. When is the EU going to act and impose sanctions on Israel? Words are not enough and sanctions would give enormous support to the thousands of Israelis who are opposed to their murderous administration. They deserve outside help and support, from individuals (I do not purchase Israeli goods) and from other counries.
What sort of democracy is the US when its President can completely change decades of (official only) foreign policy without any reference to an elected assembly? I refer to the Bush/Sharon 'understanding' which sells out the Palestinians. It puts peace further away, as any Palestinian authority would find it difficult to contain violent acts from Gaza and trouble in the West Bank would be bound to continue whilst any settlements remain. This of course is just what Ariel Sharon wants: perpetual warfare. It's the only thing he understands and George Bush seems to to be going the same way. For more thoughts on this see Betrayal
There has been a lot of comments to the effect that, whether or not the attack on Iraq was legal or not, let's move on etc. The current confrontation between the Occupying Powers and Moqtada al-Sadr demonstrates that this argument is not sterile or legalistic. I have found no UN Security Council resolution that gives the occupation of Iraq any UN legitimacy: reference is only made to the responsibilities of the Occupying Powers under international law, in other words the UN simply acknowledges the fact of the occupation. Similar responsibilities apply to Israel as the Occupying Power in the West Bank and Gaza and no-one - other than the hard-liners in Israel - claim legitimacy for that occupation.
So is Moqtada al-Sadr a terrorist, an insurgent or a freedom fighter? That debate is a real one if the Occupying Powers in Iraq have no legitimacy: Moqtada al-Sadr is equivalent to a French Resistance fighter, as are Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza (but not in Israel). International law does not condemn people who fight against an illegal occupation, although their methods may fall foul of international law. We need to be careful and precise in our labelling of people, not just assume that anyone who opposes Western power is automatically wrong and a terrorist to boot. Terrorism is to do with intentions and methods, which puts Ariel Sharon and Hamas suicide bombers in Israel on a par. So far we know little about Moqtada al-Sadr's intentions and methods.
At present we only know that he opposes the occupation of Iraq and that in itself is not a crime.
Tony Blair is still in his 'historic' frame of mind: "We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq". Who created this 'historic struggle'? If 'we' fail, "The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out". Tony Blair should know better than most that the coalition is 'snuffing out' the chances of religious tolerance in Iraq right now: creating so many enemies that, unless the US indeed suppresses Iraq indefinitely, a theocracy looks more and more likely if and when Iraq gets the free and fair elections that are promised.
In referring to terrorists he says "Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them", bur conveniently forgets to mention that Iraq did not harbour or sponsor terrorism before the US and UK invaded. 'Iraqi terrorism' is a product of US and UK policy. According to Blair, "faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs", Western civilisation hangs in the balance in Iraq. If so, it is a fate that was gambled by him and George Bush for no obviously valid reasons in terms of the 'war' against terrorism. Amongst the 'positive' aspects of present day Iraq, Tony Blair cites "The first private banks are being opened". I wonder who these banks belong to? I do not know, but can be fairly sure that, in the absence of the word 'Iraqi', they are not home-grown. Tony Blair ascribes the present Iraqi unrest, uprising, insurgency, or whatever you would call it, to "outside terrorists, an extremist who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship" in another simplistic description. He may live to regret this understatement as the possibility of more coherent opposition is fuelled by heavy-handed American attacks in civilian areas. Terrorism of any sort needs to have its support channels cut off: the support of ordinary people, which can only be gained and maintained by working with them, to their agenda, not by breaking down their doors, denying the men from travelling around the country and firing into and from mosques. Tanks cannot win the peace and as we all knew beforehand, the US is good at laying waste but appalling at cooperating with other people - like all imperial powers since time immemorial. There is indeed a tragedy unfolding in Iraq, a tragedy born of the mindset of the coalition, which may achieve the opposite of what it says it is trying to achieve.
The US marines are busy making enemies in Iraq, seemingly oblivious to the long-term effects of such heavy-handed tactics. The use of heavy weaponry in civilian areas inevitably causes the deaths of women and children and the view that, being fired on from a mosque makes the mosque a legitimate target is simplistic (and simple-minded) in the extreme. There is no patience, no consideration of consequences, alternatives, just the "bring 'em on" mentality. There is the again simplistic and simple-minded belief that superior firepower is all that is needed.
One day the US armed forces and the US Administration will learn that the indescriminate use of such firepower kills not only military opposition but any genuine respect and cooperation with the US. What they are doing at the moment is proving to the Iraqi people that they indeed come as conquerors, not liberators.
It went almost unnoticed in the media and I, through work, had forgotten. However, let us note another shameful veto of a UN Security Council Resolution and an equally shameful abstention on the part of the UK. I refer to draft resolution S/2004/240, brought by Algeria and Libya following the murder of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The text reads:Algeria and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: draft resolution
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1435 (2002), 1515 (2003),
Expressing its grave concern at the continued deterioration of the situation on the ground in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, as a result of the escalation of violence and attacks,
1. Condemns the most recent extrajudicial execution committed by Israel, the occupying Power, that killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin along with six other Palestinians outside a mosque in Gaza City and calls for a complete cessation of extrajudicial executions;
2. Condemns also all terrorist attacks against any civilians as well as all acts of violence and destruction;
3. Calls on all sides to immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of acts of violence, including all acts of terrorism, provocation, incitement and destruction;
4. Calls for the cessation of all illegal measures and practices and for respect for and adherence to international humanitarian law;
5. Calls on both parties to fulfil their obligations under the road map endorsed by Security Council resolution 1515 (2003) and to work with the Quartet to implement it in order to achieve the vision of the two States living side by side in peace and security;
6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
The Security Council voted 11 for, 3 abstentions (Germany, Romania, UK) and 1 veto (US). The UK abstention came after both Tony Blair and Jack Straw had personally condemned the killing of Sheikh Yassin. The permanent UN observer to Palestine commented:
"the Council, once again, was unable, due to the twenty-eighth use of the veto by the United States on the occupied Palestinian territories, to assume its responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security. What was even more regrettable was that it had taken place in the midst of the severe tensions in the Middle East, including the negative effects that would be the consequence of the Council’s inability to take a stand today. That would not contribute to calming the situation or pushing for moderation or dialogue. The draft had contained a clear condemnation of all terrorist attacks against civilians in addition to all acts of violence and destruction. Regrettably, the “super-Power” that had voted against it had suggested the inclusion of language that had been impossible to accept."
I invite you to re-read the draft resolution above and decide for yourselves whether the US is right, or the other eleven countries who supported the resolution are right. Note too the opening comments of the Israeli representative:
"DAN GILLERMAN (Israel) thanked all those who bravely had not adopted the resolution."
It's very brave of countries to follow the lead of the world's superpower, is is not? I ask the general question in view of the world situation: which is more brave, to oppose the US or to agree with the US?
Furthermore, I urge you to read the outline of the discussion at the UN, which can be found here:
What is clear, yet again, is that the US treats the UN with contempt, disregarding the views of the majority of the Security Council by using the veto rather than abstaining.
Following Ariel Sharon's hints that he will no longer be held to his promise to George Bush not to harm Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gadaffi's Middle East crown of 'mad dog' passes to Sharon. Let us hope that he does get indicted and has to stand down and let us also hope that Israel gets a leader worthy of the country - a leader who recognises justice, diplomacy and the rule of international law. The world can do without any more state terrorism - it has enough to do combatting individual and group terrorism.
Note the anti-Government protests in Nepal. Note the reasons for the protests: greater democracy is demanded. Note what the US is currently doing: arming Government forces. This is the same US that has a mission to bring democracy to countries. Note also that at least some of the protestors in Nepal are "Maoist guerrillas". So that's OK then: we cannot afford the dreaded communists to have any influence anywhere, lest the perfect capitalist system which brings prosperity to all is subverted. No matter that a country is riven with civil war for years. If the US really wants to help Nepal the aid should be purely for the infrastructure - schools, hospitals etc and let the Nepalese choose their own way of life and system of government.
Spin is alive and well in UK politics, well, at least within Tony Blair's and David Blunkett's mindsets. Beverley Hughes vehemently denies that she knew anything of immigration scams until it is revealed that she was told by memo and had replied in writing. Not surprisingly, having in effect been caught with her hand metaphorically in the till, she then resigns but Blair and Blunkett proceed to try and make this a virtue, as if she really had no need to resign but showed extraordinary integrity in so doing. We are not stupid and I for one resent being treated as though I am. Beverley Hughes would have been forced to resign had she not done so and we all know it.
It is nauseating to see Tony Blair scuttling off to shake Colonel Gaddafi's hand. Not because dialogue is not needed: it is and I welcome any diplomatic connections with any state. Neither because there is a transparent attempt to get ahead of the game to gain oil contracts British companies, dispiriting as that is. (Incidentally,we can be sure that Tony Blair received clearance from the White House for the trip.) No, what is nauseating is firstly that we force Libya to get rid of its own WMD (and why to the US, why could they not have been inspected and destroyed on site by the UN?)so that we can sell them our WMD;
secondly because Tony Blair is so full of his own importance that he has to go, not his Foreign Secretary, or some other Ministerial representative. Beyond that, he also has to represent himself as brave: brave Tony 'leading the way', 'doing what is right'.
There is another example of Tony Blair's lack of integrity in his reaction to the probability of progress on the EU constitution. Everyone knows that this causes political problems for the UK and that the Government would have preferred the issue to be left until after the UK general election. However, Tony Blair doesn't just put a brave face on it, - not so brave here - he pretends to welcome it. The sounding of a hollow vessel indeed.
Since the end of the Cold War there has been an imbalance of power that is bad for the world (and the US), especially in the way that the US has used its power. The thought strikes me that, whilst not deliberate - the US has made its intention to remain dominant quite clear - the treatment of al-Qaeda may well have the effect of creating a second force by unifying the Islamic world and maybe some non-aligned states to counteract the excesses of the US. Such a perspective raises the possibility that a political wing of al-Qaeda may emerge to represent such a unified bloc.
If this were to happen we would live in interesting times indeed and the US would only have itself to blame for mishandling its power.
The murder of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin by Israeli forces as he left a mosque in his wheelchair marks yet another turn in the downward circle of depravity. The comments by Israeli Cabinet Minister Uzi Landau that the goal of this murder was to 'create quiet' is utterly incomprehensible - if it was genuinely meant. The only calm that such murders creates is the ultimate calm of death when everyone on both sides is dead. The Israeli Government is yet to learn that its policies cannot work, ever, at the practical level. The deeper lesson is also not, I suspect, even perceived.
This is that hurting and killing others hurts and kills the perpetrator. The harm that is also being done to Israelis and to Israel itself is also very great, so great that I suspect it is the greatest threat to Israel's democracy and to Israel's existence. I believed during the Balkan conflicts that President Milosovic's actions rendered Serbia as unfit to oversee the republics of what was Yugoslavia. Ariel Sharon has already rendered Israel as unfit to oversee the Palestinian territories. How long will it take for more and more people to view Israel as an 'unfit nation'? For the world to see Israel as the problem to be resolved?
Ariel Sharon is playing with the viability of Israel itself, so caught up is he in his hatred.
It is of course quite preposterous for the US to accuse Spain of 'appeasing' terrorism because of the possibility of Spain withdrawing troops from Iraq as the war against Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in the first place. The two issues are separate.
It is heartening to see however that people are starting to ask 'What does Al-Qaeda' want? This is the beginning of a search for understanding, as, before we can respond in any coherent way, we need to understand what we are facing. Would that Bush and Blair come down from the 'good/evil', 'right/wrong' simplistic standpoint and start to examine what is going on, both in their own societies and what they regard, regrettably, as the 'enemies' societies. If they do not, we will continue to fight in the darkness, not knowing who we are hurting and and not knowing for what good we are fighting.
There is merit in fighting for what is good, but we have to define both that and what is not good, not thrash around wildly and blindly. It would also be appropriate to root out what is not good in our own societies before presuming to impose our will on others.
If you have not had the chance to read it, get hold of a copy of March 14th's Observer newspaper in which the freed British internees at Guantanamo Bay talk about how they were treated. Of course these allegations will be denied, but they have the ring of truth and are sickening. False confessions wrung out of them which were only dropped because of documentary evidence providing cast-iron alibis. Physical as well as psychological torture. We in the West have poured scorn so often over 'confessions' in totalitarian countries.
Will we have the courage to investigate and condemn similar tactics carried out by the US? The stories make a mockery of all the politicians' talk of fighting for democracy and human rights. Standing on a person's legs whilst forcing him to kneel and holding a gun to his head as he is interrogated has no place in any society, let alone one which purports to be the land of the free.
We must all acknowledge the horror of the Madrid bombings and agree that no cause justifies such acts, yet there is a deafening silence amongst world leaders about the causes of terrorism. There are always causes: Catholic terrorists wanting an independent Ireland, Protestant terrorists wanting to maintain their political and economic power; Palestinians wanting their own state; similarly Kurds and Basques.
To investigate and understand the causes is not to condone, let alone encourage, but the causes point towards the solution. At present world leaders are so intent on demonising Al-Qaeda that no progress is being made on finding out the causes and without this, a solution will be a long time coming, for just as we can say that terrorism will never defeat us, the terrorists can say the same until their support dwindles - which will only happen when the causes are addressed. I fear that the US, in particular, sees 'global terrorism' as the replacement for Communism and American political leaders have a vested interest in it continuing.
I remember too the chilling statement made by an IRA leader to the effect that you (the establishment) have to be lucky all the time, we (the IRA) only have to be lucky once. There also has to be borne in mind a psychological truth: that the denied, the split-off part will steadily grow in its isolation and darkness and become more powerful and destructive. The same is true at societal and global levels. We cannot afford just to split off movements such as Al-Qaeda. Our leaders know this, but not being honest with us is yet another example of their duplicity.
"Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will tell US President George W. Bush in Washington this month that he will order the destruction of homes abandoned in Jewish settlements if Israel pulls out of the Gaza Strip.""A military source told the paper that Israel would intensify attacks on Hamas and Islamic Jihad as a prelude to a withdrawal and that Sharon had ordered the terrorist organizations to be crushed before any Israelis leave. 'The shameful picture of the hasty, not to say panicky, Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon under Hizbullah attacks will not be repeated in Gaza,' the source said. 'When we leave, Hamas and Jihad will be begging for mercy.'"
Source: Jerusalem Post 8/3/2004
What vindictive and despicable attitudes and proposed actions this betrays. In the last few days twenty seven Palestinians have been killed by Israel's IDF in Gaza, the youngest a child of 8. Israel's intentions seem quite clear: the 'mother of all scorched earth policies' to quote another vindictive and despicable leader, Saddam Hussein. When does the persecution of the Palestinians become genocide?
"The doctrine of international community is no longer a vision of idealism. It is a practical recognition that just as within a country, citizens who are free, well educated and prosperous tend to be responsible, to feel solidarity with a society in which they have a stake, so do nations that are free, democratic and benefiting from economic progress tend to be stable and solid partners in the advance of humankind."
Tony Blair speaking yesterday. Does he really believe that the US fits the category of "stable and solid partners in the advance of humankind?" The US, which executes minors, in which the gap between rich and poor grows wider every day, which has subverted countless states in its quest for world domination, which has consistently vetoed any UN resolutions which might have advanced peace in the Middle East, which persistently refuses to ratify treaties designed to reduce the potentially catastrophic effects of the Western way of life on the world's climate?
Yet this is the country that Tony Blair slavishly follows. Let us be clear: the UK could not have attacked Iraq on her own. All this rhetoric is as the little boy cheering on the playground bully, dependent upon that bully for protection. It would be sad if it were not tragic and so threatening to world stability and peace."The truth is we went to war to enforce compliance with UN resolutions.
It is now apparent from the Survey Group that Iraq was indeed in breach of UN resolution 1441. It did not disclose laboratories and facilities it should have; nor the teams of scientists kept together to retain their WMD including nuclear expertise; nor its continuing research relevant to CW and BW". (Yesterday's speech) Contrast this with: "I am aware, of course, that people are going to have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services. But this is what they are telling me the British Prime Minister and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture they paint is one accumulated over the past four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability." (Tony Blair's speech to Parliament, September 24th 2002) and later in the same speech: "At any time he could have co-operated with the UN. Ten days ago he [Saddam] made the offer unconditionally, under threat of war." Little mention was made of UN resolutions and he even conceded that Saddam offered "unconditionally" to comply. Yet he still went to war and now continues to shift the ground, desperately trying to find a solid foothold, but you cannot find a solid foothold on sand.
"It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe. This may be the law, but should it be?" This is a very dangerous proposal. It begs the question of who determines that a country falls into such a category, but if we look at the world today, Israel might qualify: I don't think though that Tony Blair was thinking of taking on Israel. It might also apply to China's treatment of its citizens in Tibet, but again I don't think he will be putting that forward either. No, any action - for action read war - would be taken against the little states and, maybe, specifically Islamic states. For there were two other phrases in his speech which were worrying: "the increasing amount of information about Islamic extremism that was crossing my desk" and "Perhaps this Islamic terrorism would ebb of its own accord. But do we want to take the risk?" It poses the question of just how fundamentalist may Tony Blair's Christian views be, when he makes repeated reference to "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic terrorism". The language is horribly similar to that of the tabloid press and indeed to the British National Party.
Tony Blair has shown how willing he is to go to war. He shows no signs of modifying his enthusiasm for war. He is becoming more of a danger to the world as his term of office continues. The sooner he goes the better.
I fear that the Government in general and David Blunkett in particular are taking advantage of the media-created hatred of asylum seekers to introduce the notion that, uniquely, there will be no right of appeal to a court of law if a tribunal rules against an asylum seeker. It follows the shameful imprisonment without trial of foreign nationals that have unchecked (in law) allegations against them. Lord Woolf is right: it is contrary to the rule of law and any concept of human rights. It is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge: that individuals can be imprisoned or deported without access to a court of law. Such measures need to be resisted before we slide further into a bureaucratic dictatorship. Any moderately reasonable Government would listen to criticisms from the most senior judge. This Government is too arrogant to listen to anyone.
12 year old Muhammed Otaman is the latest Palestinian child to be murdered by Israel's IDF at the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza. If events proceed as usual there will be no enquiry, no charges, virtually no comments in the world's press. Those reading this out there, can't you feel the intense anger and despair at such indifference for over half a century? When will there be any sort of justice? When will the Palestinians be regarded as members of the human race?
I heard a legal expert trying to explain why the 'confidential' advice given to the UK Government about the legality or otherwise of the Iraq war cannot be revealed, but I confess it did not make much sense to me. It appears that the information is 'owned' by the Government and is confidential to the Government, so clearly the Attorney General cannot release it. The Government however could and should. If I receive advice from a solicitor I am perfectly entitled to share it (or not) with whomsoever I choose. As the issue of the Iraq war is of such magnitude - and possibly unique - revealing the full advice is clearly in the public interest. The continued refusal to release it looks as if the Government, yet again, has something to hide.
With the UK Government seemingly unable to prosecute for fear that the advice of the Attorney General was less than conclusive, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a wealthy Iraqi family sues the Government for the loss of relative(s) on the grounds that the war was illegal. Such a case would either force the advice into the open or force the Government into settling out of court, thus effectively admitting liability. If Tony Blair continues with his pig-headed obstinacy to be open about all the circumstances of the Iraq war his legacy will be unenviable. When the facts do emerge he may well be seen as the leader who made his party unelectable for a generation. Not necessarily for getting things wrong but for refusing to come clean and treating the public with contempt.
Whilst we may reluctantly accept that spying, bugging and eavesdropping are facts of life, there is a line to be drawn between commercial organisations and governments spying on each other and the charge that the Secretary General of the UN has been spied upon. This office really is a unique one, by which the Secretary General - above regional and global vested interests - should be able to be assured that confidential and maybe speculative discussions with heads of state and other highly influential people can be carried out in absolute confidence. As such, Tony Blair should at least make it clear that any means of breaching this confidentiality is legally and morally wrong in principle. The fact that he does not indicates the probability that Clare Short's assertions are correct.
If it's possible to make a hash of an issue and sail close to the wind as far as the law is concerned, then David Blunkett will oblige. His proposals mean that a Polish citizen, for example, could arrive in Britain, find work, pay his taxes and be a model subject (we are not citizens here in the UK) for one year less one day. Then he falls ill and cannot work, following which, in Tony Blair's caring phrase, he will be "put out of the country". In fact the Government reserve the right to do this for up to two years' after arrival. Not only that, these proposals do not apply to people from Malta and Cyprus. So we have highly discriminatory proposals which may well be illegal under EU law and which are explicitly based on the premise that people are only welcome if they are useful to the country. What a Dickensian attitude! No room at the UK inn, is there Mr Blair.
Isn't it strange that the free market in goods, products, raw materials, finance are to be encouraged but not of the other factor of production: labour. The wonderful capitalist free market system can be allowed to balance everything out except labour. Underneath this lies the attitude that labour is only cost, to be reduced to the minimum, whereas capital etc are costs to be borne in order to make a profit. People are not wanted unless they can "support themselves" (Blair again). Of course people in this country, egged on by the press, do not want their living standards reduced if labour costs are equalised by migration, but this begs a wider question. Why not? Why should some countries be substantially better off through accidents of history. Should we not feel uneasy at least at the inequalities in the world? If the EU means anything there should be a coherent plan to encourage the deployment of all means of production in order to equalise, within broad parameters, the standard of living across the community. This would take time, but it needs to start. And I wish the Government would stop mis-using such words as 'hospitality': their understanding of the word equates to the 'hospitality' of a job interview.
George W Bush is focussing on security in his election campaign, together with his specious claim to be a 'War President'. Americans would do well to learn from Israel's example of Ariel Sharon, who was elected on (and continues to emphasise) promises of greater security. We all know that the opposite has happened in Israel. It will also happen in the US if Bush is re-elected: a leader who can only resist a perceived threat has a vested interest in maintaining a threat. Better the leader who can engage with the causes of the threat and eliminate it at source - which is not by fighting. Whether an electable leader exists in the US, who knows, but hopefully he does. If women had equal political power, the odds would shorten dramatically.
The Labour and Conservative parties (the Liberal Democrats grasped this long ago) would do well to heed the feedback from the London congestion charge and relate it to general taxation. The feedback indicates that whilst Londoners do not like paying the charge, they are willing to do so because they see the benefits. The same applies to the general public and general taxation. Brown and Letwin need to wake up to the new reality: that people are willing to pay for services, that they know they cannot get anything for nothing and that the UK public services need investment.
Donald Rumsfeld utters again his claptrap about 'enemy combattants' in referring to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. No matter how many fancy words and phrases are conjured up, the fact remains that these detainees are being held outside any rule of law and thus the US is guilty of one of the most serious of human rights violations: holding people without charge, without legal assistance and without trial. No-one should be above, below, or outside the law, or we fall below a minimum level of acceptable behaviour. I would not like to be Donald Rumsfeld if he lives long enough to see the verdict of history. He epitomises what is wrong with the present American Administration and I fervently hope that the American people throw him to where he belongs: a nasty little footnote in a sad period for the US.
It is sad that Maxine Carr was refused parole largely because of fears for her safety. The popular press has a lot to answer for: her crime was in fact relatively minor (as evidenced by the sentence) and in no way contributed to the murders. She is as innocent of murder, or being an accessory to murder, as any inhabitant of Soham. She lied not knowing what she was helping to cover up. I understand the anger against the murderer himself, but the demonisation of Maxine Carr by the popular press, encouraging and fuelling needless hatred, damages not only her but all of us. We are all diminished by this. There is an ugly unforgiving streak in all of us which the press taps into and strengthens, to the detriment of a fair and just society.
The Government is right to introduce an Act to ensure that the medical profession has to get consent before any human tissue is used. It is not difficult and the scaremongering of scientists is just that: scaremongering. A couple of years' ago I had to have a kidney stone removed as it did not pass naturally: I was asked if it could be kept and consented quite happily, whereas some years' ago I did retain the gall stones as they were quite spectacular. It's not difficult to ask.
Hans Blix refers to the UK's Government's use of intelligence material on Iraq in terms of "dramatise it" and "exaggerate the importance of what they have". It is more polite language than "sex up" but it means the same thing, so presumably Hans Blix is not convinced by Hutton either. It was a nice touch to expect "a bit more sincerity" from Western leaders, as Tony Blair parades his so-called 'sincerity' on all possible occasions. Nice one Hans.
Tony Blair has a choice: either admit he is a liar or admit that he is incompetent. I refer to the extraordinary claim that he made in Parliament that he did not know the nature of the weapons that he personally wrote about in the dossier which justified the attack on Iraq. Furthermore, his Secretary of State for Defence knew, his former Foreign Secretary knew. If you were Prime Minister and were personally writing about the most specific danger that Saddam Hussein posed, would you not have enquired as to the precise nature of these weapons, their range and capabilities? Yes, I thought you would: putting your name to anything requires an obligation to find out just what you are endorsing.
Let us assume for the moment that Tony Blair did not know, although Robin Cook finds this difficult to believe. It adds considerable weight to the argument that the Tony Blair was so desperate for evidence, any evidence, that he dare not question it for fear that it was not as significant as he wished. With such an attitude he took the country to war. For further thoughts on the Hutton Report see The Hutton Report - unanswered questions
I was too kind yesterday to David Blunkett. These secret courts would not be trying terrorist suspects of actual terrorist crimes, they would be trying them on the suspicion that they may carry out such crimes, or, presumably, for being possibly involved in terrorism in some form. So for being suspected of maybe having the intention of committing an act of terrorism all the prosecution in these secret courts would have to do is demonstrate that possibility on the basis of probability. It stinks.
David Blunkett has wandered off into his totalitarian world yet again. Not content with the draconian anti-terrorism laws he already has, he now proposes that terrorist suspects will be hauled before a secret court, full of hand-picked judges and lawyers (on the flimsy basis of security) and could be found guilty on the basis of probability rather than the time-honoured practice of beyond reasonable doubt (there are reasons for time-honoured practices, which are not to be disbanded lightly). Worse, if the time-honoured practice is to be weakened at all, it should be for lesser offences rather than the most serious. We might, might, examine the case for a lesser burden of proof for eg minor non-custodial offences but not for major ones. The proposals would take us yet another step towards totalitarian 'justice' - in fact I seriously wonder if David Blunkett understands the concept of justice. We need to make it clear to Blunkett et al that this is unacceptable before he has the bright idea of gulags. Foreign nationals are already incarcerated without trial in the equivalent of concentration camps. We have only a little way to go to join Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in dealing with those the establishment distrusts or dislikes.
Two immediate thoughts following the ludicrous Hutton Report: it is likely to increase Tony Blair's belief in his own invincibility, thus hastening his own demise; secondly, Tony Blair must be very envious of Greg Dyke as he knows that if he resigned, there would not be tens of thousands of people protesting against it. I never had a view on Greg Dyke as being effective or not: now I am convinced that he was doing a good job. No-one gets such a spontaneous response from his staff without good reason. A considered view on the Hutton Report (why it is ludicrous) is in preparation.
The fiasco over tuition fees - breaking an election manifesto and risking losing a huge Parliamentary majority to bring in legislation that is not effective in the current Parliament - points up just what Tony Blair is. A man granted limited power who abuses that power in just the same way as did Margaret Thatcher and as did the later Roman emperors. If he does not go soon, writing this before the Hutton Report which I believe will not condemn him, he will be deposed as was Margaret Thatcher and indeed the Roman emperors. I believe his obsession and hubris points towards forcible removal.
Charles Kennedy does his party, his country and the world a disservice in saying that Jenny Tonge's remarks are unacceptable. What is wrong with anyone saying that they can understand (as did Cherie Blair) the oppression of the Palestinian people and would possibly react in the same way as some of them do: use the only weapon they have, their own bodies, to resist, take revenge. Of course suicide bombing is not right, but it has to be seen in context, which is Israeli oppression for decades. Understanding is not the same as condoning. Charles Kennedy is the latest public figure to give way to Israeli pressure; I cannot believe he would have reacted in the same way to similar statements in other situations. What happened too to all those people protesting the right of free speech when Robert Kilroy Silk criticsed Arabs (Jenny Tonge only criticised Israelis by implication)? No wonder the Palestinians in particular and the Arab world in general resent the double standards of the West.
The act of 'vandalism' of the 'work of art' in Sweden has attracted attention and it struck me how contrived the protest is. First there is the tired old charge of anti-Semitism when anyone appears to criticise Israel or sympathise with the Palestinians. Secondly the Israeli ambassador who carried out the so-called act of vandalism was taken up with artist being a communist. This presumably makes it bad art automatically. The most striking thing though, in listening to both artist and ambassador was the image of a work of art in which there is a boat on a sea of blood and on that boat is a picture of Ariel Sharon, looking calm and serene. Would the Israeli ambassador's response have been positive: that this depicts Israel in a positive light? I suspect not. I suspect that Sharon would have been associated with blood in a negative way, that this would have been also seen as anti-Semitic. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Some, not all, Israelis would see anti-Semitism anywhere. It is a form of emotional blackmail which is not only wearing thin, it risks the development of anti-Semitism proper.
There has been quite a lot of comment about Robert Kilroy Silk's comments on Arabs to the effect that the principle of free speech is paramount, that people can make up their own minds etc. I would invite those who think that way to consider this: substitute the word 'Arab' with 'Jew' or 'Black' and then consider whether the equivalent negative statements are quite so harmless. Freedom of speech is an important right but no right is absolute. It is getting the balance right between freedoms and responsibilities which is so difficult and so important. I respect those who would also defend the sort of comments levelled at Arabs when they were levelled at Jews or Blacks (or any other 'other' group), they are entitled to their opinion, but I believe the context made this issue different. Arabs are fair game, are becoming the 'other' as Jews and indeed Blacks have been and are still are to some degree.
Tony Blair said a few weeks' ago that he had "no reverse gear" and more recently that "there is no Plan B". Apart from politics being the art of the possible - which implies negotiation and compromise - Blair seems to have slid further into a macho grandiosity whereby he gets a thrill (presumably) from pushing matters and people to the edge. It is a trait with similarities to the Jungian archetype of the 'puer aeternus': a pattern of compulsive risk-taking. This has dangers for anyone but the dangers in this personality type being manifest in a Head of Government involves risks to thousands if not millions of others. It is a very dangerous trend and there is for me a very real sense that the UK would be better off without such a person in charge.
David Blunkett's fatuous proposals for adding a levy on criminals to help fund support for victims of crime has even less logic than most of this governments 'radical' proposals. So I am caught driving at 55mph in a 50mph limit at 2am. Yes, I am guilty of breaking the law and in theory my actions could have injured someone, but they did not, in fact. So why should I contribute forcibly to a (worthwhile) fund for victims? There is no connection. The 'tariff' scale is also idiotic: £5 for a motoring offence, £30 for a murder. So my 2am crime is a sixth less serious than murder? I note that Harold Shipman, the mass murderer, hanged himself in jail today: he would have paid a levy of £30 for his crimes under the proposals. How obscenely insulting is that to the victims and their families? When will the Home Office and David Blunkett return from their cloud cuckoo land? Let us have a properly funded victim support fund, either through general taxation or a properly thought through levy on criminals which matches the actual damage they have caused.
Let us be clear about the aims of George W Bush as he announces plans to put men on the moon and send people to Mars. There is a short term and a long term aim. The short term aim is to appear positive and wishing to make America 'great', to be seen as a President with vision etc. This short term aim is of course precisely targeted at getting re-elected. The long term aim is much more sinister. Under the cover of 'exploration', 'fulfilling human destiny' etc etc, the technology will be developed to track, not just people travelling outwards into space but people travelling around the world, in line with the aims of Air Force Space Command for the year 2004 onwards. It is part of the unending quest for total domination of the world, at whatever price. Do Americans really want to vote for such an administration?
The Civil Contingencies Bill is yet another Act in the making which will provide a UK government powers to restrict individual freedom without due cause. The reason is the vague wording (even the 'watered down' version): "threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or the security of the UK or part of it". In the hands of an unscrupulous government these words can mean anything. Take an organised protest outside Porton Down - the UK's primary chemical and biological weapons development site. Such a protest could be deemed to threaten the security of part of the UK and the full draconian measures of the proposed Act brought into play: suspension of Parliament, destruction of property, forced evacuation of people, the setting up of special tribunals, whatever that means. It may be that this government's intentions are fair and honourable, but this proposed legislation falls into the same category as other 'anti-terrorist' legislation: it relies on the good faith of the governing body to be fair and democratic and as such is bad law. Good law is not only tightly framed, it also has safeguards built in which protect the people (and in this case Parliament) from the whim and chance of whoever gets into power in the future.
This is why such measures as habeas corpus and trial by jury - already seriously eroded by this present government - are so important. The UK is rapidly creating legislation which will allow totalitarian rule. We must be vigilant: Hitler did not start off as a dictator, he gradually subverted a democracy and the present measures merely make a possible future Hitler's job easier.
It hardly merited a mention in the UK press and certainly no names, these are non-people. On January 3rd Israeli soldiers killed a 15 year old boy on the roof of his house in Nablus. Later that day, Israeli soldiers fired on his funeral procession, killing his 17 year old cousin as he carried the 15 year old's coffin. They are people. They have names. The 15 year old was called Amjad Al Masri. His 17 year old cousin was called Mohammad Al Masri. Is it any wonder that the Palestians are angry and in despair? Is it any wonder that some of the people who knew Amjad and Mohammad may take the only action they can take against their oppressors - to support suicide bombings or become suicide bombers? The Palestinians' only weapons are their own bodies, if their bodies are held in such contempt by the Israelis and the world looks on uncaringly then is it surprising that some use their own bodies, strapping exposives around them, because their bodies may, randomly, be obliterated by Israeli forces anyway.
Israel's announcement that she will invest $62m in increasing settlemements on the Golan Heights by 9,000 is yet another example of her expansionist and colonialist policies. It also follows the usual pattern of an aggressive response whenever the 'other side' makes overtures towards peace: the Palestinians are used to this and this time it is Syria's turn. The message is consistently and depressingly clear and familiar: Israel is not interested in peace but only in conquest and oppressing her neighbours. I believe that Israel will go the way of all colonial powers: to be reduced to the lands that belong to Israel only, i.e. to the 1948 boundaries.