Palestine - where now?
January 31, 2005
(For Socialist Campaign Group)
At the end of the election in Palestine which Abu Mazan won handsomely, he held a reception in the Presidential Compound in Ramallah.
In the refurbished hall he thanked the diplomats present and the international observers for their presence and support; he hoped for peace and recognition of his state.
As we filed out into the cold night air the looming gaunt wreck of Arafat’s home for the past three years could be picked out in the gloom, a little further way the glass can canopy over the flower covered grave of the icon of Palestine.
I reflected that the issue of the election was the success in the Palestinian people expressing a point of view whilst under military occupation. Apart from East Jerusalem, the election process was impeccably carried out in Gaza and the West Bank, in the technical sense that those entitled to vote had an opportunity and the issuing and counting of ballot papers was transparent and fair.
In East Jerusalem there were enormous problems. The Israelis treat East Jerusalem differently from the rest of the occupied territories and many hold the understandable suspicion that Israel wishes to annex East Jerusalem away from the West Bank and Gaza. In East Jerusalem voting was undertaken at post offices, where the ballot papers were issued by ‘Israeli’ staff who also would know who had taken part in the election. Voters told me that they were frightened of voting because they were concerned that they might possibly lose any rights and benefits they had if they were known to have taken part in the election. What was also clear was that those Palestinian voters in East Jerusalem whose names did not appear on the local electoral role found themselves being directed to villagers some distance away, that could only be reached by passing through a number of Israeli road blocks and checkpoints. Some voters made the journey but I suspect many did not. Thus, the voter turnout was markedly reduced in East |Jerusalem with some polling stations reporting only a handful throughout the whole day despite voting being extended by two hours, after an emergency application was made to the high court in Ramallah.
I spent polling day in Gaza in the Rafah area where I visited Ilmawasi, a closed area of the Gaza strip due to the presence of a small Israeli settlement (a sort of Gaza within Gaza). Whilst the voting was technically fair, the notion of a free election in the presence of invading tanks and surrounded by heavily armed Israeli army and security personnel made a nonsense of the freedoms that Israel claimed it was giving Palestinians by facilitating the election.
In Rafah, the polling stations at the UN schools were literally the front line between pal and the Israeli controlled border with Egypt and the bullet hoes in the walls of all the houses as well as the schools indicated just how brutal the occupation has been. One school sits along the road that Tom Hurndall (from London) was shot down on whilst trying to save the lives of Palestinian children.
Abu Mazen fought his campaign on the basis of trying to bring about a political solution to the crisis facing Palestine. Mustafa Barghouti, who got 20 per cent of the vote, also argued for political transparency in Palestine and for a peace process.
The issues that have to be addressed are obviously the ability of Palestine to negotiate, which it clearly can do but the problem is, Ariel Sharon has carefully repackaged himself as the moderate centre of Israeli politics and his ‘offer’ to withdraw from Gaza but maintain the settlements on the West Bank, as well as the illegal wall, are the only things that can be achieved. He then points to the role of Netanyahu and others in Israeli politics whose only agenda appears to be more settlements, more occupation, and the development of an apartheid state.
There can be no peace until Israel accepts that its actions have been in human immoral and illegal in its occupation, in the construction of the wall, and the promotion of the settlements. Britain, Europe and the United States have an important role to play in putting pressure on Israel. Firstly via the suspension of Arms trade between Britain and Israel, suspension of the EU Israel Trade Agreement, an end to the bankrolling of Israel by the United States, whilst international law is so blatantly flouted.
Currently, George Bush and the neo-cons are claiming that Iran presents an immediate nuclear threat and so military action should be contemplated. Whereas Israel is known to have nuclear weapons, a research reactor and the ability to build and deliver nuclear warheads. We know this for a fact because of the bravery of Mordechai Vanunu who has spent 18 years in Israeli jails and is still facing severe restrictions on his movement.
The delegation that I was with had the pleasure of spending several hours with Mordechai to hear his story, admire his bravery and his courage and support his demands for the right to travel. He is absolutely dedicated to justice for the Palestinian people and the development of a Palestinian state. His message at least should move people to recognise that real peace and security comes through justice for the Palestinian people.
Who’s next?
January 26, 2005
President Bush made a very controversial “State of the Union” address in January 2002 when he declared six states to be an axis of evil. Since then, tens of thousands of wholly innocent civilians have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, US military spending is at an all time high, and curtailments of civil rights are greater than ever outside wartime in the USA and Western Europe. His message then was that the safety of the world was at risk due to the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11th.
His latest inauguration speech went a lot further. Three years ago he restricted himself to six states. This time he named none but by implication said the whole world should be aware of US intentions to ensure “freedom” was delivered.
Bush has no sense of irony. Over forty million US citizens live a marginal or below poverty line existence. For families trying to survive on welfare Bush’s tax cuts for the super rich do not sound much like the gong of freedom.
The media presentation of the $40 million extravaganza was interesting; the BBC chose to report it like a Coronation or Royal Funeral (sombre tones, dark suits and not critical). Some of the other channels actually reported the anti Bush demonstrations in Washington at Malcolm X Park, around the USA and outside embassies. Indeed a goodly number of us made the trek once more to Grosvenor Square (US Embassy) to demand peace from a building, the misplaced architecture and arrogance of which matches the foreign policy of its occupiers.
I fear we are in a tragic comedy replay of history as we haltingly start 2005.
Whilst most of the humane world is focused on the disastrous after effects of the Tsunami, the cold long-range thinkers around Bush are preparing for the next conflict.
Iran was one of the subjects of the axis of evil speech in 2002, and since then has felt under pressure from the US.
However it is worth recalling that the US and Britain have obsessively intervened in Iran for most of the last century including the coup in 1952 and the installation of the Shah. When his regime tottered in 1979, fearful of the Left gaining the upper hand, support was given to the Ayatollah who then systematically abused the human rights of tens of thousands of its citizens.
Moreover, in the Iran-Iraq war the US openly supported Iraq with arms and diplomatic assistance.
Iran has changed a great deal since the death of Khomeini and whilst there are enormous human rights issues to be addressed, it is a different scenario.
The ability of the country to make nuclear weapons is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that it has been open to UN inspection and Mohamed Al Baradei, after intensive inspection, reported back to Geneva that the efforts of the EU led by France, Germany and Britain had brought agreement to end the production of enriched uranium and thus the production of weapons grade plutonium.
The very day Al Baradei was making his report in Geneva, the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was on his way to Latin America to make a series of bellicose statements against Iran. His successor, the ideologically driven cold warrior, Condoleezza Rice made her intentions very clear. In answering questions on her appointment she clearly sees Iran as the next threat. Indeed her list of states that are a “danger” or “failing” clearly includes Iran and North Korea and appears ignorant in public of the stance being taken by the UN and Europe towards Iran.
Iran is not the only country in the region to have nuclear weapons, or the ability to manufacture them.
Israel secretly developed weapons at the Demona Reactor over 20 years ago, and imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu for 18 years for telling the truth about them. Their weapons are completely illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Curiously, they escaped any censure from Rice, or for that matter from Bush himself.
Last week the BBC and other TV channels started the debate about the “threat” from Iran from its nuclear weapons. A sort of déjà vu descended over audiences around the world as we headed off for another “hunt for WMDs” which in any other circumstances would be comical. The reality is that the consequences could be tragic for the people of Iran, the region and world peace.
The difference with the build up to Afghanistan and Iraq is interesting. Whilst there was substantial opposition to the war in Afghanistan, it was supported by a wide range of European Governments. Iraq was opposed by the most influential Governments in France and Germany, and only supported by Blair and his right wing friends in Spain (then) and Italy. Significantly, it was opposed by Russia and China, and thus the US and Britain isolated themselves.
In a further step towards US isolationism, they seem keen to provoke a dispute with Europe over Iran. The European countries, keen to trade with Iran, have shown a unity and wish to avoid war, which is commendable.
The question we have to face is: will this last?
Seymour Hirsch, who has proved to be right in his writings on Iraq, has made a startling assertion that US special forces are already in Iran, and rumours keep circulating that Israel is being lined up to attack Iran “in its own defence”. Looking back at last year’s incursion by British forces into Iran (from the Basra area), which was reported as “navigational errors” one is forced to wonder what game plan is unfolding here. The British forces were peacefully repatriated by Iran; what would they do if they actually found and captured the US forces?
So far the European position has held, and negotiations with Iran are being pursued. With the new US position of preparedness to impose its view on the whole world being the order of the day, for how much longer will it last?
What is a Euro Army for?
January 19, 2005
The devastation of the Tsunami has resulted in millions of people all over the globe giving large amounts of money in an unprecedented display of a basic human instinct, to help people in trouble. At least 150,000 people have perished in the disaster and millions made homeless. It has made us all realise how fragile our existence can be. It is possible that this is a turning point in the attitude of the rich west to the countries on the rim of the Indian Ocean; one can only hope.
According to the respected journal, The Lancet, the death toll of civilians in Iraq is over 100,000 and still rising. The millions who marched in 2003 all over the world to make the only protest they could, were not in support of tyrannical regimes, but of humanity. If the US and British war efforts had relied on a Tsunami style appeal, we can safely assume no war would have occurred.
The reason I make the comparisons is to indicate that those of us who want to see a world at peace are not isolated and alone. A new debate is stirring in Europe on the role of the European Union in International Affairs and whether there should be a standing European Army, as the draft constitution heralds.
Before we look at this issue, it is worth considering a little of the background.
Europe was divided by the Cold War; massive arsenals were built up by both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The end of the Cold War should have become the Common European Home that Soviet President Gorbachev proposed. Instead, the Warsaw Pact was dismantled and NATO (which ought to have done the same) cast around for a new role. In a series of brilliant political manoeuvres it managed to retain its funding and military structure by playing the anti terrorist card so well. It also involved itself in the Yugoslav conflict and thus became an out of area organisation. Whilst proclaiming its democratic virtues, it had no qualms in the 1960s and 70s of embracing fascist Spain and Portugal. The military dictatorship in Greece and the later military rule in Turkey, did not cause any ripples for the NATO publicity machine.
NATO is now the world’s only effective military alliance and is acting as an agent of US foreign policy, and trying to be the military arm of the UN, when it agrees with its decisions.
Those who propound a European Military Force frequently make the point that the US needs a rival in the world and Europe can provide it.
Unless they seriously intend to start a war with the USA, which seems inconceivable, they are actually supporting US foreign policies. The reality is that the US is fully stretched in Iraq where it has 140,000 ground troops and needs some relief. Whilst in the current conflict a European force would not go there, who can tell what new adventures the White House neo cons will take the world into and who would support them.
Another argument that is used is that Europe is somehow a benign influence in the world, whilst the US with 100 military interventions in a century is intrinsically malevolent. The left in Europe should remember our history. No country is free from the taint of colonial exploitation and the atrocities that the scramble for Latin America, Asia and Africa brought about.
The real purpose of a European Army would be to provide a protection for commercial interests and a local force for NATO (US) operations to take place elsewhere in the world.
British support for the European military option seems to have been lukewarm and Tony Blair only blessed it when it was clear that the US were not opposed to it and it would not undermine NATO.
In its statement of international priorities, the Foreign Office outlined eight priorities for Britain starting with the threat of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorism, illegal immigration, rule of law, a secure EU, promotion of UK economic interests, protection of energy supplies and Overseas Territories. It is only point six which mentions “sustainable development” that has any respect for the desperate needs of the poorest across the planet.
In other words our whole foreign policy appears to be based on the threats created by injustice, poverty and instability and only half a nod in favour of doing something about such global injustice. The Ministry of Defence followed this up with a plan of security policy to 2030 which talks of “asymmetric conflicts”, new nuclear threats, the US global war on terror and conflicts in space and cyberspace.
Over the last ten years, and particularly over the last three, NATO has become embroiled in out of area operations and is establishing itself as a world military body.
The concept of a European Force needs to be very carefully examined. Is this to become a benign force under which Europe will undertake humanitarian missions, or will it be a surrogate for the US and NATO.
The defenders of the concept point to it only operating under the terms of the UN Charter, and by a majority vote of the Council of Ministers.
As the decision making in the run up to the invasion of Iraq demonstrated there is no calm reflection for decisions like that. In a crisis where the US wanted a European involvement, they could either invoke the NATO charter of common defence or simply put huge pressure on the new NATO members who are also in the EU to vote for it.
The issues facing the world, as the tsunami demonstrated, are the need to get help and aid to people in need fast, and the importance of a world body like the United Nations having more power, greater democracy and a police force of its own.
The inability of the world to help the victims of genocide in Rwanda despite desperate pleas from Kofi Annan is ample demonstration of the need.
The debate about a European army is an opportunity for the peace movements across Europe to come together in debate, unity and campaign on this. Europe as a force for good in the world will be best achieved by an economic and social strategy that eliminates poverty and injustice, not becoming cannon fodder for the neo cons in Washington.
Jeremy delivered this presentation to L’Europe pour la Paix, a meeting of Europe wide peace organisations in Brussels on Saturday January 15th.
Palestine at the polls
January 12, 2005
Before I left Islington to observe the elections one constituent asked me how it was possible to have an election under occupation.
A week later, at 6.30 in the morning, I was standing in the bitter early cold with a group of Palestinians who had been barred from their homes for at least 40 days. This absurd checkpoint was established by the Israelis outside Rafah, at the southern end of the Gaza strip to protect a settlement. Because of the settlement most of the people of Il Mawasi had been denied free movement. Since we were there to observe the election we waved out passes and passports and opened negotiations via the local United Nations Official, the Israeli Commander, and the local military liaison officer. Two hours later, we made it through the metal detectors and searches and had arrived to do our duty. The soldiers were not rude to us in the way they routinely are to Palestinians. Indeed, they seemed young, nervous and frightened. But the bristling guns, destroyed buildings, tanks and endless watchtower surveillance showed just how brutal this presence is.
On one side of the dirt road that led towards the school which was being used as a polling station was the red roofs and neat buildings of the few hundred settlers. The rest was unmade roads, rotten vehicles, poor houses and people with nothing to do.
The polling station itself was a hive of activity with hundreds of people eager to vote. Inside was a model of democratic efficiency.
We were the only observers present. Neither the candidates nor independent Palestinian monitors had made it. The election campaign must have been distant for the people as they are in a little enclave of 12,000 people who are totally cut off. Prisoners in their own mini Gaza Strip with a military blockade to their east, a patrolled sea to the west and closed border with Egypt to the South. For good measure, the northern flank is also blocked. Having done our democratic duty of observing the mechanics of the election, we made the laborious journey back through the checkpoints. The soldiers were impeccable to us, as Israel did not want to be accused of disrupting the election.
As we left, a lorry load of wheat flour for Il Mawasi was being laboriously offloaded, each sack screened and then loaded onto another lorry before being taken to the bakery.
In Rafah, we observed voting going on in a school on the front line with Egypt. A border controlled by the Israelis, whose watchtowers routinely shoot at the homes of Palestinians on the front line. A teacher told me the nightmare of having to make sure children were not near the windows for fear of stray bullets.
Over the road lay the rubble foundations of destroyed homes; the place where Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie died trying to protect the children.
Again, the election was impeccable in its administration.
Later we visited more polling stations in Khan Younis, Gaza City and the massive, and recently attacked Jabilia Refugee Camp. Despite all the problems the election was held. In the technical sense it was fair and well run, but the occupation meant that normal campaigning was difficult, and candidates were harassed and obstructed. Mustafa Barghouti was detained in Gaza and arrested on the eve of poll trying to attend the Al Aqsa Mosque.
If the procedures were difficult, so was the purpose. Palestine is under occupation and the people were asked to elect a new President. All candidates were against the occupation, the wall, the restrictions and everyone fervently hopes things will get better.
In Israel, Ariel Sharon claims the way forward is to withdraw from Gaza and continue the settlements in the west bank. The new President Abu Mazan with his huge mandate says he will present the road map to Israel and that is the way forward. Many fear that the attitude of the rest of the world is to lean on the new president to accept what Sharon offers, as the alternatives in Israel are even worse.
The reality is that many of the Palestinian people live in poverty, suffer death and danger every day and watch as their homes and hopes are destroyed by an army who know that ultimately they have the support of the USA.
The election has shown that after Arafat, the people of Palestine can hold an election, and out of respect for that process, the pressure of the world should be on Israel to halt the occupation, and accept a peace settlement that grants Palestinians respect and dignity.
Coming back to Jerusalem from the reception Abu Mazan held for the election observers, the indignity of checkpoints and searches was continuing as usual. In the gloom and cold above the Portacabins of the scruffy checkpoint, loomed the grey concrete of the (illegal) wall and its ominous watchtowers. No people, anywhere, should have to live like that.
Disasters and hope
January 5, 2005
2005 could not have started in a worse way.
The tsunami had arrived and the grim death toll keeps rising. As of now it is at 150,000 but likely to rise more.
Whilst hard to predict as an earthquake, it is all too easy to predict the devastation that would befall vulnerable communities all over the Indian Ocean rim. As the reports of the disaster unfold, and more bodies are discovered, the shattered lives and the trauma will take years to recover from, if ever, and we all need to think more deeply about the interdependent nature of the world and how the effects of disasters can be at least mitigated.
The earthquake struck and was immediately recognised as such by the US geologists, who monitor these events. It struck near the coast and the immediate tidal waves on Aceh and Thailand were the first grim warnings of what is to come.
The waves created by the Richter scale force 9 earthquake then travelled over the ocean and hit Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu in India, with effects felt in Bangladesh, later in Mauritius and the East African coast.
The lack of a warning system for the Indian Ocean has been widely reported but that really beggars the question of actions that should be taken when this kind of disaster is happening. The US officials claimed they did not know who to phone in the region, yet one wonders if the US base in Diego Garcia was warned. But, a far bigger question is why the plethora of world wide cable channels were not warned at least after the wave hit its first landfall. A television warning to Sri Lanka and India would not have prevented the destruction, but could have ensured people moved away from the shoreline and maybe some lives would have been saved.
The initial media reporting on the effects seemed not to comprehend the scale of the disaster and went straight to the media tried and tested issue of the tourist trade. Later, the sheer scale appeared to daunt even the most cynical in the media.
The public reaction of money is a sign of the basic humanity and decency of millions of people. The reaction of the Department for International Development has been excellent and Hilary Benn’s performance and good sense has shone through in this.
But is it enough? Countries ravaged by war and poverty have internal issues to resolve in the north and east of Sri Lanka, and in Aceh in Indonesia. Whilst at the moment the concentration is on the immediate needs, it is to be hoped that the political imperative of meaningful talks and relationships will herald a new period of resolution of the crises.
That said, with all the money that has been raised, alongside discussions on debt write off and moratoria, there seems to be slowness by the US administration. When 9/11 happened the world was alerted immediately and massive military expenditure followed, and two wars. The expenditure on the wars was and will be far greater than any support for clear up and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The news of the tsunami has obviously blocked the airwaves and removed the chaos of Iraq from the headlines. But the reality there remains, with constant bombing against the interim Government and the occupying forces. Bush and Blair both want it all over quickly, but locally based and better informed journalists like Robert Fisk (of the Independent) point out that the tragedy of Mesopotamia repeats itself as the death toll and bitterness rise.
Surely an aim for 2005 would be the removal of the occupying forces and some more credible international support offered, if wanted, to Iraq to ensure a future based on its self determination.
In Palestine the elections are due to take place on Sunday amidst all the difficulties of check points, and the lack of free movement of people between Gaza and the West Bank. The western media have given very little coverage to them and indeed only mentioned one candidate most of the time. However, Israel has not let up, continuing its bombardment of Gaza towns and cities.
Forty armoured personnel carriers and tanks were deployed at the Jabaliya refugee camp last week end. Further south in Gaza, Israeli forces withdrew from Khan Yunis leaving 10 Palestinians dead and 30 wounded. Sharon persists with his withdrawal of settlement from Gaza plan and the media have conveniently forgotten that this plan involves keeping the illegal settlements on the West Bank and the equally illegal wall in place. In the current political crisis for Likud, two old certainties of Israeli politics emerge. However bad the prime minister is there is always somebody who appears worse, waiting in the wings and that the Israeli Labour Party will bail the Government out. Quite what Shimon Peres can offer, apart from some international approval to a policy that is fundamentally wrong and illegal is hard to see?
Happy 75th Morning Star
Every socialist learns from their first activities that information is power, and that to persuade people outlets for information are key. The history of radical politics in Britain right back to the seventeenth century and before, was one of the state and the ruling elite restricting the power of information to the people. The struggle for a radical press was the struggle for radical and socially just solutions to the lives of the poor.
Whilst the issue of access to the media is different and technology is vastly different, it does not always mean that everyone is better informed; it is the voices that get through that are important.
The Morning Star and its predecessor, the Daily Worker were there in the misery of mass unemployment of the 1930s, there in the struggle against fascism, there during the cold war, there for the miners and any others campaigning for their rights and justice.
And it is here today. My late mother sold the Daily Worker as a student in London in the 1930s. The issues and the reporting might be different today but the fundamental values of socialists for peace and justice and distribution of wealth remain the same the world over. We need to ensure that there is at least one voice for the left on the news stands and on the web.
Islington life
January 1, 2005
(From Highbury & Islington Express)
December is great time of the year; a season of community and coming together which we ought to have all the time.
I wish all readers all the best, and a new year of peace here and in the world.
We should spare some thoughts for those who do not get much holiday as they staff essential emergency services and ensure our supplies, and also those for whom community means watching people on television have a good time. Being lonely is worse at festive times.
Islington Arts and Media School has had its ups and downs since it opened, re-placing George Orwell School. I was invited to the celebration of being awarded Arts and Media status, and this was done with a performance by groups from every school year. It was an amazing variety of acts from excellent rap and break dancing, an abbreviated version of the Taming of the Shrew to poetry, and some great two person acts were a credit to the School and the Drama Department. Education costs a lot, and Islington’s spending is among the higher in London and at IAMS, and other places we can begin to see the results and improvements.
Overall in Islington, central government support for the Borough is £65 millions per annum higher than it was in 1997. That is an enormous step forward. Compare that to the 1980s when, year on year, inner city and needy communities were cut and services closed. Whilst the relationship between central and local government will always be tense, the recent spending settlements are the best local Government has ever had. Why, I find myself asking, do valuable local services like the Arthur Simpson Library get closed other than by Council short sightedness. This once thriving library is now derelict, with the windows smashed awaiting demolition by the new owners. I am a strong supporter of the new library in Blackstock Road, but we could have had both.
I sought answers to health spending issues last week, and in a Parliamentary answer, found that per head, the population expenditure has risen from £623 to £1,224 by the NHS directly. In other words it has doubled, which is welcome, and has led to improvements in waiting times and services.
However, there are problems with the funding arrangements. The public debate about private finance in the NHS and the London Underground, showed just how strong the feelings are about the need for public accountability and control. When Ken Livingstone was opposing the PPP for the Underground, he was accused of scaremongering. Who would dare to say that now, when the huge financial problems of Jarvis Holding have led to the potential sale of Tube Lines, the Company who are supposed to be refurbishing the Piccadilly and the problems of the new wing at the Whittington. The hospital had to sign a PFI deal and the problems of Jarvis mean it is way behind schedule. I want action to ensure it gets up to speed and we get out new facilities. The problems of Jarvis should not be our concern, but because of the philosophy of private finance, they are. The Whittington is not under threat and will not lose any money but we are all inconvenienced by the delay. What we need is accountability, and that best comes through direct public spending and borrowing if need be.
I was at a public meeting last week to discuss the fire service. Our borough has three stations each with two appliances, and the appropriate number of excellent and dedicated fire fighters who also undertake many other safety duties.
The outer parts of London are, apparently, not so well served but also have fewer calls. Clerkenwell, for example, had 2,000 calls last year. The London Emergency Service seems to think that the way to deal with this inequality is to cut an appliance from Upper Street and Clerkenwell and use the “extra” one at Holloway as back up. The “freed” appliances will then be sent to the outer suburbs.
As an argument it is wholly fallacious and wrong. Islington has an excellent Fire Service, everyone agrees. Will London be made safer by increasing our risk? A rising population, a huge development at King’s Cross, and the new Arsenal stadium should be taken into account when making these decisions. To win we need the support of Londoners to recognise “beggar thy neighbour” leads nowhere.
Last Monday the Islington based Migrant Training Company held its award and certification ceremony. It was impressive to say the least, with students of all ages, mostly asylum seekers, receiving their hard earned certificates in computing and English. I wish the Daily Mail and Express, instead of venting their spleen on refugees, would just come and look at the victims of war and famine now working, studying and contributing to all our lives. It was very impressive.
I hope next year brings and end to the conflict in Iraq, and that future issues are settled by the United Nations and law, not by preemptive wars.
Iraq is still in chaos
January 1, 2005
(For Socialist Campaign Group)
Iraq is still in chaos, with an estimated 100,000 dead, a doubling of acute malnutrition among young children since March 2003 - according to Unicef - and no exit strategy. With a reported 3,000 British soldiers evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons and no official figures of injured.
Yet George W Bush is already signalling that he has new targets in site. The language and a tone about Iran that is coming out of the White House which has understandably raised concern. Bush’s second term may prove even more aggressive for the world than his first term.
US claims have centred on the danger of a nuclear development policy in Iran. Yet it is known for certain that nuclear missiles exist in Israel - a state pursuing an increasingly brutal policy against the Palestinians. The US opposes any action against Israel, either for its day to day violence or for its failure to comply with or endorse the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The US itself, with Britain’s compliance, is busy developing a new generation of nuclear missiles and Star Wars.
The Queen’s Speech at the end of November was heavy on talk of security in the run-up to a general election. Security and the right of people to live in peace are obviously important. But we have to ask: have the policies of the United States and Britain since September 2001 made the world safer and better, or more dangerous and insecure? The invasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban regime, but it did not capture bin Laden, and drug production increased greatly afterwards. Afghanistan is not looking like a place from which concord, peace and safety will emanate in the near future.
In Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction were found. Although ‘regime change’ is now quoted, it is a fact that many people who opposed Saddam Hussein’s regime for many years are also hostile to the current US presence in Iraq. Security will not follow from occupation. Peace will not come from bombing city after city into the ground. Many people who do not support the political or religious views of those who are termed insurgents are being driven into their arms by the policies being followed in Iraq.
Although the Prime Minister seems to be unwilling to engage in debate on the article in The Lancet, the report by the International Committee of the Red Cross or other reports about the extent of the death rate in Iraq and the mayhem caused since the invasion, it is time that we had some openness. How many people have died? How many children have been killed? How many people are suffering the effects of depleted uranium? How many civilians died in Falluja and the other cities?
If the occupation continues and no exit strategy is developed the consequences will be permanent instability and insecurity. Such insecurity cannot be dealt with by more and more repressive measures. They require justice. The US knows that the world understands this. That is why, when things go badly in Iraq, the White House announces that a peace process and policy for the Middle East should be developed. For this to be meaningful serious criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians would be required. The US could start by asking Israel to obey international law. Instead it uses its UN veto to block pressure on Israel.
The Project for a New American Century laid out the real policy that the US is pursuing. Its plan for US control of increasingly scarce resources - using its military power to overcome any resistance - cannot bring about a world of equality. More money will be spent by the US on terrifying weaponry.
Continuing to follow Bush will mean more and more wars and an increasingly unpopular Labour government. A British general election is likely in the coming months. All of us who want peace and also to see Labour re-elected must reassert the need to uphold international law and change course - onto a path that really can deliver security.
