No nuclear weapons
February 28, 2006
(From Parliamentary Monitor)
The Defence Select Committee is investigating the issue of Trident’s possible replacement and this has led to the beginnings of a public debate on whether Britain should have nuclear weapons at all.
This debate is crucial to our role in the world and our respect for the principles of the 1970 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
The Treaty is designed to prevent the spread of weapons beyond the five existing and declared Nuclear powers. It also requires a long-term disarmament strategy by the five declared states, USA, Russia, China, France and Britain. The Treaty is reviewed every five years; the last review was in 2005.
The Treaty has had some success. The abandonment by Argentina of any moves toward the development of nuclear weapons has made the whole of Latin America a nuclear weapons free zone. Likewise, the historic decision of Nelson Mandela’s post apartheid government in South Africa to abandon any nuclear weapons development has made Africa a nuclear free continent. On the break up of the Soviet Union in 1990, Ukraine declared it too would be nuclear free.
The aberrations in the Treaty process have been the development and production of weapons by India and Pakistan. There can be no justification for this development, which can only take resources away from vital development programmes, and bring enormous danger to the whole region. However, both countries have stepped back from the crisis of three years ago and are in serious talks to reduce tension. The fragility of the lives of some of the poorest in the aftermath of the Kashmir earthquake and their needs, when compared to the astronomical costs of weaponry, puts their desperate poverty into context.
North Korea’s development of weapons has been the centre of huge international attention, and has provoked hostility and danger, yet at the same time this has encouraged a regional approach, with serious negotiations taking place for disarmament.
Iran’s development of civil nuclear power facilities, and it possibly being reported to the UN Security Council for a breach of the International Atomic Energy Authority’s procedures is a test of the NPT process and adherence to it. The call of the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister for a nuclear weapons free middle east is one that should be heeded, and indeed could be. It would mean a public admission by Israel that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and disarmament. From revealed documents it is now well known that European countries contributed to Israel’s nuclear know-how, and from the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu, their existence was confirmed. Mordechai spent seventeen years in prison; most of it in solitary confinement, and on release has been placed, disgracefully, on legal restrictions.
The political pressure on any country not to develop weapons is seriously reduced if the declared powers develop a new generation of weapons.
The obsolescence of Trident gives the UK a golden opportunity to examine what security in the world means, and what the cost would be of its replacement.
It also requires a moral decision on what we hold these weapons for.
In Hiroshima 60 years ago at least 60,000 people died in the explosion and firestorm from the world’s first atomic bomb. A few days later tens of thousands more civilians died in Nagasaki. For decades to follow, deformed children were born, and horrific cancers killed many of those who thought they had survived.
Those weapons were mere fireworks when compared to only one warhead of the possible 48 on each Trident submarine.
Britain too has had its victims. Those conscripted national servicemen ordered to observe Britain’s nuclear testing in the 1950s with no protection have suffered and perished from cancerous fall outs.
The Government have been remarkably coy about the timetable for decision making, and have repeatedly claimed no decision has been made. In the Parliamentary sense and that is correct, but questions reveal that the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston have grown astronomically, taking £1.5 billions of taxpayers money in the past five years alone. Much of this expenditure has gone on capital money to upgrade the manufacturing capacity.
The cost of Trident replacement is put at well over $20 billion, and has met with huge public disquiet. Opinion polls show much greater opposition to nuclear weapons than in the early 1980s when 300,000 supported CND’s opposition to the stationing of Cruise missiles in the UK as part of the Cold War strategy. Post Cold War that dubious logic is now redundant, and we have an opportunity to move towards a nuclear free world.
Apart from the astronomical cost, the moral case and the dangers of encouraging proliferation, the UK’s weapons are not ours, nor are they independent. We are part of the US defence network, and they can only be fired with US approval.
The Defence Committee inquiry is welcome. Those that want weapons have to justify the cost, the danger, and the effect of their use. They must also justify how in a world of terrorist threats nuclear weapons have brought anyone any security at all.
Security does not come from threats but from understanding and wellbeing.
Wrong electorate?
February 22, 2006
There was a time when Israel used to demand that Palestine hold free and fair elections, that it be a democracy (like them?), and have an administration that is accountable to the people.
The argument played well in the USA and Europe and was always used to put the Palestinians on the back foot.
After the failure of the Olso round of talks and the second intifada, President Arafat postponed the elections for the National Assembly. Quite how he was supposed to hold elections when there was no free movement of people, he was himself under house arrest and F16 jets were flying almost daily sorties over Gaza, is a bit of a mystery.
After Arafat’s death in 2004 elections had to be held for the Presidency and despite all the problems they were. Abbas won easily, with the tacit support of HAMAS, and the world accepted that the process was a genuine expression of popular feeling. As an election observer I marvelled at the organisation and determination of a people under occupation to vote and elect a president they could unite around. I was astonished when after the Israeli Army fired shots at a polling station in Rafah everyone took cover, and 15 minutes later the voting restarted. What I also observed in Gaza was the sense of frustration of hordes of young men, fed up with a life under occupation and control and wanting something different and better. Whilst possibly reluctant supporters of the two state strategies they felt the death of Arafat, and the election of Abbas gave some hope for the future.
Israel’s response was to continue settlements in the West Bank, building the illegal wall and frustrating all Palestinian development initiatives.
Sharon, a brilliant self-publicist, managed to convince the rest of the world that the withdrawal from Gaza was a genuine and selfless act of altruism and it was only the pesky Palestinians who did not see it.
For the record we should note that during the much publicised removal of the (illegal) settlements from Gaza a far greater area of the West Bank was occupied, the (equally illegal) wall’s construction continued. The poverty of Palestinians continued with Gaza being one of the world’s poorest and most densely populated places.
When the election for the Palestinian National Assembly was finally held, there could be no arguments about its authenticity as an expression of opinion of the people of Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem. The only complaint could be that the many Palestinians in exile in Jordan, Egypt and all over the world could not vote.
Hamas won the election both in popular vote and constituency sections. It is a result that must be respected.
However the USA and some of the European leaders seem to have some problem recognising this.
Without any sense of irony they have all united in demanding that Hamas change its constitution and relinquish all claims to Israel.
Israel, on the other hand is a state that has no declared borders as its aim. Whilst the 1948 green line was accepted as the place of ceasefire and the whole tenor of UN resolutions and the Oslo agreements were framed around pre 1967 war boundaries Israel has been remarkably coy about its aim.
They accuse some sections of Hamas of wanting a Palestinian state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan yet are not prepared to engage in debate about their national aims.
Parallel to the north/south green line runs the main highway; mostly to the East of the line lays the wall, behind the wall lie a whole complex of settlements and high grade settlement roads. Indeed a pristine “settler road” runs all the way to Nablus. Overlay a map of the area as it now is with the pattern of settlements and communications a pattern emerges, overlay with water resources and a stronger pattern emerges of the real aim.
Anyone familiar with the history of apartheid South Africa will recall the phenomena of Bantustans, allegedly self governing African homelands. These were designed to accept apartheid and its entire works. The pattern of settlements, exclusive roads and encirclement make communications and trade virtually impossible for the Palestinians and allow economic and military domination by the Israeli’s.
The attempt by Israel to annexe East Jerusalem by control, inducements and strangulation shows there is no real desire by the Israeli administration to come to any agreement with the Palestinians. The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was soon followed by the familiar bombing missions but it is the new area of economy that sanctions are being applied.
By controlling all the borders Israel has the power to collect the customs revenues and has announced it will no longer pass them over to the Palestine National Authority. The US has ended its aid programme.
Apart from breath-taking arrogance by Israel it is also a remarkably short sighted thing to do.
By placing impoverished Palestinians in even tougher circumstances the result will not be a huge change of political heart, more likely the reverse as the hypocrisy of the west becomes obvious.
The Israeli election seems to be dominated by a competition between all the parties as to who is best at not talking to Hamas. After the Israeli poll the situation either takes a grave turn for the worse or a serious dialogue is opened up.
It is the USA’s bankrolling of Israel and craven support for all the moves made by Sharon, the pressure comes from Washington. Olmert appears to have inherited the thought processes of his leader and mentor, and sees his electoral future in an ever increasing conflict.
The sight of Tony Blair and Angela Merkel joining the chorus of “no talks with Hamas” shows just how far from reality we have moved, and how far the Palestinian people are from a recognised and independent future.
The real response should be to end the EU preferential trade with Israel whilst it disobeys UN and World Court rulings, to talk to the Palestinian Authority and ensure that not only aid continues but their just income is received. To follow the Washington strategy gives a very strong message to Palestinians that their wishes are unimportant and their electoral choice is wrong. The consequences of this are enormous all over the region.
Latin America
February 15, 2006
(From Socialist Campaign Group News)
That the World Social Forum should be held in Venezuela is appropriate and fitting. The Chavez led revolution is of enormous significance all over the continent, and provides an alternative to the US model.
The survival of the Chavez Government after a coup attempt, popular re-instatement, and three times being endorsed by the electorate shows just how weak the influence of the USA has become across the continent.
The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia is remarkable: the first indigenous President, and on a platform of public ownership of the gas and oil reserves, and opposition to the neo-liberal policies that the USA has tried to impose on the continent.
Morales’ election was not a one off aberration. The huge social movements in Bolivia, where half the population survive on less than a dollar a day, laid its foundations. These movements defeated water privatisation and brought down three successive Presidents on the issue of public ownership of the continent’s largest gas reserves. 500,000 of the population of 9,000,000 attended a pro-nationalisation rally in La Paz last year. Bolivia lost its culture to the Conquistadores, its silver to Spanish settlers, its tin to world mining companies, and it is determined not to lose its gas in the same way.
Bolivia, like Venezuela, is being put under enormous pressure by the world’s business community. Isolating each struggle is not a solution, and the sense of unity across the continent alarms the USA.
Late last year at the Buenos Aires Trade Summit, normally a passive endorsement of Uncle Sam, things were different. George Bush was met with a huge demonstration led by the iconic Diego Maradona, and the meeting broke up with only President Fox of Mexico and President Uribe of Colombia supporting the concept of a US dominated free trade zone.
The irony that Fox should support it is not lost on the poor and the Left of Mexico. The North America Free Trade Area was supposed to integrate the Mexican economy into the economies of Canada and the USA. The effect has been appalling wages in the zones near the border, illegal migration to the USA by many trying to survive, and an attempt at imposing the McDonalds culture on the people. As a calculated slap in the face to Mexico, the USA is now building a wall along the entire 3,000 km frontier to keep the poor and desperate out.
There have been other revolutions in Latin America. The Left Government of Arbenz was removed by the CIA in Guatemala in 1954, President Allende died in the coup in 1973 in Chile, and the Sandinistas were defeated in 1990.
But times move on. Guatemala has been through a murderous military dictatorship and is now very different, with a thriving peasant movement demanding social justice. Chile has just elected the continent’s first woman President, whilst Pinochet languishes under house arrest. Nicaragua, having adopted all the requirements of the international Monetary Fund, has the worst poverty in the whole continent. Cuba threw out the US backed Batista regime in 1959 and after 45 years of US blockade has managed to develop the best health acre in the continent, the lowest level of illiteracy, and the highest level of employment. Its influence in the region is huge and only set to increase.
Politics is an expression of economic and cultural demands.
In the USA the popular history and concept is of a nation of settlers who impose their will on the indigenous people (Native Americans) and their environment.
South of the Rio Grande it is different, where the Spanish invasion of the 15th century is presented as the genocide of the indigenous people, and the destruction of advanced and strong civilisations. The political mood of Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela, is of an assertion of the cultural tradition, and the demands of economic justice.
The USA, in the form of the Bush administration, is alarmed at what is happening, and would dearly like to interfere. However, they need oil and gas, and are over-stretched fighting an un-winnable war in Iraq.
These are days of hope in Latin America, but the economic attacks and the undermining of the democratic will is the real danger.
Elections are due later this year in Peru and Brazil. The handmaiden of the International Monetary Fund, former President Fujimora, is sought on fraud charges in Lima. Lula, having led the way in political change in Latin America through his election now, with his PT party, faces a tough election later this year.
The USA, ever since the Monroe Doctrine of the early 19th century, has treated Latin America as their own backyard. Things have changed.
United Against Incitement and Islamophobia
February 11, 2006
“We demand that people show respect for each other’s community, each other’s faith and each other’s religion” - video from the demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
Are we witnessing the beginnings of another Iraq?
February 8, 2006
Two weeks ago, I received a polite and very quiet parliamentary answer to a simple question. I had asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The reply went through the niceties of stating that the Iraq Survey Group had been set up and, after much diligent searching, had concluded that there weren’t any. The government had accepted its conclusions. End of answer. But it still seems as if the strident tones of George W Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address rang out only yesterday. The photograph display shown to the United Nations by the “dove” Colin Powell, the “dodgy” dossier which Jack Straw presented to Parliament and the Prime Minister’s ringing conclusion to his parliamentary oratory are all still recent history. Iraq could disarm voluntarily or by force, declared Tony Blair, but it would disarm.
I am a life-long opponent of all nuclear weapons. I have no problem in condemning any country that possesses, develops or wants to develop them. But, as I watch the debate on Iran unfold before our very eyes, a sort of sinking feeling comes over me. The more bellicose the pressure, the more absurd the language, and the nearer we get to another war. More deaths, more destruction and more instability. The news that finally came out over the weekend that Iran would be reported to the UN Security Council was hardly surprising. It followed weeks of build-up in the media. What is surprising is the way that the issue has been reported.
A Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament statement on Monday attacked the decision to report Iran and argued that it was to blame for Iran’s withdrawal from voluntary reporting 2003 protocols of the long-established nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The snap inspections of the 2003 protocol are not part of the treaty, but Iran allowed them voluntarily. It should be made clear that, despite the tone of much of the media, it is only this section that Iran has withdrawn from, not the whole treaty system. In reality, Iran has always made clear its wish to develop nuclear power stations in its own right. In three years of investigation, the IAEA found no evidence of a weapons build-up. Iran is entitled to develop nuclear power under the NPT. However, an EU requirement insisting that Iran could only import nuclear fuels and not process its own uranium last August changed the nature of the EU approach to Iran.
Iran is a full signatory to the NPT. This means that it is open to inspection. It has co-operated with inspections so far. The debate about Iran has more than passing similarities to the debate about Iraq from 2002 onwards. There are many people in London and other parts of Britain who were forced into exile by the activities of the regime from 1979 onwards. Murders and torture became commonplace, as did brutal repression of popular resistance. Abuses of human and trade union rights continue to this day. A bus workers’ strike was brutally repressed in Tehran recently. Strikes such as theirs represent strong, just and legitimate action against the regime of the kind that deserves our support. In Bush’s strange take on history, the overthrow of the puppet Shah in 1979 and the Iran hostage crisis have never been forgiven or forgotten. But the US and others would do well to remember the role that they played in the 1952 overthrow of a secular government that nationalised the oil industry. The West then imposed the Shah on the throne.
There is broad opposition from Iranian exiles to the US and EU stance towards Iran. Ironically, the one Iranian organisation that supports the US and EU belligerence towards their country is the National Council of Resistance. It is linked to the People’s Mojahedin. This organisation is actually listed as a terrorist group by the US State Department and by the British Foreign Office. It is now described by the US Congressional Research Service as an “advocate of free-market economics.” All the attention is now on possible UN sanctions on Iran in March. An appeal by the Saudi foreign minister for a nuclear-free Middle East has been ignored. There is one huge stumbling block with this idea. The only country in the region with nuclear weapons has never actually signed the NPT and so it has never been inspected. But Israel has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them - Mordechai Vanunu exposed the secret programme and suffered 17 years in prison as a result.
The five declared nuclear weapons states who are permanent members on the UN Security Council hold the key to what happens next. They all have a responsibility to disarm under the 1970 treaty. They have also agreed not to develop new generations of nuclear weapons. A nuclear-free world is possible only if all parties adhere to the treaty that they signed. This includes Britain, which should set an example by deciding not to press ahead with a replacement for Trident.
If the next month is wasted on more aggressive posturing rather than discussion, great danger lies ahead. Bush’s absurd language in his latest State of the Union address demonstrated the real intentions behind US policy. His declaration that Iran had crossed a “red line” highlighted the fact that his concern is not for democracy and human rights but about resources and saving the discredited Project for a New American Century.
The redeployment of troops to Afghanistan and the ongoing carnage in Iraq provide a cold, hard lesson in the kind of policy that Bush would like to pursue in Iran.
Getting rid of human rights
February 5, 2006
The UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) met on Monday for the start of its normal six-week spring session in Geneva. The session lasted only five minutes. This was the amount of time it took the Commission’s council members to agree to adjourn proceedings for a week. This was not because they did not want to meet - quite the opposite. It was due to negotiations going on thousands of miles away in New York.
At the heart of the problem lie the aspirations of the UN charter, the work of the UNHRC and Washington’s desire to prevent the establishment of a global human rights watch dog with teeth.
Last September, the heads of government of UN states met in New York and agreed a set of priorities for the UN. This was not until huge swathes had been cut out on the insistence of US ambassador to the UN John Bolton (pictured). Bolton only got the job because he was appointed directly by US President George Bush, who was able to use the Congressional summer break to circumvent the tedious hearings against his right-wing candidate. Bolton was quick to set out his stall on his arrival in New York. He informed the world that the UN had no role to play in issues of disarmament, peace or development. He was prepared to accept a series of aspirations but fundamentally thinks the 21st century is Pax Americana.
The US and many other governments have long had suspicions about the role of the UNHRC. It elects its own council and allows non-governmental organisations to speak up about abuses in their own countries. This provision is within the terms of the UN tradition, which is that sections of civil society should have a say in all matters that affect them. This has frequently led to flare-ups. Civil society groups from Palestine have used their right to criticise Israel. Colombian human rights groups have also made the long and expensive journey to Geneva to raise their wholly legitimate concerns and demands. National governments have a right of reply. Council members get even longer to reply or to justify the position. The UNHRC can and frequently has appointed special reporters who can look at huge areas of discrimination and report back to future sessions. The Commission also has a related session on the plight of indigenous peoples. It is a slow and cumbersome system, but there is clearly a need for an international body which allows the unrepresented and dispossessed a voice. It took Herculean efforts to persuade the Millennium summit in South Africa to look at the issue of discrimination based on work and caste descent. It is exactly the kind of issue that should be addressed by the UN.
UN secretary general Kofi Annan set out his vision of a human rights council last year. He proposed that it would be “responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.” The plan also called for the new council to “address situations of the violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations and make recommendations thereon.” It also would have ensured that human rights would become a mainstream issue at the UN. The Security Council could not agree on this and so referred it, unusually, to the 191-member general assembly to ensure its establishment.
The plan to create a 47-member human rights council had widespread support. It would have required these members to have their own record on human rights scrutinised. Acting on behalf of Washington, Bolton opposed this and blocked its passage. Having staved off the new system, the US then asked that the UNHRC postpone its meeting in Geneva until the New York negotiations have finished. But there is no guarantee that this will happen in the next week or any time soon. The worst case scenario is that there will be no commission, no Council and no work by the UN on human rights at all. This would be the first time that this has happened in the 60-year history of the UN. UN general assembly president Jan Elliason has tried to gain agreement. He has been blocked at every turn by Bolton’s sinister machinations. It could be that the issues up for discussion in Geneva, which included Guantanamo Bay and torture, were just too much for the US. Russia and India also stood to be embarrassed by issues on the agenda. But there is an important wider issue that is in danger of being lost amid the current paralysis.
Traditionally, there have been two strands to debates on human rights. There are those who see it in “Western” terms of individual rights in society, and those who see it only in collective terms. The UNHRC has usually looked both ways on this and sought to involve all member states. Governments do use the UN system to deflect or denigrate critics, but a serious human rights body has to be robust and deal with this, whichever government it involves. The UNHRC is not perfect and some of its election results have been strange, but it has provided a forum for exposing abuses in all countries in the world. The chicanery of New York and Geneva is more serious than just another diplomatic row. Without some form of human rights machinery, many abuses will continue and the voiceless and dispossessed will be denied even this imperfect vehicle. It seems that the Bush regime is quite content with that.
Reid follows US lead on abuses
Defence Secretary John Reid expressed irritation in the House of Commons on Monday that the behaviour and unpopularity of the occupying forces in Iraq was under scrutiny. He argued at one point that it was difficult for armies to deal with the wars of the 21st century with 20th century rules. This is exactly the argument that has been used by the United States to defend its gulag in Guantanamo Bay, a place itself occupied by the US without any legal basis since a pliant client Cuban government agreed the lease in 1899. Guantanamo’s dubious legal status is made worse by its imprisonment by the US of uncharged foreign nationals, who suffer torture and privations that many governments seem to find difficult to condemn. Failure to close down this obscenity will pave the way for a new law of necessity whereby any government can use the argument about “asymmetric conflict” to deny human rights to any group of citizens that it finds objectionable or who are campaigning for fairness and justice.
Tony Banks
February 4, 2006
(From Socialist Campaign Group News)
I knew Tony Banks from the early 1970s when he was a Lambeth councillor, head of research at the AUEW, and a GLC councillor. To describe his life as busy and fulfilled would be an understatement. He was always full of life and witticisms, and even when we were not in agreement he was an incredibly loyal friend.
Too many of the obituaries of Tony are about his quick and devastating wit, of which there was plenty, and too few about his much more serious side.
As head of Research at a time of enormous industrial conflict for the Union, Tony was creative and imaginative as we supported the Pentonville Five, and also had all our funds sequestered. We also worked very closely with Tony Benn as Opposition Industry spokesperson and after the 1974 Labour election victory as Minister. Tony ensured we fed the other Tony information and backup for the nationalisation of British Leyland, Aircraft and Shipbuilding industries. He then became Judith Hart’s special adviser at Overseas Development and helped to negotiate the Lome Convention to grant better prices to the poorest African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
Frenetically active around the Benn Deputy Leadership Campaign in 1981, Tony Banks became one of the best known and creative GLC members as Chair of the Arts Committee. Culture for the people flowed, resources appeared, and ordinary people enjoyed the previously elitist arts. No wonder Thatcher abolished it.
As new members of the House of Commons in 1983 our first task was to oppose the “Paving Bill” to prepare for GLC abolition. The Bill had to be taken in all stages on the floor of the House. The Labour front bench, led by Jack Straw, wanted to throw in the towel at 11pm. Tony and I protested at this pathetic retreat. Together with four other opposition MPs we kept the House going for 31 hours as we forced votes on every line of the Bill; and kept several hundred Tories there in the process. Banks had truly arrived in Parliament.
Tony was always seen as the more presentable part of the 1980s Left, and he was appointed London Whip under Kinnock. He duly voted against the front bench line and was removed. Nobody acceptable could be found to do the job so he continued by announcing he was a “Whipping consultant”.
As Sports Minister he revelled in football, and the media revelled in it with him, but ignored some very good things he did as part of his concept of accessible sport for all. The Tories hated his indiscretions, wit and use of vernacular language. When challenged on this during Departmental Questions he gravely told the House that the journey from bar room stage to world statesman was a difficult one.
There is much to remember Tony for, and smile at the things he did, but his passion for art and animals was very real. At his funeral Brian Davies of the International Fund for Animal Welfare told us how he died, and his real joy at seeing birds and whales and campaigning for an end to the Canadian seal cull.
David Mellor, apart from telling a joke against himself at the funeral, explained Tony’s pain at the new management of Chelsea. I hoped for an attack on over-rich plutocrats buying football clubs but instead heard Tony was disappointed at Chelsea’s form. A puzzled audience were reminded he was happier losing and blaming the players, manager, owner, anybody. A real fan all his life.
All who knew Tony are sad at his death. To Sally we send our affection and to Tony our thanks.
Middle East madness
February 1, 2006
In all the hand wringing over the Hamas victory in the elections in Palestine last week, there seemed to be a few things missing.
Firstly that the vote was primarily a vote against Fatah and the obvious excesses of personal consumption of some of its leaders, in other words, corruption. Secondly, in a real sense in Gaza, the only social services of any sort are delivered by Hamas. Thirdly it was the result of the ludicrous policy of indulging every Israeli whim by the USA, from Truman right through to Bush Junior now. To piously talk of not negotiating with terrorists when they have happily accommodated Sharon and before him Begin, stretches ones sense on incredulity to breaking point.
Their victory was an obvious consequence of the activities of George Bush and Ariel Sharon.
The US, and to a more considered extent, Europe, talked about withdrawing all aid and refusing to recognise the new Government. All of course, on the grounds of not talking to “terrorists”. “Hang on a minute”, I say to myself. Were these not the same people that were talking about the need for a democratic election process in Palestine? Were these not the same people who harangued Arafat for not calling for elections whilst imprisoned in his bunker? Were these not the same people who happily negotiated with Sharon despite his past, and the crimes of Sabra and Chatilla in 1982?
If the joint wisdom of the USA and Europe is to withdraw all aid to some of the poorest people in the world, and refuse to recognise their election result, what will be the effect of that on the wider Middle East, and in turn the wider world?
The same momentous week in politics witnessed another turn in the screw on Iran, with attempts by the US and Europe to refer Iran to the Security Council over its possible development of nuclear weapons technology. Bush solemnly declared that the US could not tolerate a nuclear weapons state in the region and he was against proliferation. Really?
In all the rhetoric against Iran developing nuclear weapons, and their illegality under the Non Proliferation Treaty, the media seem to have been strangely silent on the existing nuclear weapons in the region, and the research and development facilities that have been developed with contempt for the whole Non Proliferation Treaty system. Namely the Demona reactor in Israel.
It is a strange twist of fate that the country in the region closest to the US politically and economically should now be calling for a nuclear free Middle East. The remarks of the Saudi Foreign Minister were borne of fear about the way the politics of the whole region is spiralling out of control. But, far from heeding this logical demand, the situation appears to be getting worse in the wider region, from Pakistan to the Mediterranean.
The US forces in Afghanistan bombed a village in Pakistan, issued a vague apology for the deaths, and assumed all would be well. I cannot imagine a reaction from the US so muted as that of Pakistan’s if another country decided to undertake illicit and unapproved military action in the USA in pursuit of its enemies.
A week later, amid the most vigorous protestations that it was not at the behest of the USA, the UK Defence Secretary announced more British troops to be sent Afghanistan. This was necessary because of the reduction in US troop numbers, and it met with muted response in Westminster. “I was not elected to send British troops back up the Khyber Pass” muttered one Labour MP. The more robust Dutch have yet to decide and may well not send any troops. The bigger question is that if, after four years of occupation and military action troops are still needed, is the policy actually working?
In Iraq the latest tragedy to befall a British soldier has brought the UK death toll to 99, the US to well over 2,000, and the Iraqi dead are not counted but believed to come to well over 100,000. In separate and barely publicised news this week, the horrifying death toll from cancers thought to be related to the use of Depleted Uranium tipped shells continues to rise.
With all this catalogue of horrors brought about by the US foreign policy objectives, what comes next?
It seems that Tony Blair is being replaced as the favourite European, by Angela Merkel who backs European Nuclear Weapons and wants Iran referred to the UN Security Council for a sanctions policy. For good measure she spoke in Thatcherite terms of destroying Germany’s welfare state. She is clearly the kind of European that the US wants.
The certainty of two weeks ago when Jack Straw and Condoleezza Rice both seemed to be saying that the Security Council and the UN IAEA were united, seems to have been dented. Russia is now actively seeking a way of processing Iranian Uranium, and thus circumventing the hawks in Tel Aviv and Washington.
Since the policies of the past few years have been so disastrous for the whole region, perhaps it is time to look at something more positive. The demands for the withdrawal of US and UK troops are getting stronger as they are part of the problem, not the solution, in Iraq. The Non Proliferation Treaty cannot be invoked against Iran, whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to Israel’s obvious nuclear weapon capacity.
Engaging with the Palestinian people, recognising their country, and demanding the withdrawal of the occupiers from the West Bank would show real respect for Palestine.
The past four years have been dominated by the poverty of vision of the Neo Conservatives in the USA. Are the issues in the region to be resolved by Israel being a surrogate bomber for the USA in Iran, or by diplomacy and a resolution for peace?
The signs are not good for any sustainable peace except that the USA is running out of money for Bush’s wars, and there is no public appetite for another war, anywhere.
