|
VOICES
NEWSLETTER # 40 (April / May 2005)
Download a PDF version
of the newsletter
The
war continues
Iraq's elections:
a cruel betrayal
The oil factor
British war
profiteers
Staying put
10,000 prisoners
Shooting civilians
Mission creep?
Murder Inc
US war resister denied
asylum
Resistance round-up
Resources
The
war continues
An Iraqi woman grieves during the funeral of her 12 year-old
brother Mohammed who was killed by fire from a US helicoper in
Mosul on 13 March 2004.
On 20 Feb US and Iraqi security forces surrounded
Ramadi, ‘set[ting] up checkpoints at the main entrances…and
establish[ing] a [night time] curfew’ (Washington
Post, 21 Feb).
‘Fighter planes roared over [the city] as tanks and Humvees
lumbered through the [streets] … As the US offensive progressed,
students and teachers at a primary school in central Ramadi hovered
in panic as artillery blasts shattered windows … [C]hildren
cried and screamed for their parents.’ Welcome to post-election
Iraq, where the war is still very much in progress.
The attack - carried out by the same forces that destroyed much
of Fallujah last November - was part of a larger military operation,
Operation River Blitz, that included simultaneous operations in
Hit, Baghdadi and Haditha – itself part of ‘the latest
phase in the US strategy to reclaim parts of the infamous Sunni
Triangle that had fallen under the effective control of the insurgents’
(Telegraph, 22 Feb). It was barely mentioned in the British
press.
Indeed, whilst the media continues to report on spectacular suicide
bombings and insurgent atrocities, independent reporting on US
military action has tailed off to practically nothing. Only occasionally
now is one able to get a glimpse of the bigger picture.
“Seeds of liberty”
Prior to the 30 Jan election US forces launched ‘the largest
military operation in Iraq since the 2003 invasion’ (“Seeds
of Liberty”), ‘flooding soldiers into areas where
previously there were no coalition troops’ (Sunday Telegraph,
23 Jan). Hundreds of Iraqis were detained and the three main US-run
prisons in Iraq have now ‘swelled to capacity … holding
more people than ever’ (New York Times, 4 March)
(see p. 4). The facts were barely mentioned in the press.
Unreported victims
Occupation forces – including private mercenaries - continue
to kill scores of Iraqis each month at checkpoints and on the
roads (FT, 19/20 Mar). Again, largely unreported. The
unprovoked attack on the car carrying just-freed Italian hostage
Giuliana Sgrena to Baghdad airport, in which ‘American troops
fired 300 to 400 shots’ at the vehicle, was unusual only
in receiving widespread media coverage (Independent on Sunday,
6 Mar).
Likewise, victims of US air attacks – which accounted for
most excess violent deaths in the Oct 2004 Lancet survey
(see here) –
rarely, if ever, make the news. On 13 Mar a US army helicopter
fired at a house in Mosul, killing a woman and two children according
to hospital sources and local residents. To our knowledge the
attack went unreported in the British press and, while Reuters
produced harrowing pictures of grieving relatives at the funeral
of one of the children, no British newspaper saw fit to reproduce
them.
Iraq's
elections: a cruel betrayal
30 Jan saw Iraq’s first
national election since the invasion, with Iraqis voting for the
members of a 275-person National Assembly. However, with no end
in sight to foreign occupation, it is likely to be remembered
as a cruel betrayal of the hopes of the millions who voted.
According to a Zogby International poll, conducted between 19-23
Jan, ‘[m]ajorities of both Sunni Arabs (80%) and Shiites
(69%) favor US forces withdrawing either immediately or after
an elected government is in place’ (ZI press release,
28 Jan). The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele - who covered
the election from Basra - noted that while he had ‘heard
no one thanking Bush and Blair … [t]here was …a strong
underlying feeling that having an elected government could hasten
the restoration of sovereignty and an end to the occupation’
(11 Feb). Nonetheless, the US appears to be digging in for the
long haul (see below).
A key point
Iraqis could have been forgiven for believing that a vote for
the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) – the Shiite coalition,
backed by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, which won the greatest share
of the vote – was a vote to end the occupation. Indeed,
a 10 Jan UIA brochure listed “setting a schedule for the
multinational forces to withdraw from Iraq” as a key point
of their political platform (FT, 14 Feb).
However, ‘a flurry of statements by top Shiite alliance
leaders indicating support for the continued presence of American
troops, and opposition to a fixed timetable for their withdrawal’
followed the election (NYT, 24 Feb). Ibrahim Jaafari,
the UIA’s nominee for Prime Minster, announced ‘that
he favored the strong prosecution of the war.’
Three conditions
The election ‘was portrayed [in the US/UK] as if Washington
and London had finally been able to reach their goal of delivering
democracy to Iraqis. In fact the US [had originally] postponed
elections to a distant future after the invasion of 2003 …
th[inking] it could rule Iraq directly with little Iraqi involvement’
(Independent, 31 Jan). Indeed, Washington was only forced into
holding elections because, ‘facing an increasingly intensive
war against the five million Sunni [it] dared not provoke revolt
by the 15 to 16 million Shia’ who were demanding the vote
(Independent, 31 Jan, see JNV briefing A Ripple of Democracy
for more on this).
Nonetheless, prior to the election ‘a prominent Iraqi politician’
with the UIA told journalist John Lee Anderson that ‘the
Americans had quietly let the leading candidates know that there
were three conditions that they expected the new government to
meet. “One, it should not be under the influence of Iran.
Two, it should not ask for the withdrawal of American troops.
And three, it should not install an Islamic state” (New
Yorker, 24 Jan).
Post-election leverage
The reasons for their complying with the second condition are
not hard to discern. ‘US leverage rests upon awareness among
the Shia that their government is unlikely to survive a civil
war without continued [US] support’ (FT, 13 Jan).
Nor is the ongoing presence of over 100,000 US troops the only
means of suasion at Washington’s disposal: Iraqi government
officials appointed to multi-year posts last year by the US (Washington
Post, 27 June) apparently remain in place; the prospect of
desperately needed debt relief can be used to force Iraq to comply
with conditions set by the International Monetary Fund (see here);
and the infamous – and still largely unspent – US
monies allocated for “reconstruction” are a huge carrot.
“Secret elections”
The US and British govermments later tried to credit the election
with having inspired the so-called “cedar revolution”
protests in Lebanon. In reality, as University of Michigan Professor
of History Juan Cole - an expert on the Middle East - notes, Lebanon
has ‘been holding lively parliamentary campaigns for decades,
and the flawed, anonymous Jan 30 elections in Iraq would have
provoked more pity than admiration in urbane, sophisticated Beirutis’
(salon.com, 16 Mar).
Indeed, with ‘most candidates keep[ing] their identities
hidden,’ the vast majority of parties and coalitions ‘unknown
to most Iraqis’, parties on the ballot ‘identified
simply by name, symbol and the name of the candidate at the top
of their list’, and ‘the location of polling stations
… hushed up until the last minute,’ one Iraqi quipped
that these were the world’s first “secret elections”
(Time, 12 Jan, Reuters, 24 Jan).
Furthermore the vote itself was ‘undermined by a wealth
of “soft money” [ie. donations made in such a way
as to skirt legal restrictions or limits], an absence of [independent]
inspectors and no limits to how much candidates c[ould] spend,’
the Independent noted, with the result that ‘parties
with links to exile groups h[ad] a huge advantage over their rivals’
(29 Jan). Unsurprisingly, therefore, ‘[t]he same exiled
politicians installed by the US at the end of the war …
remain the main power brokers in the new assembly’ (FT,
14 Feb).
Winners and losers
Nationally the turnout was estimated at 58% of eligible voters,
with 48% of the vote going to the UIA, 14% to former CIA asset
Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi List, and 26% to the Kurdistan Alliance
(Times, 14 Feb). However, owing to a combination of fear
and boycott, Sunni Arabs ‘took [only] 5 to 8 percent of
seats even though they are thought to comprise up to 20 percent
of the population’ (FT, 17 March) - leaving a crucial
part of Iraq’s population grossly under-represented in the
Assembly. The turnout in Anbar province, home to Fallujah and
Ramadi and one of the focal points of the ongoing war, was a mere
2% (Times, 14 Feb).
Green lights & golden rules
The UIA’s current candidate for Prime Minister – the
head of the Shiite Dawa party, Ibrahim al-Jaafari – is certainly
not Washington’s first choice for the job. Nonetheless it
appears that back-channel negotiations between the UIA (who recognised
they needed to get a green light from Washington) and the US probably
took place prior to his selection and that the Americans did not
take a strong stand against him (Juan Cole, citing reports in
al-Hayat, DemocracyNow.org, 23 Feb). As we have already
seen, Mr Jaafari seems to be prepared to obey the golden rule:
don’t ask the Americans to leave.
The
oil factor
‘The Bush administration
made plans for war and for Iraq’s oil before the 9/11 attacks,
sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil,’
according to an investigation by Newsnight’s Greg Palast
(BBC, 17 Mar).
Coup d’etat
‘Insiders told Newsnight that planning began “within
weeks” of Bush’s first taking office in 2001, long
before [9/11].’ Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born oil industry
consultant who acted as Ronald Reagan’s back channel to
Saddam’s regime says he ‘took part in the secret meetings
in California, Washington and the Middle East … describ[ing]
a State Department plan for a forced coup d’etat’
and that he ‘interviwed potential successors to Saddam Hussein
on behalf of the Bush administration.’
Under this plan the Iraqi state would have maintained ownership
of Iraq’s oil fields – an option apparently favoured
by the big oil companies. Nonetheless this ‘industry-favoured
plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the
invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all Iraq’s
oil fields … drafted by neo-conservatives intent on using
Iraq’s oil to destroy the Opec cartel.’
A new policy
Apparently concerned about ‘a repeat of Russia’s energy
privatisation … [in which] US oil companies were barred
from bidding for the reserves’, Arab public opinion, and
the potential impact on oil prices if Opec were undermined, Big
Oil ‘demanded a new policy’ and a new plan was ‘drafted
with the help of American oil industry consultants’ (BBC
& Newsnight, 17 Mar). According to Palast the new
plan – which appears to have won the political battle in
Washington - calls for the creation of ‘a state-controlled
company, which would be very OPEC-friendly, very oil company-friendly
and would establish profit sharing agreements with international
oil companies’ (DemocracyNow.org, 21 Mar)
US and British oil companies stand to reap profits from Iraqi
oil of anywhere between $600bn and $9 trillion over the next 50
years, even if Iraq’s oil production remains under national
control (providing an Iraqi Government enters into production
sharing agreements offering the companies favourable terms, see
www.globalpolicy.org, 28 Jan).
ACTION
- Watch Greg Palast’s Newsnight report on-line
here.
- Read the BBC News story – and extracts from the
two Iraq oil plans - at www.gregpalast.com
- Hold a public screening of The Oil Factor, available
from Voices for £15 incl p&p.
- The Stop the War Coalition have called a protest outside ‘Iraqi
Petroleum Conference 2005: Time to rebuild & develop the oil
and gas fields in a country containing the world’s second
largest oil and gas reserves’ on 29 June Venue: The Hilton,
Paddington. Time tba. Contact 020 7278 6694
British war profiteers
British
engineering firm Amec – who, with their
US partner Fluor, were awarded Iraq “reconstruction”
contracts worth $1.6bn last year (see here)
- is ‘in Iraq for the long term’, according to its
CEO Peter Mason (Independent, 11 Mar). Mason told the paper ‘that,
if the insurgency settled down [sic] it could be in line for projects
worth several billions of dollars to exploit oil resources.’
Amec has offices in Ashford, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Leeds,
Leicester, London, Manchester and York, amongst others (www.amec.com)
Armor
Group (25 Buckingham Gate, SW1E 6LD) – the British
mercenary company chaired by former Tory Defence Secretary Malcom
Rifkind - has ‘s[een] its revenues almost double last year
as demand for its services in Iraq surged’ (Independent,
25 Jan). ‘The company’s revenues for 2004 will be
$193m … a 93 per cent rise on the previous year’,
of which ‘about $100m will come from Iraq.’
Britain’s
biggest arms dealer, BAE Systems – who
(as British Aerospace) sold military aircraft to the genocidal
dictatorship in Indonesia for use in occupied East Timor –
have agreed to pay $4.2bn for US firm United Defence Industries
(UDI), the maker of the Bradley fighting vehicles ‘which
ha[ve] been extensively deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan’
(Independent, 8 Mar). The deal will ‘make the Pentagon by
far the biggest customer of BAE, accounting for some 25 per cent
of its sales.’ $1.3bn has been set aside in this year’s
US military budget to upgrade the fleet of more than 7,000 vehicles.
‘Asked why BAE had been so keen to buy a US manufacturer
of fighting vehicles, Mike Turner, its chief executive, replied:
“Because, like the robber of the bank said: that’s
where the money is.”’ Shareholders must approve the
deal at BAE’s AGM on 4 May (see below).
ACTION
- The Corporate Pirates have organised a week of action
against the corporate plunder of Iraq (1-6 April).
- The BAE AGM is on 4 May. To join the protests inside or outside
contact Campaign Against Arms Trade: www.caat.org.uk,
0207 281 0297 or email enquiries@caat.org.uk.
Staying put
Despite a flurry of recent
reports suggesting that the US and Britain are trying to get out
of Iraq, in reality ‘[t]he Bush administration shows no
signs of preparing for a pullout’ (Guardian, 29 Jan).
Indeed, the Pentagon has drawn up ‘contingency plans …
for keeping 120,000 troops in place for the next two one-year
rotations’ (Guardian, 25 Jan); over $100bn has been allocated
for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal year
2005 (NYT, 26 Jan, AP, 22 Mar); and ‘the Pentagon is building
a string of permanent bases [in Iraq] at a cost of billions of
dollars’ (Guardian, 29 Jan)
“In Iraq for a generation”
Last year independent military analyst GlobalSecurity.org identified
12 so-called “enduring bases” in Iraq ie. ‘long
term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely.’
On e such is Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad
International Airport, where ‘[o]ver the past year, [Halliburton
subsidiary] KBR contractors have built a small American city’
housing 14,000 troops (Mother Jones, Mar/Apr 2005).
Meanwhile ‘the Pentagon is building a permanent
military communications system [in Iraq] that ‘will [connect]
Camp Victory to other coalition bases in the country’ and
eventually to US bases in Qatar, the UAE and even Afghanistan
(New York Sun, 15 Jan). ‘Pentagon officials familiar with
the project told the Sun that its scope … indicates a commitment
to a long-term presence in the region, including Iraq.’
“People should get realistic and think in terms
of our presence being in Iraq for a generation or until democratic
stability [sic] in the region is reached,” the
former chief of Arab operations for the CIA’s clandestine
service told the paper.
10,000
prisoners
The major US-run detention
centres in Iraq ‘have swelled to capacity and are holding
more people than ever’ according to senior military officials
(New York Times, 4 Mar).
At the beginning of March the US was holding ‘at least 8,900
detainees in [its] three major prisons [in Iraq], 1,000 more than
in late January.’ A further 1,300 detainees were being held
at other locations around the country. Many Iraqis were swept
up before the 30 Jan elections and others have been captured in
recent offensives across the so-called Sunni triangle.
“We should be killing them”
The former commander of US forces in Iraq, Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez,
is alleged to have once said of Iraqi detainees: “Why are
we detaining these people, we should be killing them” (ACLU
press release, 10 Mar). On 30 Jan US troops appeared to be
putting these words into practice, killing four detainees and
injuring six others, quelling a ‘riot’ at Camp Bucca
in southern Iraq. US authorities said “lethal force”
had been used on inmates corralled into compounds and surrounded
by razor wire, though ‘no American soldiers had been seriously
injured by stones thrown by the inmates and … the disturbance
had lasted just 45 minutes before the decision was taken to open
fire’ (Independent, 2 Feb).
Handover?
The three main US detention centres in Iraq (Abu Ghraib, Camp
Cropper and Camp Bucca), together with the British-run centre
at Shaibah, where over 800 people are being held, are supposed
to be handed over to Iraqi Government “control”, ‘although
no deadline has been set’ for this (Guardian, 10
Mar). In the meantime ‘the Americans are working to expand
Camp Bucca to accommodate a total of 6,000 detainees by the end
of March’ (NYT, 4 Mar).
Though it may help to insulate the US from further criticism,
such a “handover” is unlikely to improve the treatment
of detainees. A recent report by Human Rights Watch documented
how ‘unlawful arrest, long-term incommunicado detention,
torture and other ill-treatment of detainees have become routine
and commonplace’ under the US-appointed Iraqi Interim Government
(HRW, 25 Jan). ‘Methods of torture cited by the
detainees include[d] routine beatings … prolonged suspension
from the wrists with the hands tied behind the back; electric
shocks to sensitive parts of the body, including the genitals
and earlobes; and being kept blindfolded and/or handcuffed continuously
for days.’
To our knowledge Tony Blair’s ‘Special Envoy’
on human rights in Iraq, Ann Clwyd MP, is maintaining her usual
silence regarding such matters.
ACTION
The Christian Peacemaker Teams are still running their
Adopt a Detainee Campaign, matching individual detainees with
congregations, mosques, synagogues, and peace groups who then
organize their members to write letters on the detainee’s
behalf to the US, British and Iraqi authorities. CPT member Sheila
Provencher – currently in Iraq – writes: “Famlies
continue to come to CPT Iraq with stories of house raids, detentions,
and disappearances of their loved ones. When I tell them about
the Adopt-a-Detainee Campaign, I tell them honestly that it might
not lead to their loved one’s release. “It does not
matter,” said one man whose three brothers were detained
on 31 Dec 2004. “Whatever you can do, we are grateful”.’
To join the campaign contact Rick Polhamus: 001-937-313-4458 or
jrp@cpt.org or visit www.cpt.org
Shooting
civilians
The
British Army has modified its rules of engagement ‘to allow
soldiers to fire on unarmed civilians if they believe them to
be engaged in activities such as stealing oil or damaging Iraq’s
oil infrastructure’ (Sunday Telegraph,
13 March).
Secret documents seen by the ST, ‘which form part
of the Army’s rules of engagment, show that it would
be legal for a soldier to kill an unarmed Iraqi citizen who is
suspected of stealing certain items.’ The list
includes “structures essential for the maintenance of public
order, health and hygiene; electricity generation and distribution
facilities … [and] oil infrastructure.” A ‘senior
officer’ told the paper that he “c[ouldn’t]
think of any circumstances in the [UK] where either police or
soldiers would be allowed to shoot someone for theft.” Some
lives, it seems, are more equal than others.
Kaghan al-Roaimi
Senior officers claim these rules of engagement ‘are to
blame for an increasing number of soldiers facing murder charges.’
According to a second set of secret military documents seen by
the ST, ‘[a]lmost 50 British servicemen are facing
prosecution for murder, assault and other crimes committed in
Iraq’ (27 Feb).
In one such incident, in Jan 2004, a member the SAS shot dead
17 year-old Kaghan al-Roaimi, after a wedding, during which celebratory
shots had been fired in the air. Mr al-Roaimi’s father told
the Independent: “My son was not doing anything
bad. He was not carrying a gun and he was not threatening anyone.”
(16 Feb).
According to his family he was shot in the back from a distance
of 200 yards and his mother Khaldiya has “lost her mind”
through grief. Nonetheless the commanding officer and the director
of Special Forces have apparently been ‘resisting attempts
to charge [the soldier in question], arguing that it would damage
morale’ – clearly a more important consideration than
justice (Sunday Telegraph, 27 Feb)
Mission
creep?
The area of Iraq under direct British
military control has more than doubled, as Dutch troops start
to withdraw from the country (Telegraph, 14 March). In
January the MoD announced that an extra 220 British troops would
be sent to Iraq to help replace the departing Dutch forces (BBC,
27 Jan).
Noting the ‘lack of fanfare’ accompanying these events,
the Telegraph quoted Major Alan Richmond, second in command of
the forces deployed to the new area, as saying: “With a
general election coming [the Government] doesn’t want reports
of mission creep” (14 March).
A political problem
Yet it may well be just the beginning. A senior analyst with military
analyst Jane’s explained that it would be ‘almost
impossible for the Americans to produce another 3,000 extra troops,’
leaving Britain as the most likely candidate if Italian forces
withdraw, as has been hinted. A defence official explained that
whilst there would “not be any major logistical problem
in deploying more [British troops] to Iraq. The main problem …
[wa]s political” (Independent, 19 Mar).
This “political problem” is surely, in large part,
the result of the last three years of anti-war activism. As such
it presents both a challenge and a question. Can we raise the
costs sufficiently to prevent any further deployment and, if so,
where will the US find the replacements?
Murder
Inc
A
top US official has acknowledged that the US is running an assassination
programme in Iraq.
‘A pretty good job’
In evidence before a US Congressional Intelligence Committee,
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defence for Intelligence, Lt
Gen William Boykin, ‘was asked whether the government should
re-establish a program of identifying and assassinating specific
adversaries, like Operation Phoenix, conducted in Vietnam
by the CIA’ (New York Times, 2 March). He
replied ‘that America’s conventional military forces
and its Special Operations teams in Iraq and Afghanistan were
“doing a pretty good job of that right now”.’
“We’re going after these people. “Killing or
capturing these people is a legitimate mission for the department,”
he explained. “I think we’re doing what the Phoenix
program was designed to do, without all of the secrecy.”
Boykin is notorious for his June 2002 statements, before a church
congregation in Oregon, that the Muslim world hates America “because
we are a nation of believers,” that Bush was “not
elected” but “appointed by God” and that “Satan
wants to destroy this nation …he wants to destroy us as
a Christian army’ (Chain of Command by Seymour
Hersh, p. 277)
Body counts
In 1971 a US Congressional report concluded that “it was
possible that many of the more than 20,000 suspected [Vietnamese
insurgents] killed under the program known as Phoenix were actually
innocent civilians” (The American Connection: Vol 1
by Michael McClintock, p. 46).
In Jan 2005 Gen George W. Casey Jr, head of occupying forces in
Iraq, ‘reported during a closed hearing [of the US Senate
Armed Forces Committee] that the coalition forces killed or captured
15,000 suspected insurgents last year, a number far larger than
earlier US estimates of 6,000 to 9,000’ (Washington
Post, 6 Feb).
So just who are we killing in Iraq
For
more info. see ‘Phoenix Reborn?’ by Stephen Shalom,
available on-line here.
US
war resister denied asylum
Jeremy
Hinzman, the 1st US soldier to publicly flee to Canada, has had
his asylum claim turned down by Canada’s Refugee Protection
Division (RPD) (AFP, 24 Mar). At his Dec hearing Hinzman
was not permitted to raise the issue of the war’s illegality
- despite the fact that this was a central pillar of his claim.
The RPD declared that Hinzman would be ‘offered protection
by a fair and independent military and civilian justice system’
if returned to the US and that his punishment would not be “excessive
or disproportionately severe.” Hinzman faces up to five
years in jail if deported. In contrast, ‘[a]n American army
platoon leader who ordered his troops to throw two Iraqi prisoners
into the Tigris river [one of whom is feared to have drowned]
was sentenced to 45 days and given a £6,200 fine’
(Guardian, 16 Mar).
Hinzman is seen as a crucial test case for at least six other
US soldiers who have filed for refugee status – as well
as an unknown number of others who would flee to Canada, were
asylum an option. From 1965 to 1973 more than 50,000 draft-age
Americans made their way to Canada to avoid fighting in the Vietnam
war and ‘[t]he Pentagon has estimated that, since the start
of the current conflict, more than 5,500 US military personnel
have deserted’ (Harpers, Mar 2005).
Hinzman will now appeal the decision to a Canadian federal court.
If that fails he could also make a plea to Canada’s immigration
minister to stay on compassionate grounds. Now more than ever,
we need to continue to press the Canadian Government to do the
right thing.
ACTION
- Get hold of Voices campaign
postcard to the Canadian High Commissioner calling on the
Canadian government to ‘demonstrate its commitment to international
law and basic human decency by making provision for US war objectors
to have sanctuary in Canada.’ Ideal for street stalls, mailings
etc…
- Write to Canada’s Immigration Minister (Hon. Judy Sgro,
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Room 239, Confederation
Bldg, House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6, CANADA) directly,
urging her to do the same.
Resistance
round-up
Jan:
Tim Spicer, whose mercenary company Aegis Defence won a $293m
contract for work in Iraq, withdraws from a public talk at the
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) after “his
office [was] alerted to a demonstration that would take place
at the meeting” (email from the Royal African Society to
SOAS STW). The Centre for Corporate Policy recently voted Aegis
one of the Top Ten War Profiteers of 2004.
15
Feb: US Army war resister Camilo Mejia is released from prison
after serving a one year sentence for refusing to return to Iraq.
Noting that he had ‘received thousands upon thousands of
letters from all over the world’ he thanks those who have
supported him and his family, writing: ‘I am now free from
prison, but it was because of all of you that I remained a free
man during my incarceration.’
1
Mar: In an initiative organised by local anti-war activists
46 town meetings in Vermont vote to condemn the war in
Iraq and to call on political leaders to bring home the
state’s National Guard. ‘Vermont active service members
have died at a per capita rate higher than in any other state’
(CSM, 28 Feb).
2
Mar: 5 British anti-war activists are arrested after occupying
the Irish embassy in London in solidarity with the Pit Stop Ploughshares
(peace activists who were about to stand trial for acts of disarmament
at Shannon airport in the run-up to the invasion). The action
was covered by the Sun, the Evening Standard
and the Irish Independent. For Pit Stop Ploughshares
info see www.warontrial.com.
19 March: International Day of Protest on the 2nd Anniversary
of the Invasion of Iraq. 45-100,000 people march in London
(with protests in other UK cities) to demand the withdrawal of
British forces from Iraq. In the run-up to the 19th, peace activists
held a 3-day-long peace camp in Trafalgar Square. In the US more
than 800 events were scheduled in 600-plus towns around the country.
In Fayatteville, North Carolina more than 4,000 gathered outside
the military base at Fort Bragg in the largest protest at the
base since the Vietnam War. In New York members of the War Resisters
League staged acts of civil disobedience outside military recruiting
stations.
Mar:
Government introduces control orders and house arrest
under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 despite significant
concern from the public and human rights groups. The Belmarsh
detainees are released but subject to ‘chaotic and cruel’
control orders. All British and foreign nationals are now subject
to these laws. How long before they are used on protestors...?
See Campaign Against Criminalising Communities for more info:
www.cacc.org.uk
Mar:
The founder of Military Families Against the War (www.mfaw.org.uk),
Reg Keys, whose son Tom was killed in Iraq declares that he intends
to stand against Tony Blair in Sedgefield in the upcoming election.
“I want to hold Tony Blair to account for his deceit …
[My son] believed what he was told... But Blair lied to him, and
to all those other[s] … who came home in coffins after fighting
in a war that was illegal and immoral” (Guardian,
22 Mar)
Resources
New publications
Bury the Chains: The First International Human Rights Movement
by Adam Hochschild, Macmillan, 2005. £20).
Why review a book about a 200-year-old anti-slavery movement here?
Because, despite initial appearances, this is very much a tale
for our times: the story of how activists took on one of the worst
of human injustices in the most powerful empire of its day –
and won.
Assembling in 1787 British abolition-ists confronted almost insurmountable
odds: building a popular campaign in a country where most people
considered slavery to be perfectly normal, where customs duties
on slave-grown sugar were an important source of Government revenue,
and where only 5% of English men (and no women) had the vote.
Nonetheless, they succeeded, and fifty years of sustained popular
action - coupled with a series of slave insurrections in the colonies
themselves – brought British slavery to an end. As such,
it is both lesson and inspiration for anyone struggling for peace
and social justice today. Unmissable.
Peace
News
After a long stint as a more discursive & international
quarterly, Peace News has returned to being a monthly for UK activists
(anti-war, environmental, global justice etc…), with a mix
of actions, events and discussion. PN welcomes sub-missions and
is now available at supercheap prices (10 for £3.50 or 100
for £16). See www.peacenews.info
or 0207 278 3344.
We
won’t fight this war: Messages from British soldiers
Produced by Military Families Against the War, 100 for £5
+ postage. Contact contact@mfaw.org.uk or 020 7278 6694. 4-page
leaflet containing statements from 2 British soldiers: Ray Hewitt
(who served in the 1991 Gulf War and has applied for conscientious
objector (CO) status) and George Solomou (who recently resigned
from the TA) – as well as basic info. on how to become a
CO. ‘[D]esigned for use outside TA, Army recruitment centres
and barracks’ – you may want to check out the legal
ramifications of this first.
Web-sites
Watching the Warmakers - www.watching
thewarmakers.org.uk
Website of the Brighton Hands Off Forum who produce an excellent
weekly news digest on the “war on terror.” Includes
an archive and the current week’s briefing as a PDF. The
digests are also handily formatted for printing on double-sided
A4 and ideal for distributing at street stalls, events etc.
Vote4peace
- www.vote4peace.org.uk
Describing itself as ‘an independent campaign helping elect
pro-peace MPs in the forthcoming general election’ this
site lists ‘almost 40 MPs and prospective candidates …
[who] opposed the Iraq war [and] are committed to peace and legitimacy’,
with the aim of ‘help[ing] elect a slate of mainstream MPs
committed to peace and legitimacy: to gather volunteers in target
constituencies [and] raise donations for under-funded prospective
candidates.’
Counter
Recruiter - http://rncwatch.
typepad.com/counterrecruiter/
Web-log chronicle of the growing counter military recruitment
movement across the US. Perhaps someone should transplant some
of these ideas over here …
New DVD
Counter Terror, Build Justice DVD (20 mins)
Produced by JNV. Available for £6.50 incl.
p&p (see p8). Written and directed by voices uk’s founder,
Milan Rai - and featuring Bruce Kent, as well as a host of Vox
Pops – CTBJ explains clearly why the UK Government’s
“war on terror” is not only wrong but is actually
endangering UK citizens. By showing how al-Qaeda draws upon legitimate
grievances to create a reservoir of support, it also indicates
what a real “counter-terrorism” strategy, draining
that reservoir, would actually involve.
Postcards
Voices has produced a new postcard about the anti-protest legislation
which will all but stop protest within 1km of Parliament. In part
the legislation is targeted at Brian Haw, who has maintained a
continuous 24-7 peace protest in Parliament Square since June
2001. Among other things, the new postcard seeks to identify persons
willing to join a protest in the Square, as an act of civil disobedience,
should Brian be evicted.
|
