|
VOICES
NEWSLETTER # 50 (Feb / Mar 2007)
Escalation: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran
The "surge" to nowhere
Innocent people
EDM 335
EDM text (with endnotes)
EDM 335: If your MP says ...
Lib Dems back withdrawal
Why we stand for immediate withdrawal
Propping up the occupation
In
brief
Afghanistan: killing civilians
Target Iran
Attacking Somalia
The great oil law rip-off
Resistance round-up
Resources
Escalation:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran
As 2007 opens we face the possibility
of a
major escalation in the violence inflicted by the occupying forces
in Iraq,
renewed
heavy fighting by NATO forces in Afghanistan and
the very real possibility
of an attack on Iran. This will
also be the year in which Tony Blair stands down. Crucially,
whatever happens Britain is likely to play a decisive political
role.
Despite
some recent symbolic gestures in the US Congress ‘there
is little sign that the Democrats have any intention of turning
off the tap to the Iraq war effort,’ the Times’ foreign
editor observes (26 Jan).
Nonetheless, it is highly significant that in the US debate over
Bush’s
plan to “surge” additional troops to Baghdad, critics of the plan
seized on the fact that for once Britain was not joining in. “Why is Great
Britain withdrawing? Why are we the only ones that are moving forward with this
new plan?” Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski asked (FT, 13 Jan). Just a
few days later the US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, was ‘publicly
urg[ing] Britain to maintain its forces in Iraq at their present level’ (IoS,
28 Jan).
Of course, Britain is not withdrawing. Instead, its role in Iraq is becoming
ever more starkly defined: not reconstruction or preventing civil war, but propping
up the US occupation, both militarily and politically. A genuine
withdrawal of all British troops from Iraq could therefore have huge knock-on
consequences
in the US. Consequently, the need to push for it remains stronger than ever.
Out now
Sectarian violence is currently claiming thousands of Iraqi lives every month
(Reuters, 1 Feb) and has already forced over 2 million people to flee their homes
(Refugees International, 5 Dec). Moreover, it is almost certain that things will
continue to get worse as long as the occupation continues - the option currently
favored by both Democrats and Republicans in the US.
On the other hand, there is still a chance that – in addition to removing
one of the main causes of violent death there
- a real and rapid withdrawal of all occupying forces might help pull
Iraq back
from the brink.
With 60% of the British public in favour of withdrawal “as
soon as possible”,
the Lib Dems calling for full withdrawal
by Oct and even the Telegraph’s
leader writer conceding that ‘our presence in Iraq is doing more harm than
good’ (20 Jan) we now have a real opportunity to build pressure on the
next Prime Minister to withdraw all British forces from Iraq. We must not squander
it.
The "surge" to nowhere
Bush’s planned escalation in Iraq will not stop the civil
war currently raging there. Under President Bush’s new
plan troop levels are set to rise by 21,500 over the next few
months, with 17,500 deployed to Baghdad – supposedly to
suppress sectarian violence by tackling Sunni and Shiite militias
- and the remainder to Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni
insurgency (Sunday Times, 14 Jan).
In an incisive critique of this so-called “surge”,
academics Eric Herring and Glen Rangwala (co-authors of Iraq
in Fragments: The Occupation and its Legacy – see voices
47) highlight at least three major fallacies:
1.
That Baghdad can be “pacified” through
US-led military offensives.
In fact, as Herring and Rangwala note, Bush’s plan amounts
to ‘a blip not a surge’, with the total number of
troops remaining well below their Dec 05 peak of 165,000 (WP,
11 Jan). ‘They were not able to bring peace to Baghdad
then, and nothing has changed to make it easier this time around’ (Three
Fallacies of the Bush Plan for Iraq, Jan).
The new plan ‘places American soldiers directly in neighbourhoods where,
until now, they have appeared only transiently on patrols and raids’ (NYT,
15 Jan) and as Patrick Cockburn notes, ‘The occupation has always fuelled
the insurgency. More US troops means more resistance’ (Independent, 8
Jan).
2. That there is a real distinction between the Shiite and Kurdish
militias and the government.
In reality, the International Crisis Group notes, ‘the
[Iraqi] government is a full-fledged actor in [sectarian] violence’ whose ‘political
leaders are gradually becoming warlords’ (After Baker-Hamilton,
19 Dec). Moreover, ‘[it] will not move decisively against
militias in general because it is largely rooted in them’ (Three
Fallacies).
According to the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton report, the ‘Iraqi police … routinely
engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture
and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians’ (The Iraq Study Group
Report, Dec 06, p 13) yet the new US war plan ‘gives a central role to
the National Police’ (New York Times, 15 Jan). At the same time it also
risks escalating tensions between Arabs and Kurds by sending up to 3,600 Kurdish
fighters to take part in the “pacification” of Baghdad (LA
Times,
14 Jan).
3. That suppressing the militias would lead to reconciliation
between the warring groups.
It is widely recognised that the only way to end the sectarian
violence is through political reconciliation. At present, however, ‘the
Iraqi government sees no need to negotiate seriously with the
insurgents as long as it ha[s] the US military to fight battles
on its behalf’ and the insurgents ‘see no need to
make a deal with the government, as they know they cannot [currently]
extract many concessions … from it’ (Three Fallacies).
By contrast, ‘[t]he scaling-down of the US military presence would provide
all the sides in Iraq with a window of opportunity to negotiate with each other … Instead,
by using its military power to prop up the fragmented Iraqi state, the US is
not only postponing the necessary political solution, it is making it harder
to achieve.’
Innocent people
“It’s not British and American soldiers that are
killing innocent people ...” - Tony Blair (BBC, 16 Jan).
Though
it cannot stop the sectarian violence Bush’s “surge” will ‘roughly
triple the numbers of American soldiers available for ground
operations’ (NYT, 15 Jan) - significantly increasing the
United States’ ability to inflict violence on Iraq’s
people.
The extent of this should not be underestimated: coalition forces
were responsible for just over 1 in 4 (26%) violent deaths during
the period Jun 05 – Jun
06 (the last full month for which data is available) - almost half of them due
to airstrikes (‘Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq’, Lancet,
Oct 06, see Voices 49). Moreover the number of people killed by these forces
has increased every year since the invasion (up to Jul 06). Though barely reported
the killings and repression continue:
28 Nov: Five young girls – including an infant - are killed by US forces ‘after
troops used tanks and machine guns’ to attack a house in Ramadi (BBC, 28
Nov).
29 Nov: A 70-year-old man, his wife and their adult daughter are killed during
a US-Iraqi raid in Baqubah (LA Times, 30 Nov). According to witnesses all three
bodies – which were found outside their house at dawn after troops withdrew
from the area - have gunshot wounds to the head.
2/3 Dec: Residents say US airstrikes on houses in the village of al Lihaib, west
of Baghdad, kill ‘as many as 24 people’, leveling several buildings
(Reuters, 3 Dec). The US military acknowledges 8 deaths, including two women
and a child.
8 Dec: A US air strike on a village near Ishaqi kills at least 20 Iraqis, ‘includ[ing]
as many as 10 children’ (NYT, 9 Dec). Iraqi officials say the strike killed
members of the extended families of two brothers. The US military brands the
dead “al-Qaeda terrorists” and claims no children were killed, but
journalists from Agence France Presse who visit the village ‘f[ind] and
p[hotograph] relatives weeping over several mangled bodies, including those of
at least two children, near the ruined homes’ (AFP, 8 Dec).
13 Dec: ‘Eager to show signs of progress’, Bush announces that US
and Iraqi forces ‘killed or captured 5,900 of the enemy’ during Oct,
Nov and the first week of Dec (Reuters, 14 Dec).
5 Jan: US and Iraqi forces begin an offensive in Iraq’s eastern province
of Diyala, forcing hundreds to flee their homes (IRIN, 16 Jan). The provincial
council’s media officer says ‘about 14 civilians’ are killed
in US air strikes.
24 Jan: US helicopters are used to attack high-rise buildings during fighting
in and around Haifa Street in downtown Baghdad (Reuters, 24 Jan). ‘A local
journalist sa[ys] he helped transport 37 wounded people to hospital, including
women and children.’
8 Feb: A US air strike on Zaidan flattens 4 houses and kills 45 people, including
women, children and old people, according to local officials (AP, 8 Feb)..
EDM 335
An Early Day Motion (EDM) calling for the immediate withdrawal
of all British forces from Iraq could be an important tool to
put pressure on MPs.
Nominally a call for a debate on a subject, the ‘true modern-day
purpose [of EDMs] is to enable MPs to draw attention to an issue
and to canvass support for their views’ (tinyurl.com/2qbxmj).
*
Send a copy of Voices’ latest campaign postcard (see below)
to your MP, urging them to sign EDM 335. Copy any replies to
Voices.
Copies of this postcard are available free
from the Voices office.
*
Get hold of extra copies of the postcard. Circulate it at your
church or union branch. Get it placed as an insert in a mailing.
*
Collect signed cards at a street stall in your constituency
and/or go door-to-door asking people to sign a card. When you
have a suitable number (500, 1000, 2000) of signatories organise
a delegation to visit your MP to hand in the cards.
*
Contact local media and try to generate as much local publicity
for the hand-in as possible: send them a press release, write
to their letters page, ring them up (George Monbiot’s excellent
Activists' Guide to Exploiting the Media is available
free on-line at tinyurl.com/2korgn).
Keeping British troops in Iraq
is unpopular (see 'In brief'): if your MP refuses to sign the
EDM, make them pay a political price by publicising this fact.
EDM text (with endnotes)
That
this House notes with alarm the conclusion of the October 2006
Lancet report that coalition forces in Iraq
have been directly
responsible for the deaths of at least 186,000 Iraqis since the
start of the 2003 invasion [1]; recognises that according to
a September 2006 Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)
poll, 78 per cent of Iraqis believe that the US military presence
in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing [2];
recalls the conclusion of the April 2006 US National Intelligence
Estimate on global terrorism that ‘The Iraq conflict has
become the cause celébrè for jihadists, breeding
a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating
supporters for the global jihadist movement’ [3]; further
notes the recent statement by the Head of the British Army, General
Sir Richard Dannatt, that British forces should be withdrawn
from Iraq soon because their presence exacerbates the security
problems [4]; further notes that there have been over 118 British
military deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion [5]; and calls
on the Government to withdraw all British forces from Iraq immediately.
Current
list of signatories (7 Feb): John McDonnell, Jeremy
Corbyn, Robert Wareing, Ann Cryer, George Galloway, Dai Davies,
Harry Cohen, Diane Abbott, Alan Simpson, Mike Wood, Kelvin Hopkins,
Linda Riordan.
[1] ‘Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional
cluster sample survey’ by Burnham et. al., Lancet, 11 Oct
06, tinyurl.com/y98ksu. [2] “The Iraqi Public on the US
Presence and the Future of Iraq”, 27 Sept 06, tinyurl.com/sdbok [3] Declassified key judgements from “Trends in Global
Terrorism: Implications for the United States”, April 06,
tinyurl.com/s45se [4] “A very honest general”, Daily
Mail, 13 Oct 06 [5] “US Military Deaths in Iraq Hit 2,757”,
AP, 12 Oct 06, tinyurl.com/ya3m4o
EDM 335: If your MP says ...*
… that the immediate withdrawal of UK forces from southern
Iraq “would undoubtedly lead to further uncontrolled bloodshed.”
Draw her attention to the fact that most Iraqis believe the opposite:
in a Sept 06 poll conducted by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes 58% of Iraqis said inter-ethnic violence would decrease
if US-led forces were withdrawn in the next six months and 61%
that such a withdrawal would increase ‘day to day security
for ordinary Iraqis’ (tinyurl.com/sdbok).
Remind her that “coalition” forces have been one
of the major sources of violent death in post-invasion Iraq
and that the British role is
now principally one of protecting US
supply lines, not preventing intra-sectarian
bloodshed.
… that “to set an arbitrary timetable” for
withdrawal would be “deeply irresponsible.”
Draw her attention to the fact that, in the aforementioned Sept
06 poll 71% of Iraqis backed full withdrawal within a year (tinyurl.com/sdbok).
… that withdrawing British troops from Iraq isn’t “practical”
Remind her that the last Italian troops were withdrawn from Iraq
in Dec (Xinhua, 2 Dec). Why was it practical for the Italians
to leave but not for us?
* All quotes from actual MPs.
Lib Dems back withdrawal
In
a dramatic shift, the Liberal Democrats are now calling for British
forces to start withdrawing from
Iraq this May, and for
all British forces to be out of the Iraq by the end of Oct – a
position Tony Blair has condemned as “deeply irresponsible” (Hansard,
24 Jan, col. 1414).
Unveiling this new policy in the House of Commons, Lib Dem leader
Menzies Campbell failed to mention one of the strongest arguments
in its support. Namely, that
it is backed by the overwhelmingly majority of Iraqis (see ‘If
your MP
says ...’ above).
ACTION
If your MP is a Lib Dem, ask them what action they’re taking to make such
a withdrawal a reality. If not, ask your local branch.
Why we stand for immediate withdrawal
‘…The Bush administration has insisted again and
again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the
next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays,
the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S.
says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse
into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked
sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly
regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war…the antiwar
movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal
of the U.S. military - as well as reparations to the Iraqi people,
so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine
their own future.’
Noam Chomsky (Hegemony or Survival)
Kelly Dougherty (Iraq Veterans Against the War)
Eve Ensler (The Vagina Monologues)
Camilo Mejía (First Iraq War resister to refuse redeployment)
Arundhati Roy (The God of Small Things)
Cindy Sheehan (Gold Star Families for Peace)
Howard Zinn (A People’s History of the United States)
See www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/
Propping up the occupation
Despite talk of significant withdrawals this spring, thousands
of British troops are set to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Their
mission? Propping up the US occupation.
As BBC Defence Correspondent Paul Wood explained, though the
number of British forces in Iraq may be reduced by as much as
half (from around 7,000 to 3,500) following the much-heralded
withdrawal from Basra city in April, ‘UK forces will have
to remain in the south to guarantee the security of American
supply lines - some 2000 trucks are on the road to Baghdad from
Kuwait on any one day’ (BBC 6 O’clock News, 22 Nov). ‘As
long as the Americans remain in Iraq therefore so will we,’ he
concluded.
UK Defence Secretary Des Browne has even hinted that ‘[t]housands of British
troops could remain in Iraq for another decade,’ saying he was “not
at this stage seeking to set out what the level of troop deployment will be in
five or ten years’ time” (Times, 28 Nov)
Unveiling their new policy to withdraw all British forces from Iraq by Oct,
Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell claimed British forces were in Iraq for one purpose: ‘fulfil[ling]
our moral obligation to the people of Iraq’ (Hansard, 24 Jan, col. 1456).
In reality, their primary purpose remains propping up the US occupation.
In
brief
60% back withdrawal
Sixty per cent of Britons think “British troops should
be withdrawn from Iraq as soon as possible even if Iraq
is not completely stable”, with only 31% saying that
they should remain ‘for as long as it takes to make
sure that Iraq is a stable democracy’ (Populus poll,
5-7 Jan, tinyurl.com/2o83jo).
Attitudes were strongly related to gender and class: 41% of men and 42% of professionals
and managers believe that British troops should remain until Iraq is stable,
but only 23% of women and 21% of unskilled manual workers (Times, 9 Jan).
Still in charge
The Iraqi Government privately resisted US plans to
increase troops levels in Baghdad ‘fearing
that an increased American troop presence … will
be accompanied by a more assertive American role’ (NYT, 11 Jan).
Nevertheless,
the “sovereign” Iraqi government was forced to capitulate: “I
said to Maliki this has to work or you’re out,” George
Bush told visiting Congressional leaders (NYT, 10 Jan).
Just a few days earlier a senior US military source told the Guardian: “We
are still in charge. The Iraqi government is a façade” (1
Jan).
Defeat in Basra
According to veteran Middle East military analyst Anthony Cordesmann
(recipient of the US Department of Defense’s Distinguished
Service medal, now at the mainstream Centre for Strategic and International Studies): “The British
have basically been defeated in Basra [which] is now under the control of two
loosely coordinating Shi’ite Islamist extremist groups whose affiliations
with [Shiite cleric Moqtadr al-Sadr’s Sadrist movement] and [the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq] is uncertain. The South East of Iraq
has basically come under the control of various elements only loosely tied to
the central government’ (Briefing on Iraq, CSIS, 29 Nov 06).
‘Although efforts continue to root out rogue elements in the Basra police,
[British] troops are largely staying within their bases and seeking to avoid
casualties’ (IoS, 21 Jan).
3532 rockets & 2 million rounds
According to the US Marine Corps’ head of aviation plans and policy, last
year the Corps’ aircraft ‘dropped 80 tons of bombs and fired 80 missiles,
3532 rockets and more than 2 million rounds of smaller ammunition’ (National
Defense, Jan).
Afghanistan: killing civilians
“We left our houses and came to this camp to escape from
the aerial bombings. My house was destroyed, and all our possessions
were buried … now I have nothing to eat, nothing to feed
my children with” – Afghan woman, Marghar camp, Kandahar
province, Nov 06 (Hearts and Minds, SenlisCouncil.net, Dec 06).
As Britain prepares to
send 800 extra troops – including
400 from the Territorial Army – to southern Afghanistan
in anticipation of an escalation in the war there this spring
(Independent, 2 Feb), new field research conducted in Helmand
and Kandahar suggests that as many as 2-3,000 Afghan civilians
may have been killed there by NATO air strikes last year (Hearts
and Minds, Senlis, Dec 06).
The US launched 2,527 air strikes in Afghanistan in the first
11 months of 06 (LA Times, 31 Jan), dropping some 987
bombs and firing 146,000 cannon rounds
between Jun and Nov in support of NATO’s operations in the south (FT,
16/17 Dec). The RAF dropped nearly 500 rockets and bombs on Afghanistan in Sept
alone
(see Voices 49). Taliban suicide bombings in the south are known to have killed
185 civilians last year (Hearts and Minds).
Famine & broken promises
In addition to those killed in NATO’s military operations, ‘[f]amine
is now widespread in southern Afghanistan, directly triggered by the international
community‘s policies in the region’ – in particular, ‘the
devastation of Afghan villagers’ livelihoods by intense bombing campaigns
and … poppy eradication.’
Indeed, ‘[t]he current US-led policy of forced opium poppy crop eradication
has wrought economic disaster on southern Afghanistan’ forcing ‘entire
families … to leave their villages for … makeshift camps of internally
displaced people’ populated with children suffering from Kwashiorkor (Senlis
Council Press Release, 14 Dec).
Researchers from Senlis also discovered that
whilst British officials had promised $350 compensation for each jerib (roughly ½ an
acre) of poppy destroyed they had only paid compensation for 3,000 jeribs, not
the 62,000 actually eliminated.
With the fall of the Taliban in Oct 01 Afghanistan fell off the agenda of the
UK anti-war movement. As the civilian death toll continues to mount, there is
a desperate need for it to be placed firmly back on it.
Target Iran
“I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not
just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence
in this part of the world. We have been here for a long time.
We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember
that” – US Defence Secretary Robert Gates on the
increased US naval presence in the Gulf (Reuters, 22 Dec).
Though a highly classified draft assessment by the CIA has ‘found no conclusive
evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel
to the civilian operations’ that Iran has declared to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, 27 Nov 06) ‘a direct
military confrontation with Iran is now seriously likely in the next six months,
no matter how dangerous that might prove’ (Paul Rogers, OpenDemocracy.net,
2 Feb).
Indeed, Washington’s recent authorization for the US military ‘to
kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq’ (WP, 26 Jan), US preparations
for ‘more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the
Iran-Iraq border’ (LA Times, 31 Jan), and the deployment of a second US
navy carrier battle-group to the region (OpenDemocracy.net, 2 Feb) all support
such a conclusion.
No nukes
In a 20 Dec speech Tony Blair raved that ‘the Arab world should build an
alliance of moderate [sic] nations to “pin back” Iran’, which
was “trying to acquire [a] nuclear weapons capability” (Guardian,
21 Dec). In reality, not only has the CIA found no conclusive evidence that Iran
has a covert nuclear weapons program but, according to the IAEA’s head
Mohammed El Baradei, Iran is at least half a decade away from being able to produce
a nuclear weapon even if it wanted to (Observer, 28 Jan).
It is almost certain that a military attack on Iran – which would likely
kill thousands of Iranians - would involve the use of military bases on UK-controlled
territory, most notably RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the
Indian Ocean (see Voices 45). The anti-war movement still lacks a plan for nonviolent
resistance in the event of such an attack. It needs to find one, fast.
Attacking Somalia
On 7 Jan – during a US-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian
forces - a US AC-130 gunship attacked the village of Ras Kamboni
killing ‘at least 10 and perhaps as many as 20 people’ (WP,
24 Jan).
The US later stated that its intended targets – three alleged al-Qaeda
suspects – had not been killed in the attack and a second strike took place
on 22 Jan.
Predictably, Tony Blair was quick to back the 7 Jan attack, telling the House
of Commons that it was “right” to stand up to “extremists who
have been using methods of violence to get their way” (Hansard, 10 Jan,
col. 279).
In reality, according to Richard Dowden, director of the Royal African Society,
the US-backed Ethiopian invasion replaced ‘the first viable movement to
cut across clan rivalry and unite Somalis since 1991’ – the Union
of Islamic Courts (ICU) - with ‘[o]ne of Somalia’s nastiest warlords,’ Abduallahi
Yusuf: ‘Think Oswald Moseley being installed by the Germans as president
of Britain in 1940 and you get close to the feeling Yusuf’s government
inspires in Somalia today’ (Independent, 11 Jan). Somalia now faces the
prospect of being plunged back into its ‘long night of anarchy and warlordism’ (FT,
4 Jan).
Close cooperation
The US air strikes were undertaken in ‘close cooperation’ with invading
Ethiopian forces who ‘conducted their own ground and air assaults in the
same area with shared intelligence and operational information’ (WP, 24
Jan). The attacks ‘claim[ed] the lives of at least 70 people in the district’ of
Afmadow, including a group of nomadic herdsmen who had gathered around large
fires at night to ward off mosquitoes (Oxfam press release, 12 Jan). ‘According
to a CIA source, American intelligence and military have been bankrolling the
Ethiopians since the start of [2006], as well as providing them with satellite
surveillance, technical, military and logistic support’ (Sunday Times,
14 Jan). Furthermore Pentagon strategists are viewing the operation as ‘a
blueprint … they hope to use more frequently … around the globe’ (New
York Times, 13 Jan).
The great oil law rip-off
A new law that would ‘transfer
control over Iraqi oil production from the public sector to multinational
oil companies, through
long-term contracts’ (More energy, less security – the
UK and Iraqi oil, Platform briefing, Jan 07) looks set to be
rubber-stamped by Iraq’s Parliament soon. Whilst the US
and British governments, the IMF and multinational oil companies
have all been active in shaping the new law (see Voices 48) -
which will tie the hands of future governments, depriving them
of democratic control over the country’s main natural resource
- the Iraqi public and Iraqi civil society have been excluded
from the process.
Though its exact terms
and conditions remain secret as we go to press, it is believed
that the new law will specify
that ‘two-thirds
of Iraq’s vast oil reserves should be developed by multinational
oil companies, through long-term contracts of 15-20 years.’
Agreements with Big Oil
According to a 24 Jan report in the New York Times the
new law will – as has long been anticipated - permit the
use of so-called Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) with foreign
oil
companies. Calculations by Platform show that Iraq could lose
scores of billions of dollars by signing such agreements (Crude
Designs, the rip-off of Iraq’s oil wealth, Nov 05,
available at www.crudedesigns.org).
Moreover, with corruption and smuggling rampant in Iraq’s
oil sector, the prospect of the billions of dollars of foreign
investment that would be raised
through signing PSAs being used properly remains slim to say the least.
Iraqis say no
Despite the large number of opinion polls conducted in Iraq since the 2003 invasion
no-one has yet thought to ask Iraqis what they think about such agreements. None-theless,
there are good reasons to believe that, given a choice, an informed Iraqi public
would reject them.
This Jan the leaders of all five of Iraq’s trade union federations – between
them representing hundreds of thousands of workers – called for a fundamental
rethink of the oil law, expressing their complete opposition to the signing of
long-term contracts with foreign companies (More Energy).
Though the law itself looks set to pass, there is still time for the anti-war
and global justice movements to stop Big Oil from signing contracts and to push
for the law’s replacement by one written by and for ordinary Iraqis. For
more info see www.platformlondon.org.
Resistance round-up
Ehren
Watada
“This war is illegal and immoral. Everything I’ve
done since I announced publicly why I’m refusing to go
to this war is an attempt to appeal to the American people to
fulfil their
civic obligations”
Feb 5th saw the start of the court martial of Lt Ehren Watada – the
first commissioned officer in the US armed forces to publicly
refuse deployment to Iraq. Watada had intended to challenge the
legality of the war itself as well as the deployment order he
refused to serve, but on 16 Jan the court ruled that these were
both “non-justiciable political question[s]” and
that the deployment order was lawful (tinyurl.com/2r3x79).
On 7 Feb a mis-trial was declared and a new trial date set. For
more info see www.thankyoult.org.
ACTION
Please write to: Robert Holmes Tuttle, US Ambassador to the Court
of St. James’s, US Embassy, 24 Grosvenor Square, London,
W1A 1AE and urge the US Government to respect Lt. Watada’s
resignation and to stop punishing him for following his conscience.
Fairford coach victory
On 13 Dec 06 five law lords ruled that police had violated protestors
rights “to freedom of expression and lawful assembly” when
they stopped and detained coaches carrying roughly 120 people
to a demonstration outside RAF Fairford during the 2003 invasion
of Iraq (Times, 14 Dec). The outcome was the result of nearly
four years hard work by activists and lawyers working in tandem
and may force major changes in the way police handle future protests.
At the time of the original demonstration B52 bombers were flying
from the base to bomb Iraq. It was later revealed that during
the invasion Donald Rumsfeld
approved 50 air strikes that air war commanders ‘thought likely to result
in [the] deaths of more than 30 civilians’ (NYT, 20 Jul 03).
Fairford is likely to be used again if there is a US attack on Iran, since it
is one of the few places in the world where the B-2A “stealth bombers”,
which require special climate-controlled hangars, can fly from (see Voices 45).
See www.fairfordcoachaction.org.uk.
State
Britain
Brian Haw – whose one-man 24-7 peace vigil in Parliament
Square is now in its sixth year - has had his protest turned
into a major new exhibition at Tate Britain. The piece by artist
Mark Wallinger, entitled State Britain, consists of a meticulous
recreation of Brian Haw’s display as it was just before
it was dismantled and removed by police on 23 May 06. Over 600
items have been remade, refound and amassed - banners, placards,
posters, peace flags, newspaper articles, photo displays, messages
from supporters, teddy bears wearing peace-slogan t-shirts, and
all the items needed for Brian and his supporters to stay in
Parliament Square.
State Britain runs until mid-Aug so make sure to catch it next
time you’re
in London! For more info see p.8 or www.parliament-square.org.uk
ACTION
Voices has produced a new postcard calling on the government to repeal Sections
132 – 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which ban “unauthorized” demonstrations
within 1km of Parliament. The Act was passed with the primary purpose of crushing
Brian Haw’s one-man 24-7 peace vigil in Parliament Square, now in its
sixth year.
Please sign a card and help to distribute them far and wide. Copies are available
free from the Voices office.
Mil and Maya
Milan Rai and Maya Evans have been charged
under SOCPA for participating in (and, in Maya’s case, organising) an “unauthorised” demonstration
near Parliament, following last October’s “No More Fallujahs” anti-occupation
peace camp in Parliament Square (see Voices 49). Despite Maya’s fellow
organisers writing to the papers - and the police - confessing their “crime” no-one
else has yet been charged! Mil and Maya’s trial will be on 10 Apr, 2pm,
City of Westminster Magistrates Ct, 70 Horseferry Rd. Support welcome.
Labour leadership
There are currently two declared candidates for the leadership of the Labour
Party: Gordon Brown and John McDonnell. As Chancellor Brown has bankrolled
the government’s wars since ’97. McDonnell voted against the invasion
of Iraq and recently tabled EDM 335.
None of the other MPs whose names have been circulated as possible candidates
can be considered “anti-war” eg.
MichaelMeacher voted for the 03 invasion (Hansard, 18 Feb 03, c. 907),
has flirted with 9/11 conspiracy theories (Guardian, 6 Sept 03) and
has not signed EDM 335.
ACTION
- Leadership candidates must secure the nominations of at least 44 Labour MPs
(BBC, 30 Aug). So, if you have a Labour MP and want to see an anti-war candidate
in the contest, you should ask them to nominate McDonnell. 0207 219 1626 or
www.john4leader.org.uk.
- According to the McDonnell campaign: ‘There is no cut-off point for
voting in the [leadership] election. All those who joined before a contest
are eligible to vote’ (e-mail, 29 Sept). So if you want to vote for Labour’s
next leader (at the cost of £12) there’s still time to join the
Labour Party: tinyurl.com/2r6jqw or 08705 900 200.
Resources
Books
Dictatorship, Imperialism and Chaos: Iraq since 1989 by Thabit A J Abdullah (Zed Books, 2006). £12.99.
Written,
in part, as a rejoinder to the ‘unfortunately
fashionable’ view that ‘the ills of modern Iraq are
the direct result of an “original sin” or “folly” committed
by the English when they “lumped” together three
distinct groups (Kurds, Shi’is and Sunnis) into a single
state’ this book – written by an Iraqi historian
based in Canada - instead seeks to explain the current nightmare
of sectarian killing in Iraq as the outcome of ‘four decades
of relentless hammering of social institutions, starting with
Ba’athist repression, wars, sanctions, and continuing with
the American occupation.’ Necessarily then,
the subtitle is something of a misnomer. Indeed,
just under
half the book
is devoted to the pre-1989 period.
This reviewer – no expert on Iraq by any means – spotted
several minor errors and exaggerations that might have been avoided
with proper footnotes.
Moreover, the rapid pace of developments means that some of his comments
already look very dated eg. his talk, in the book’s closing
pages, of ‘hopeful
signs’ for national reconciliation – an apparent reference
to Maliki’s
dead-on-arrival Jun 06 “peace plan” (see Voices 47).
Nonetheless, short (121 pages), easy to read and informed by a real understanding
of Iraqi history, Dictatorship, Imperialism and Chaos contains much food for
thought.
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change by Scott Ritter (Politico’s, 2007). £16.99.
Back in June 2000, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter spoke
out publicly against evolving US policy towards Iraq. He urged a
new ‘qualitative’ approach
to disarmament that would avoid futile and dangerous clashes over Iraq’s
suspected weapons programmes, while providing reassurance and real security for
the outside world. In his new book Target Iran, Ritter has no proposals quite
so dramatic (though ‘qualitative disarmament is just as relevant a concept).
Even so, Target Iran is an engaging, thorough and sceptical record of how we
got to this point. After the first 60 pages (which focus on Israel’s role
and the Israeli-backed MEK insurgent group which leaked the revelations about
Iran’s nuclear enrichment), we have a detailed and competent account of
the twists and turns of Iran’s relationship with the IAEA and
the great powers (with a bit of North Korea and Libya thrown in for
good
measure).
Web-sites
Electronic Iraq – www.electroniciraq.net
High-quality news and analysis on Iraq (from mainstream and “alternative” sources).
International
Crisis Group - www.crisisgroup.org
Though very much the establishment NGO – Balkans war criminal
Wesley Clark sits on its Executive Committee – the ICG’s
briefings on Iraq are well worth reading. Recent highlights include
an analysis of the insurgency based on a comprehensive survey
of its own materials (web-sites, videos etc) and a valuable account
of the dynamics of sectarian conflict since the invasion.
Senlis
Council – www.senliscouncil.net
Another mainstream outfit – and one of the very few producing
critical analysis on US/UK/NATO operations in Afghanistan. Best
known for advocating opium licensing in Afghanistan (under which
poppy production would be re-directed into legal channels and
used to address the global shortage of opium-based medicines).
Justice
Not Vengeance – www.j-n-v.org
Regularly updated with new briefings, actions and other resources,
JNV remains one of the liveliest grassroots anti-war groups
in the UK. An e-mail announcements list is also available.
Weekly news & analysis
Watching the Warmakers – www.watchingthewarmakers.org.uk
Excellent, free “war on terror” news digest emailed
out on a weekly basis by the Brighton Hands Off Forum. Formatted
for printing on double-sided A4.
Paul
Rogers’ weekly briefings
for Open Democracy - http://tinyurl.com/oq7za
Essential analysis from a Professor at the University of
Bradford’s
Peace Studies Department.
|
