VOICES NEWSLETTER # 45 (March / April 2006)

Download a PDF version of the newsletter

More power than we know
The occupation continues
Remembering Fallujah, resisting occupation
Attacking Iran
Solving the Iran "crisis"
The real "drones of death"
Afghanistan: the forgotten war
Averting civil war
The dishonest broker
"No pain, no gain": the IMF and Iraq
Reparations scandal
Pandemic flu and Iraq
BAE Systems
Take action!
April speaking tour: "7/7, Islam and Iraq"
Resources

More power than we know

‘She just fell. I could see blood coming from her stomach. She was gasping, ‘Mama, Mama’ ... It was so terrible. There were others hurt, and everyone was crying and screaming … she died in my arms.’
- Hamida Hussein, whose 13-year old daughter Samar was killed by a US missile strike during the 2003 invasion

‘We, the undersigned, invite peace-makers throughout the world to participate in an international campaign of massive, nonviolent civil resistance to stop the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.’
- Medea Benjamin (Code Pink USA), Daniel Berrigan S.J., Eduardo Galeano, Johann Galtung, Kathy Kelly (Voices US), Mairead Corrigan Maguire (1976 Nobel Peace Prize), Harold Pinter, Cindy Sheehan (www.globalcalliraq.org, Feb 06)

"We buried many in the stadium for football until it became full. When you are burying you cannot stay long because [the Marines] will just shoot you"
- Iraqi doctor working in Fallujah, April 2004

“On Friday I watched nine people on a nearby rooftop gunned down by an Apache attack helicopter. There have been so many injured I didn’t know who to help first” - Fallujah taxi driver Adnan Abid, April 2004

On 2 Apr 04 US forces sealed off Fallujah in what became the first of two major assaults on the Iraqi city. In the siege that followed at least 572 civilians – including over 300 women and children – were killed (www.IraqBodyCount.org).

Fighter bombers were used to attack residential areas, US snipers targeted ambulances and at least one US battalion had ‘orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not’ (New York Times, 14 April 2004).
Since then, numerous other Iraqi towns and cities have been attacked by US-led forces. Thousands of Iraqis have been killed and tens of thousands forced to flee their homes. Hospitals have been attacked and white phosphorus used as a weapon.

To mark the 2nd anniversary of the April 2004 siege voices urges all its supporters to join this mass act of civil disobedience in Parliament Square, London, on 2 April reading the names of 1,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of the invasion and occupation and demanding an immediate end to the US/UK military occupation.

NOTE: This is an “unauthorised” demonstration within 1km of Parliament. Under the new restrictions on protest contained in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (April 2005) participation in such an event is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £1000. But don’t let that put you off...see the website or contact us for more info or come to the legal briefing (see opposite). There will be post action support for anyone arrested.

A nonviolent direct action workshop and legal briefing will take place on Sat 1 April. Please try and attend if you are planning to come on 2 Apr.

Naming the Dead is organised by the Mass Action Group and supported by Nadje al-Ali, the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship, Maya Evans, Ewa Jasiewicz, Caroline Lucas MEP, Chumbawamba, Code Pink UK, Hastings Against War, Iraq Occupation Focus, JNV, the London Catholic Worker, the Movement for the Abolition of War, Pax Christi, Harold Pinter, Sami Ramadani, Mark Thomas, Theatre of War, Voices UK, the Wrexham Peace and Justice Forum and Haifa Zangana.

Attacking Iran
A US air offensive against Iran would probably kill thousands of people -including hundreds of civilians (Iran: Consequences of a War, Oxford Research Group (ORG), Feb 06). US military bases at Fairford, Gloucestershire and theUK-owned atoll Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, ‘would be essential operating locations’ for any such attack.

According to one recent report ‘[s]trategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched missile attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites as a “last resort” to block Tehran’s efforts to develop an atomic bomb’ (Sunday Telegraph, 12 Feb). “This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment,” a senior Pentagon adviser explained. “This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months.”

‘A recent poll showed 57 per cent of Americans favoured military action to stop Iran building a bomb’ (Times, 7 Feb).

Targeting people
Any such action would, in practice, ‘have to involve more than just a series of attacks on a small range of directly nuclear-related sites’ (ORG, Feb 06)

Radar facilities, command and control centers and air bases would all have to be targeted (to knock-out Iran’s air defences) along with Iran’s coastal anti-ship missile batteries and small force of warships (to pre-empt any retaliatory Iranian action in the Straits of Hormuz). Furthermore ‘[u]niversity laboratories and technology centers that indirectly support the Iranian scientific and technical infrastructure’ would probably also be targeted since ‘it would be essential to go well beyond the destruction of physical facilities’ – which could be replaced quite rapidly – and to try and ‘kill as many technically competent staff as possible.’

Further attacks
The reactor nearing completion at Bushehr would also be targeted ‘although this could be problematic once [it] is fully fuelled and goes critical sometime in 2006’ since its destruction could lead to serious problems of radioactive dispersal.

If an attack does take place ‘it would be virtually impossible to maintain any relationship with Iran except one based on violence’ and Iran would almost certainly respond with ‘a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it into a nuclear weapons capability … requir[ing] further attacks.’
the uk role

If Iran is attacked the UK will almost certainly be involved. The US military base at Fairford in Gloucestershire – used to bomb Iraq during the 2003 invasion - would be an ‘essential operating location’ for the US since it is one of the few places in the world where the B-2A aircraft, which require special climate-controlled hangars, can fly from.

Iran: Consequences of a War by Paul Rogers is available free on-line at www.iranbodycount.org.

Solving the Iran "crisis"
A diplomatic solution to the current Iran “crisis” is still possible. However, nuclear abolition remains the only way to prevent an endless series of similar crises in future.

The current “crisis” began with Iran’s Aug 05 resumption of uranium conversion at Isfahan, in breach of a Nov 04 agreement with Britain, France and Germany (Guardian, 12 Aug 05).

However, according to Selig Harrison - director of the Asian programme at the Center for International Policy - the Nov 04 negotiations ‘were based on a bargain that the EU, held back by the US, has failed to honour … The EU promised to put forward proposals for economic incentives and security guarantees in return for a permanent ban [on uranium enrichment] but subsequently refused to discuss security issues’ (FT, 18 Jan).

Meaningful guarantees
‘Iran’s principle concern is the possibility that the US, egged on by Israel, will sooner or later pursue a policy of “regime change” in Tehran, starting with covert support for disaffected minorities.’ These are rational fears which will not have been eased by recent reports that the intelligence wing of the US marines ‘has launched an invest-igation into Iran’s ethnic minorities …examining the depth and nature of grievances against the [Iranian government]’ (FT, 24 Feb).

‘The best way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons,’ Harrison notes ‘is to pursue revived negotiations with a broadened agenda that addresses security issues.’ In return for an enrichment ban Iran would need to be given ‘meaningful security guarantees … [that] affirm respect for Iran’s territorial integrity and rule out pre-emptive military action.’ Furthermore, ‘[t]he US would have to join directly in such assurances.’
Nonetheless, as long as the original nuclear powers fail to live up to their commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to phase out their own nuclear weapons a series of similar such crises – in Iran or elsewhere - seems inevitable.

** Action **
On 23 Jan the UK Government received the final green light to build a new state-of-the-art laser facility at its Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston - the first stage of a series of proposed developments that will enable them to build the next generation of nuclear weapons. To find out what you can do to stop it tel 07969 739 812 or see www.blockthebuilders.org.uk.

The real "drones of death"

“They dropped bombs from planes and we were in no position to stop them … or to tell them that we are innocent.”
- Shah Zaman, a jeweller who lost two sons and a daughter in the 13 Jan attack

“When I’m back in Nellis [in the US] I can fly a mission over Iraq with the Predator, and then go home and take my children to a ball game”
- Kurt Sceible, US commander of Predator operations at Balad, Iraq, Sunday Times, 4 Oct 04

The non-existent “threat” posed by Iraqi Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) – once dubbed “drones of death” by the then UK Defence Secretary George Robertson (Telegraph, 20 Dec ’98) – was one of the many lies used to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ironically real “drones of death” are now being used around the world by the US - with British assistance.

Damadola
At roughly 3am on 13 Jan the US fired a series of missiles into Damadola village in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province, killing between 13 and 18 people. Among the dead were five women and five children: Hussain Nawaz (5), Mehda Bibi (9), Sadiqa Bibi (10), Taib (9) and Zahidullah (7) (DAWN.com, 13 Jan). Pakistani journalists who interviewed local people said that all of the victims were civilians. The attack’s apparent target - al-Qaeda operative Ayman al-Zawahiri - was certainly not among the dead.
Reports indicated that the missiles were fired from an unmanned Predator drone, probably operated by the CIA (Amnesty International, 31 Jan). A member of Parliament from a nearby village told the Observer that he had seen a drone surveying the area hours before the attack (15 Jan).

Miranshah
Just a few days earlier a US helicopter, believed to have flown in from Afghanistan on the night of 7 Jan, had fired missiles into the house of a local cleric in Miranshah, North Waziristan, reportedly killing 8 people including 2 women and 2 children (AI, 31 Jan). Nine more were injured and ‘Pakistan media reported that US soldiers on board the helicopter had taken away at least two members of the family whose whereabouts remain unknown.’ Local people claimed that a US drone had hovered over the area for at least three days before the attack.

Beyond Pakistan
These were not the first US attacks inside Pakistan. Similar strikes took place on 17 June 04 (killing 6 people including two local boys); 7 May 05; 5 Nov 05 (killing the wife and daughter of an alleged al-Qaeda operative and 6 others); and 1 Dec 05 (killing 5, including 2 children).

Nor have such attacks been confined to Pakistan: in Oct 02, the US Defence Department ‘admitted for the first time that it was using armed drones to attack targets … [in] southern Iraq’ (BBC, 5 Nov 02); and on 4 Nov 02 six suspected al-Qaeda members were killed by a CIA drone in Yemen.

In Dec 03 nine children and a 25-year-old man were killed in a strike from a Predator in the Afghan village of Hutala (NYT, 15 Jan) and according to the US airforce chief of staff Predator drones are now attacking targets in Iraq or Afghanistan “almost every day” (AP, 12 Dec).

The British connection 1
As at July 2005 forty-four RAF pilots and support staff were ‘embedded’ with the US Combined Joint Predator Task Force in Indian Springs, Nevada (http://tinyurl.com/elvyt) and an RAF-commanded crew are known to have undertaken at least one Predator strike, against insurgents in the Najaf area in late 04 (Flight International, 8 Feb 05).

Furthermore, ‘images take by Predators as they fly across international airspace are beamed back to … RAF Molesworth in Cambridgeshire’ and ‘[i]t is believed that British defence intelligence officers work with their counterparts to analyse the data’ (Observer, 29 Jan).

The British connection 2
The computer boards that control the Predator drones are made in Towcester, Northamptonshire, by Radstone Technology (Tove Valley Business Park,
NN12 6PF).

Last year the Pentagon announced that it would spend $5.7bn over the next five years on drones (Reuters, 19 Mar 05) and in Aug 05 a US-based subsidiary of Britain’s biggest arms dealer, BAE Systems, was awarded a $5.4m Pentagon contract to provide a surveillance and reconnaissance system for the Predator (http://tinyurl.com/rl8rd).

It is likely that, as in 2004, a Predator or its successor will be flown on display at the Farnborough International Air Show on 16-17 July (www.farnborough.com) – an event co-organised by the MoD that will also feature a UAV Pavilion.

The Welsh/Israeli connection
In July 04 the UK opened a major UAV research centre at Aberporth in Wales, part-funded by money from the Welsh Development Agency. Though pitched as a research effort to expand civilian uses of UAVs, from Sept 05 Aberporth has been used to flight-test the Hermes 450 ‘Watchkeeper’ UAV - a collaboration between the MoD, Thales UK and Elbit, the leading Israeli UAV pioneer (http://tinyurl.com/zeow8). Watchkeeper is a purely military programme (http://tinyurl.com/z4gfb).

The British connection 4
A UK military programme has recently been evaluating Predators for purchase by the RAF, testing a Predator B (‘hunter-killer’) drone in the US between Nov 04 and February 05 (Air Force Monthly, Aug 05). Last July C4ISR Journal reported that the RAF was negotiating a deal to buy two Predator Bs for the 2006 British deployment to Afghanistan (http://tinyurl.com/elvyt).

Voices would like to thank Mike Lewis of Campaign Against Arms Trade (www.caat.org.uk) for generously providing most of the research for this article.

Afghanistan: the forgotten war
British forces in southern Afghanistan are currently building ‘the biggest British military base since the Second World War’ in preparation for the deployment of thousands more UK troops there over the next few months (Independent, 25 Feb).

The base’s location – Helmand province– is ‘an area notorious for producing a large proportion of Afghanistan’s opium … and formerly the heartland of the Taleban’ (Times, 27 Jan). According to UK Defence Secretary John Reid, British troops will stay there for at least three years at the cost of £1 billion (Times, 27 Jan).

With Afghanistan long off the radar screens of most of the anti-war movement we present a quick reminder of some key basic realities:

1. War
According to Human Rights Watch, ‘U.S. and coalition forces active in Afghanistan … continue to arbitrarily detain civilians and use excessive force during arrests of non-combatants … Generally, the [US] does not comply with legal standards applicable to its operations in Afghanistan, including the Geneva Conventions and other applicable standards of international human rights law’ (World Report 2006). ‘[U]nits of UK Special Forces [have been] operating alongside US forces for many months’ (International Security Monthly Briefing, Oxford Research Group, Jan 06).

Though rarely reported, airstrikes – including attacks by remotely piloted drones and RAF Harriers – are still taking place eg. on 3 Feb British Harriers, Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II and B-52 Stratofortress aircraft were used to attack “enemy positions” in the village of Josh Aali, killing several civilians according to local residents (Reuters, 4 Feb; Pajhwok Afghan News, 5 Feb).

2. Warlords
Over half of the members of the Afghan parliament ‘are linked to armed groups or have records of past human rights abuses’ (Human Rights Watch, Country Summary, Jan 06).

Both post-invasion elections have been deeply flawed: in the 04 Presidential elections ‘the number of registered voters in several provinces … [was] significantly larger than the estimated population of known eligible voters’ and ‘[v]oters in many rural areas … [were] told by warlords and regional commanders how to vote’ (HRW, 28 Sept); while during the campaign period for the Sept 05 parliamentary elections, HRW ‘documented pervasive intimidation of voters and candidates, in particular women’ (HRW, 2006 World Report).

‘Beyond Kabul [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai’s control ranges from minimal to non-existent’ (Guardian, 2 Mar) and ‘regional military commanders – warlords – [are] further entrench[ing] themselves by subverting the political process and controlling the country’s drug trade’ (HRW, Country Summary, Jan 06).

The prominent role played by such figures in post-invasion Afghanistan is no accident: they were ‘brought to power with the assistance of the United States after the Taliban’s defeat’ (HRW, 2005 World Report).

3. Torture
Afghanistan remains a major part of the “archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret … into which people are being literally disappeared, held in indefinite, incommunicado detention without access to lawyers or a judicial system or to their families” (William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, CNN.com, 6 Jun 05).
Indeed, the US military is currently detaining roughly 500 people at Bagram air base ‘indefinitely and without charges’ in more primitive conditions than those at Guantanamo Bay (NYT, 26 Feb 06). According to one Pentagon official the current average stay of prisoners at Bagram is 14.5 months - though some have already been held for 2-3 years.

‘Officials said most of the current Bagram detainees were captured during American military operations in Afghanistan, primarily in the country’s restive south, beginning in the spring of 2004.’ The US is planning to transfer some of those currently held in Guantanamo to a newly refurbished Soviet-era facility near Kabul (FT, 4 Jan).

Unlike their counterparts at Guantanamo those held at Bagram ‘have no access to lawyers, no right to hear the allegations against them and only rudimentary reviews of their status as “enemy combatants”’ (NYT, 26 Feb). The US bars all outside visitors except for the Red Cross and refuses to make public the names of those held there.
Nor is Bagram the only – or even the worst – part of the “detainee archipelago” inside Afghanistan. In Jun 05 Amnesty International noted that ‘detainees held in incommunicado detention in the US military’s Forward Operating Bases or in the secret custody of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Afghanistan remain[ed] at particular risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ (US detentions in Afghanistan, Amnesty International, 7 Jun 2005).

Since 2001 ‘[t]orture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in Afghanistan is alleged to have included the following methods: sleep deprivation; stripping and forced nudity…prolonged solitary confinement; …stress positions…death threats; threats of torture; threats of rape; light deprivation; use of dogs to inspire fear…kicking, punching and other physical assault; hooding, including for days at a time …electric shocks; immersion in water, cigarette burns; and soldiers urinating on detainees.’

** Action **
At Ease, an independent voluntary group that provides a free advice service to members of the Armed Forces – including information on conscientious objection – has produced a range of different leaflets advertising its services for distribution to members of the armed services, reservists, their friends and families.

Leafleters are particularly needed in or near Bristol, Glasgow, Lincoln and London. Many of the troops scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan later this year are currently based in Colchester (Guardian, 27 Jan). To get hold of the leaflets e-mail info@atease.org.uk

Averting civil war
With most of their other rationales long discredited, preventing civil war in Iraq now appears to be the main reason offered by the US and British governments for maintaining the occupation. In reality the current crisis is deeply rooted in the last three years of occupation and is unlikely to be fully resolved so long as it persists.

While sectarian tensions in Iraq pre-date the 2003 invasion they were ‘largely social and cultural. Endemic but relatively benign’ (International Crisis Group, 27 Feb).

However, several factors linked to the presence of occupation forces in Iraq have played a crucial role in bringing about the current situation:

- The use, by the US, of Shiite and Kurdish forces to fight a predominantly Sunni insurgency. Even US military analysts acknowledge that ‘by pitting Iraqis from different religious sects, ethnic groups and tribes against each other’ the US has ‘aggravat[ed] the underlying fault lines of Iraqi society [and] heighten[ed] the prospect of civil strife’ (Washington Post, 7 May).

- The US-shepherded political process: from the establishment of the Interim Governing Council in Jul 03 (in which ‘for the first time in the country’s history, sectarianism and ethnicity became the formal organising principle of politics’ – ICG, 27 Feb) to the ratification of Iraq’s new constitution last Oct (‘a sectarian document that both marginalized and alienated the Sunni Arab community’).

- The horrific campaign of multiple-fatality bombings, many targeting Shia civilians, for which the occupation appears to have been the main recruiting agent (see Voices #43)
the legitimacy deficit

There is also a major question mark over how much the US can actually do to prevent large-scale sectarian violence. According to Andrew Buncombe and Patrick Cockburn ‘it is clearly becoming very difficult to use American or British troops to keep the peace [sic]’ since ‘[t]he occupation forces lack the legitimacy to play the role of UN peacekeepers; it is almost impossible to have US soldiers defend a Sunni mosque against a Shia crowd, because if they open fire they will be seen as having joined one side in the sectarian struggle’ (Independent on Sunday, 26 Feb).

Ending the occupation
The risk of full-scale civil war is an argument for a genuinely neutral international peacekeeping presence – with no participation by troops from those countries who have taken part in the invasion and occupation – not an argument for the continuation of the current US/UK military occupation (see Voices #44 for more info on a ‘UN option’).

However, only once a political decision to withdraw ‘is taken and proclaimed publicly’ in Washington will it become possible ‘to prepare the best conditions for its implementation in the shortest possible timeframe, while starting without delay to bring troops back home’ (Stephen Shalom and Gilbert Achar, ZMag, 28 Nov). Demands for such a decision – the essential core of the call for an ‘immediate end’ to the occupation - are therefore more necessary than ever.

The dishonest broker
"Behind closed doors, [US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad] can say that if there is a civil war, because of our military power we can decide who comes out on top – and leave it open as to who might emerge the victor"- Pentagon Adviser Andrew Krepinevich (Sunday Times, 26 Feb)

Due to a recent shift in US strategy Washington has seen the torrent of sectarian violence unleashed by the 22 Feb bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra – in which hundreds of Iraqis were killed - as ‘an opportunity as well as a threat’ (Sunday Times, 26 Feb).

Indeed, a string of recent events has suggested a move ‘toward realignment with Sunni forces to balance the influence of pro-Iranian Shiites in Iraq’ (Gareth Porter, Inter Press Service, 30 Jan) in line with proposals in influential article by Krepinevich (see quote above), a modified version of which was adopted as official US policy last Nov (see Voices #44).

One of this article’s central ideas was that ‘significant elements’ in each of Iraq’s major ethnic groups could be co-opted into the occupation project, and that each would then ‘have an incentive to have Iraq retain some US forces beyond the insurgency’s defeat – something critical to achieving the United States’ broader security objectives’ (Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 05). For some Sunnis, Krepinevich argued, a long-term US presence would be a ‘hedge against both Shiite domination (and retribution) and Iranian domination of a Shiite-led government.’

The “honest broker”
Now Washington appears to be hoping to use recent events to reposition itself as an “honest broker” between sectarian groups.

However, as Rahul Mahajan observes, in this context “honesty” will, in reality, mean ‘the steady building and consol-idation of US influence and control’ – in particular ‘the creation of a ‘non-sectarian Iraqi army … primarily loyal to its own chain of command and its US trainers’ – whilst helping to ‘keep all the sectarian groups in the government together, without outbreaks of open violence …. [b]ut with constant need for an “honest broker”’ (EmpireNotes.org, 27 Feb, 23 Jan).

A dishonest broker indeed.

"No pain, no gain": the IMF and Iraq
Iraqis hit by rapid free-market reforms imposed since the invasion have seen little benefit from the US-led “reconstruction” effort. Now further “reforms” are on the way, courtesy of the IMF.

Despite the disbursement of roughly $16bn of “reconstruction” funds, electrical generation capacity, hours of power available in a day in Baghdad, oil and heating oil production and the numbers of Iraqis with drinkable water and sewage service have now all fallen below their pre-invasion values, according to government witnesses at a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing (NYT, 9 Feb).

Furthermore because of ‘unforeseen security costs, haphazard planning and shifting priorities’, scores of US-financed projects will now not be completed (NYT, 27 Jan).

Guns yes, butter no
Roughly half of the monies spent so far have been ‘eaten away by the insurgency, a build-up of Iraq’s criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein’ (WP, 2 Jan). However, despite the devastation it has wreaked on Iraq over the past 15 years – and the recent announcement that it plans to spend $120bn on fighting its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year alone (Guardian, 4 Feb) – the US will not be seeking any new reconstruction funds (WP, 2 Jan).

Causing suffering
Instead, officials at the US embassy in Baghdad have ‘outlined a program of private investment and fiscal belt-tightening by the new Iraqi government as the long-term solution to the country’s woes, even if that causes short-term [sic] suffering for Iraq’s people’ (LA Times, 15 Jan).

According to Tom Delare, economics counsellor at the embassy, ‘both the US and world financial markets w[ill] be pressing the new Iraqi government to embark on a crash course of economic restructuring [which] w[ill] include privatising companies … getting rid of employees …and ending subsidies.’ “No pain, no gain,” Andy Wylegala, whose job at the embassy is to help Americans do business in Iraq, explained at a recent news briefing.

Slashing subsidies
US-imposed laws from 2003 have already made an impact: tariffs on imports were cut ‘allowing cheap goods to pour in from China … driving Iraqi manufacturers out of business’ and a 2003 foreign investment law ‘continues to anger Iraqi businessmen who say it [has] squeez[ed] them out of the reconstruction’ process (SF Chronicle, 23 Jan). ‘When the privatisation drive kicks into full gear, probably within months’ – the Iraqi government has already approved the sale of two cement plants – ‘thousands of employees in the bloated public sector are likely to be dismissed.’

Last Dec, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Iraqi Government slashed fuel subsidies, effectively increasing the price by 200% - a measure that ignited protests and has had knock-on effects for other goods. The Iraqi Government had been forced to sign up to an IMF economic package in order to obtain some relief from Saddam’s crushing odious debts – debts it should not have been asked to pay in the first place (see Voices #38).

Now, according to one Iraqi official, ‘Iraq will gradually increase state-controlled domestic fuel prices tenfold in 2006 to meet [IMF] demands’ (Reuters, 6 Feb).
If the past is anything to judge by, it looks like “more pain” is on the way.

Reparations scandal
According to one recent survey some two million Iraqi families are currently living on less than $1 per person per day (AFP, 25 Jan). Yet despite its impoverished population and devastated infrastructure, Iraq is still paying hundreds of millions of dollars each year in “compensation” payments to corporations that were affected by the 1991 Gulf War.

This Jan alone, Iraq paid out over $284m – including almost $124m to a single UK company (www.jubileeiraq.org, 19 Jan).

Pandemic flu and Iraq
The recent deaths of two Iraqis from H5N1 avian influenza – a 14-year old girl and a 39-year old man from the northern Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah (WHO, 1 Mar) – highlights Iraq’s vulnerability in the event that H5N1 “crosses the species barrier” and becomes pandemic in humans.

During the 1918 global flu pandemic British-occupied Iran, ‘reeling from several years of drought, famine and cholera outbreaks, and the depradations of marauding armies’, ‘suffered the greatest relative mortality of any major country’ (The Monster At Our Door by Mike Davis, The New Press, 2005).

Today, devastated by 15 years of sanctions and war, Iraq’s health system –like those of much of the “third world” - is in no fit state to deal with a pandemic that could kill tens of millions of people around the world.

The need for global solidarity could not be more acute. See www.pandemicaction.net or call 0845 330 4520.

BAE Systems
Britain’s biggest arms dealer, BAE Systems, is also at the heart of maintaining the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Indeed, according to the Independent on Sunday BAE ‘is set to pocket $3.5bn from refitting and repairing American armoured vehicles returning from combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq’ (11 Sept 05).

BAE – which has factories and offices across the UK (see www.baesystems.com) -is notorious for selling counterinsurgency aircraft to the genocidal Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia for use in then-occupied East Timor – aircraft it also wanted to sell to Saddam Hussein in the late ‘80s.

** Action **
Campaign Against Arms Trade will be organising protests inside and outside of BAE’s AGM on 4 May. To get involved contact 0207 281 0297 or www.caat.org.uk

Take action!

London anti-war action forum
Want to take action? Then the London Anti-war Action Forum – a bimonthly open space for people who want to organise (and take part in!) actions relating to the so-called “war on terror”- could be the place for you! The next forum will take place 2-5pm on Sat 8 April at the London Action Resource Centre, 62 Fieldgate St, Whitechapel, London E1 1ES. Contact voices for more info.

Fairford 6 + Marchwood 14
On the 20 Feb five Law Lords began a four-day hearing to determine whether or not international aggression is a “crime” within the meaning of section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act (which states that a person can use reasonable force “in the prevention of a crime”).

In confidential advice to the PM dated 7 Mar 03, the attorney general stated that: “Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law. It might therefore be argued that international aggression is a crime recognised by the common law which can be prosecuted in the UK courts.”

The appeal to the House of Lords was brought by 20 anti-war activists: 14 members of Greenpeace who chained themselves to Scimitar armoured vehicles at the MoD’s Sea Mounting Base at Marchwood in Feb 03; and 6 people who took action at RAF Fairford in Mar 03 with the intention of preventing or delaying the take-off of B-52 bombers which were used to bomb Iraq. Five of the latter group are still awaiting trial. The hearing result is expected in April. See www.b52two.org and http://tinyurl.com/onbpt.

St Patrick’s Four
Three days before the beginning of the March 03 invasion of Iraq, four members of the Ithaca Catholic Worker – including a former marine who had served in Vietnam – entered a local Army-Marine Recruiting Centre. They read a statement and poured blood around the entrance to the centre to call attention to the horror of war.

This Jan the four were given prison sentences in the same week that a US Army Interrogator who killed an Iraqi detainee by shoving him upside down in a sleeping bag, wrapping him in a cord and straddling his chest was ordered to pay a $6000 fine and restricted to his work, place of worship and barracks for 60 days (Washington Post, 24 Jan).

Letters and postcards to the four (the more colourful the better!) should be sent to: Clare Grady (6 months) and Teresa Grady (4 months), Broome County Jail, 155 Lt. Vanwinkle Drive, Binghamton, NY 13905, USA; Daniel Burns (6 months), prison # 13182-052 and Peter De Mott (4 months), prison # 10891-083, MDC Brooklyn, Metropolitan Detention Center, PO Box 329002, Brooklyn, NY 11232, USA. See www.stpatricksfour.org for more info.

First trial for organising “unauthorised” demo
Anti-war activist Milan Rai has become the first person to be charged with organising an “unauthorised” demonstration in the new anti-protest zone around Parliament – an offence which carries a possible prison sentence of 51 weeks. Milan organised a name-reading in Whitehall last October as part of a week of action to mark the 1st anniversary of the publication of the 04 Lancet report on war-related deaths in Iraq. Milan will be on trial at 2pm on 16 March at Bow Street Magistrates Court. Support welcome!

Also coming up is the trial of Mark Barratt on 31 March who was arrested taking part in a picnic in Parliament Square.

Eleven people have so far been convicted of taking part in unauthorised demonstrations in the Designated Area - up to 1km around Parliament, including voices activist Emma Sangster. They are lodging an appeal on the grounds that the law conflicts with the Human Rights Act.

Forthcoming activites in the protest exclusion zone include: the Naming the Dead action on 2 April (see p3), picnics every Sunday from 1.30pm (www.peopleincommon.org) and a Freedom Weekend on 22/23 April (see p10). There is also an on-line pledge for people to commit to ‘form part of a human chain around the Westminster no protest zone … if 6,000 other people will join in’ (www.pledgebank.com/protest). See www.parliamentprotest.org for updates.

April speaking tour: "7/7, Islam and Iraq"
This April author and activist Milan Rai will be touring the UK talking about his new book: 7/7: The London Bomings, Islam and the Iraq War. On 12 Apr he will be speaking alongside 7/7 survivor Rachel North at a special event in London co-organised by voices (see here for details of the tour). Here he explains the purpose behind the book and the tour:

The bombings in London last July were partly caused by the war in Iraq. The bombers said it. Most British people believe it. Tony Blair denies it. He has two reports coming out this spring denying this obvious link. [I wrote 7/7] to counter and explode Blair’s lies about the July bombings.

I had two main motivations … [First] I wanted to write a book that would investigate and explain what lay behind the 7/7 atrocities in a way that would be useful to - and respectful to - survivors of the attacks, many of whom are searching for answers.

The other motivation has to do with the reason why Tony Blair has been so frightened of this issue, and so determined to deny any connection with British foreign policy. For a large mass of the population has conflicting feelings about the occupation. For them, if the government was forced to admit that British foreign policy contributed to the July bombings - and to the risk of future bombings - this could tip the balance and turn them decisively against the occupation.

This is what Tony Blair really fears, and something that started to happen - before Blair distracted attention with his raft of repressive ‘counter-terror’ laws.

With this book and this speaking tour, I would like to help the anti-war movement counter official lies and distortions, to develop greater understanding of Islam, and to channel more of the suppressed anger people feel about terrorism in the right direction, not against Muslims or ‘foreigners’ in general.

Resources

New books
7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War by Milan Rai (Pluto, 2006). £11.99. Available NOW with free p&p from JNV, 29 Gensing Rd, TN38 0HE

‘This book inspired me and other survivors of July 7th. Understanding what happened and why is essential for healing and allows us to move forward. I urge all those committed to hope, healing and peaceful resolution of conflict to read what Milan has written.’ - Rachel North, writer and 7/7 survivor.

‘[P]owerful, persuasive—and very readable … a book that everyone with a serious interest in the crisis we face must read if they are to hope to understand it, its causes, its effects, and how we might resolve it.’ - Tony Benn

On 7 July 2005 four young British men detonated bombs on London’s public transport system, killing 52 people as well as themselves. Why they did it and how we can prevent future such attacks are the two central themes of Milan Rai’s latest book, which combines a deeply moving tribute to the bombers’ victims with the gripping, page-turning qualities of a good detective novel.

Essential reading for every anti-war activist!

A War Too Far: Iraq, Iran and the New American Century by Paul Rogers (Pluto, 2006). £16.99.

Useful collection of pieces from Paul Rogers’ invaluable weekly Global Security column on OpenDemocracy.net, spanning the period Mar 03 through Aug 05. Though all the material is available free on the net, this would make a useful acquisition for your local library.

Postcard
Support Brian Haw
It is now over 4½ years since Brian Haw began his epic 24-7 vigil in Parliament Square, protesting against British foreign policy towards Iraq and promoting his message of peace.Whilst he has successfully resisted all official attempts to get rid of him – including the creation of a new criminal offence – further such moves are likely.
Copies of voices campaign postcard to Home Secretary Charles Clarke, demanding an end to the attempts to squish Brian’s protest are available FREE from the office.

New briefing
UK Companies in Iraq, Corporate Watch, 2006 (www.corporatewatch.org.uk)
Since the 2003 invasion UK companies have been awarded at least £1.1bn worth of “reconstruction” work in Iraq and have been playing a key role in at least two sectors: consulting (especially privatisation support) and private security, including private mercenaries. Meanwhile, the British govern-ment, and British-based trade associations, have been active in facilitating corporate access to Iraq’s markets, services and resources. So who are these companies and what have they been up to? Find out in this new report from Corporate Watch, hot off the press as this newsletter goes to print.

New badge

10 for £4 incl. p+p. Contact Voices.

Iran Peace Delegation

'Shredded' by Emily Johns: I once saw a trunk full of papyrus fragments belonging to the Egyptian Exploration Society. Over decades the Society sifts through these crumbs and sticks them back together into readable hieroglyphic manuscripts. Iranian students did the same thing with the vaults of CIA documents that were shredded by the American Embassy in Tehran [at the time of the 1979 Iranian revolution]

Anti-war artist Emily Johns, who has made many of Voices’ most striking images, is going on an extraordinarily timely peace delegation to Iran this May, for Justice Not Vengeance. She’ll be making more powerful anti-war images, doing media interviews and delivering talks when she comes back. JNV is appealing for funds to pay for Emily’s trip – they have raised half of the £2000 needed. They would be grateful for any donations, invitations to speak, suggestions of exhibition spaces, or advance orders for some of the prints she’ll be making - £40 per print in a limited edition of 30. JNV: 0845 458 9571, 29 Gensing Road, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38 0HE. (Please make cheques payable to ‘JNV’.)