The Daily (Maybe)

With it being census time it's somehow fitting to look back one hundred years to the 1911 census that was subject to a controversial boycott by the Suffragettes. Writing comments like “If I am intelligent enough to fill in this paper, I am intelligent enough to put a cross on a voting paper” or “No votes for women, no census” thousands of activists for women's suffrage protested the census.

My favourite story of the year is, of course, that of Emily Wilding Davison who, census night, hid herself in a House of Commons cupboard so she could legally say she resided in Parliament on the census form. Emily famously died two years later under the hooves of the King's horse.


Many struggles for women's equality have not been won but we do generally accept that women did win the vote and we don't want to go back. I don't think that's controversial is it?


So I was interested to read that in Saudi Arabia they've decided that they aren't quite prepared for women to be voting - literally. There are municipal elections due in Saudi next month and women were scheduled to be able to vote for the first time. Sadly this is not to be.


"We are not ready for the participation of women in these municipal elections," said the head of the electoral committee Abdulrahman al-Dahmash, while at the same time renewing promises that authorities would allow women to take part "in the next ballot."

He said that "Participation of women in elections took place in most advance countries gradually," which does not explain why no women will be allowed to stand or vote in these elections. There were steps along the way to, for example, equalising the age of suffrage between men and women but the first step was not cancelling the right to vote at all.

Considering Saudi troops are currently in Bahrain  keeping the democratic forces down there it seems of a piece that they should postpone any democratic reform at home too. Indeed recent decrees in the last two weeks have declared that anyone criticising senior clerics are to be 'untouchable' and must be severely punished and protests have been banned.


For most of us in this country we see votes for women as an established fact, yet in many parts of the world governments that are our business partners and friends deny the people even this basic democratic right. Of course in Saudi women can't drive let alone vote but there are nascent movements for women's equality and for democratic reform. 

Caught between the inspiration of the uprisings around the Arab world and fear of their repressive government those movements must feel themselves on the cliff edge, unsure whether to jump off and fly, or perhaps hurtle to ground.

2 comments Labels: ABC of Feminism, Gender, History, Middle East

You have to go back to 2006 on this blog to see the last mention of this, but never let it be said I let a story drop. The ex-Israeli President Moshe Katsav has finally been jailed for rape.

He's been sentenced to seven years in jail some large fines and, when he emerges from prison, will face other legal penalties for the actions he took while he thought he'd be immune from prosecution as President.

The fact it took such a monumental act of political will to bring him to book for raping state employees does not speak well of the legal system, although it is indeed good news to hear that he has at last been brought to justice for these crimes, if not the murders that took place under his authority while.

There is of course little chance that anyone will be tried for the deaths of children in Gaza over the last couple of days. These are a fact of life that we are expected to forget soon enough, as we look to other tragic events around the world.

1 comments Labels: Law and order, Middle East

As Libya continues to, understandably, dominate the news I thought I might take a quick tour of what's happening with the inspiring revolutionary process that kick started the whole thing. Although, perhaps more accurately that's a tour of the repression that's currently taking place.

• In Yemen 35 protesters have been killed when troops opened fire on them. The government have now declared a state of emergency.
• In Iraq gunmen torched a TV station for showing protests, police allowed armed men to beat and stab protesters in Bagdhad, while journalists who reported the demo were arrested, as they were in Basra, in Anbar province security services shot five protesters dead, Al Jazeera have pictures of police shooting at protesters in Falluja.
• In Iran they are cracking down on web activists, 
• There are mass demonstrations in Jordan.
• Strikes closed 300 factories in Oman and the ports.
• Clashes in Syria have left at least three people dead in pro-democracy protests.
• In Bahrain Saudi troops have come in to restore order, and Kuwait is sending its navy (!), all to reinforce the status quo against the protests. This is while they enforce their own ban on protests. The Bahraini authorities have smashed a monument symbolic of the movement as the state rounds up the opposition.
• In Djibouti opposition leaders have been arrested and there have been widespread calls to boycott next month's elections.
• In Egypt the repression continues, with attacks on women marchers, as the wrangles over the constitution look set to leave the revolutionaries out in the cold.
• While the inspiration of these liberation movements in taking hold in Africa, a place not so seperate from the Arab world.

Check out the very useful Iraq Occupation Focus. Meanwhile in Tunisia Clinton has made a visit to encourage economic reforms. Goodie.

2 comments Labels: Africa, Alternatives, Middle East, News

After some consideration I've come to the opinion that a no fly zone over Libya would be a serious mistake for a number of reasons.

First of all, the Libyan regime has, from the outset, painted this rebellion as a Western backed coup. It is their strongest card in keeping the military together and mounting an ideological defence of the regime. We have seen pilots take their jets to Malta rather than bomb their own people. Those pilots considering similar defections are likely to think again if their next mission is to defend Libya against foreign aggressors.


Secondly, it's a response to current, awful, events not a long term plan. The longer term impact of military intervention is not even part of the thinking behind this scheme. For example, who exactly are we backing? I'm for the rebels against the regime, obviously, but Western intervention inevitably means strengthening the hand of one faction over others. I'm unconvinced we know what we're doing, or that if we do, we have the best interests of Libyan people at heart.

There are some forces in Libya who are calling for a no fly zone and others who oppose it. By enforcing military action on the say so of one group of rebels over another we are having a far more wide ranging impact than just doing what has been asked of us 'by the rebels'.

Thirdly, will it do any good? My understanding is that the Libyan air force is a tiny part of its military strength, which lies mainly in ground forces. So we would be throwing an air invasion into the mix without significantly depleting the regime's capacity to murder its own citizens. Indeed we would be strengthening that ability.

The siren calls to stop the murder are understandable, but a no fly zone *wont* stop the murders, only intensify them and in the eyes of some waverers in Libya legitimise them.


Fourth, what would the wider impact of military intervention in the revolution mean? In Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Yemen the political implications of Western interference in what feels like a very home grown series of revolutions would be significant. The population of Saudi know that the West backs their dictators and to see their willingness to use military might, just as they did in Iraq, could hold back those struggles.

We are propping up corrupt regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan with the use of lethal force. To give the stamp of legitimacy on an extension of the right to use lethal force in any oil rich country we choose is dangerous. We are not the world's policemen, and even if we were it would not give us the right to stop black nations in the street and demand to know if this is really their country. *


However, the Arab League have backed a no fly zone, so does this mean it is legitimate? Well, the Arab League is a collective of 22 dictatorships who all buy weapons off the West and are scared shitless of their own populations taking the kind of action we have seen in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. So it cannot be regarded as the authentic voice of the Arab people, only of their dictators.

If you look at the list of member states of the Arab League you will see almost all have been rocked by protests in the last month. Of course they want their arms dealer friends flying war planes overhead, it gives them a sense of security. What better way of locking down those forces within their own countries who may be considering deposing them?

So am I in favour of doing nothing? No. I am in favour of our governments restraining their natural instincts to see killing someone as the way to solve an issue. I am in favour of the rebels continuing their brave fight to overthrow the Libyan government, just as others have done in recent times. I'm in favour of yet more Libyan servicemen and women laying down their arms or defecting with their equipment. Hardly a Utopian position.


What it does mean is having a little bit of steel in the belly. Bad things are happening, but that is no reason to make them worse or to do the first thing that comes to mind just because it is doing 'something'.

It also means having the tiniest bit of humility and understanding that the West can't just step in and sort out the problems in an African country by killing a few Africans. We may find that not everyone is as grateful for our help as we thought they might be.

In order to be true friends of these revolutions we have to accept that these are not our revolutions, but indeed revolts against regimes we have spent many years doing business with. The bullets and shells Qaddafi uses to rain down on his own citizens were manufactured here, and frankly many people in the Arab world know it to their cost.

12 comments Labels: Middle East, War

The elections are underway in Afghanistan, not that you'd know it from the rather minimalist press coverage on the subject. I mean it's not as if these elections have been controversial (ie rigged) in the past, or that Afghanistan is a prominent part of our foreign policy.

As well as taking place amidst a military offensive in the south the US also killed two protesters today, and four more have been killed over the last week by Afghan police. You can feel the place getting more democratic with every bullet fired can't you?

They really are becoming more Western as we speak. Yes, the bank has failed in Kabul with many customers unable to withdraw money due to queues and, cough, lack of money. But this isn't just a failed bank, it's a corrupt unregulated bank working hand in glove with the regime that helped to steal last year's elections.

Juan Cole points to the that the bank "gave millions to the presidential campaign of Hamid Karzai last summer" has an executive as election advisor and Karzai's brother owns 9% of the bank. "NATO should not have allowed Karzai to steal the presidential election. (At least now we have more of an idea how the theft was accomplished). It should not have allowed him to block corruption investigations."

We criticise the Taliban, rightly, over their attitude towards women's rights and human rights more generally, but turn a blind eye to Karzai's government when it commits the exact same offences.

Women activists in Afghanistan say democracy is moving backwards "Five years ago things were different... Women campaigned openly even in provinces like Kandahar and Helmand. “I could not believe that women were able to put up their posters in those areas,” Saqeb said. “But they conducted campaigns and they won. Now — forget about it.”

“There are not going to be elections in Kandahar,” she snorted. “There is no security, and everything there has already been decided.”

Without financial or Western backing for bodyguards women candidates and anti-occupation candidates find themselves in mortal danger. If you're not part of the puppet regime it is extremely difficult to make your voice heard as security forces refuse to give protection to opposition and women candidates.

Reuters reports on electoral fraud complaints against government officials going uninvestigated and protests against lack of polling stations being attacked by police - and of course the election boycott by Taliban supporters and the fact three candidates have been killed in recent weeks.

This is not what democracy looks like, so the press seem to have decided to look away. David Miliband should get up and tell us how well his war is going, that should help his Labour leadership election campaign if, that is, he hasn't already bought the result.

1 comments Labels: Democracy, Middle East

David Cameron is in trouble with the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, for being direct and clear in his speeches about foreign affairs.

link[i-link]First Cameron called Gaza an "open prison" and then he criticised elements of the Pakistan security services for aiding the UK's enemies in Afghanistan. Miliband described the PM as a "loud mouth" although he made no comment on the content of Cameron's speeches.

We know Miliband would never do such a thing. After all, his tour of duty was not known for either criticising the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how revolting, nor taking an open and honest stance on the Afghan situation - we didn't even need the recent leaks to know that.

Miliband's outburst attacking Cameron is in stark contrast to his mumbled and embarrassed comments during Israel's bombardment of Gaza that had to be wrung out of him, so reluctant was he to use the UK's clout for good.

During the Blair years the fact that business was always done behind closed doors was always made a virtue of so you'd see Blair claiming he was "influencing" Bush behind the scenes as the war machine pushed ever onwards unabated.

Various diplomats have rushed to Cameron's defence saying that direct language can be completely appropriate on the international stage, it's just we haven't seen much plain speaking for the last thirteen years. I think I agree.

For me a bit of honest speaking is just what we need to clear the air after years of manipulation and distrust. A large number of countries do not see the UK as an honest broker and that is unlikely to change if we continue with a Miliband style policy of half-truths, mumbling and blood.

2 comments Labels: Labour, Middle East, Tories, War

Tomorrow there will be a national demonstration against the actions of the Israeli government called by a number of anti-war, Muslim and solidarity organisations. If you can get to it, I'd encourage you to attend.

The actions against the blockade busting flotilla are widely seen as a crime and this is a moment of opportunity to help lift the sanctions against Gaza and free all of those unjustly imprisoned by the Israeli state.

London:
Assemble at 1.30 pm outside Downing Street and the demonstration will head to the Israeli embassy.

Edinburgh:
Assemble at 2pm at the Mound.

There are probably other local demos across the country (and also internationally, like the Paris demo which starts at the Place de la Bastille saturday 3pm) for those who cannot make the event in London. Leave a comment if you want to let people know about it.

It's important that we keep up international solidarity in order to ensure that Israel pulls its head back in. Yesterday in the Israeli Parliament one Arab MP, Haneen Zuabi, was attacked on Parliament floor and has recieved numerous death threats for her support for the flotilla.

I'll try to keep up with tracking some of the local events so feel free to keep me up to date so I can big up your events. You might also like to encourage your MP to sign EDM 127 on the flotilla attack.

0 comments Labels: Campaigns, Middle East

This Saturday in London there is a national demonstration called by Stop the War, CND, PCS and others to protest against the actions of the Israeli state in their attack on the aid convey yesterday. There has been an incredible surge of protests across the world and on every continent against the murderous actions of the Israeli commandos.

link[i-link]Assemble: 1.30 pm at Downing Street and the march will go to the Israeli embassy.

Despite the usual thick skinned claims from the Israeli government many of its friends are finding it difficult to defend this action. For instance Harry Place, a blog pretty much dedicated to attacking the left and defending Israel, does its best to defend the actions but has to admit that;

"there were disastrous and self-defeating strategic and tactical failures on the Israeli side. Once again, the Israeli government has failed to grasp that just because they may have the right to do something doesn’t mean it’s always wise to do it. Allowing the ships to dock in Gaza, unload their cargo and be on their way– as the Israelis have done in the recent past– might have provided some minimal aid and comfort to Hamas, but nothing like the propaganda coup that yesterday’s events did.... Almost everything Israel does these days seems plodding and obvious and designed to make it look like the villain."

Tory blogger Iain Dale says;

"whatever propensities I have to support Israel, the key point which makes me critical of this incident is this. If a peace flotilla had been making its way to the Iranian coast and it had been boarded by the Revolutionary Guard and people had been shot dead, I and many other supporters of Israel would be spitting blood in outrage. So that's why I can't man the barricades and automatically jump to Israel's defence here. Sometimes Israel makes life very difficult for even its most ardent supporters."

Worst of all we have this from the Telegraph's executive foreign editor, a man who Israel should be able to rely on in even the worst crisis;

"Israel has developed a worrying habit of conducting itself in a way that even its friends find hard to defend... Israel’s inept handling of the affair, which has resulted with the deaths of as many as 19 people, it has turned it into a national disaster. There were many methods the Israeli military could have used to prevent the flotilla reaching Gaza without loss of life. But they used a tactic that was bound to cause provocation, and are now paying the cost."

When even Israel's friends are casting doubt over their actions you know there is an opportunity to help gain some justice for the Palestinian people.

0 comments Labels: Campaigns, Middle East

The attack on the freedom flotilla delivering aid to Gaza is completely unwarranted and disgraceful. Reports of the number of dead and wounded vary but we're talking about at least a dozen killed and thirty seriously wounded by the Isreali Navy.

Israel made the ludicrous claim that the peaceniks opened fire on them and attacked them with baseball bats, which is why so many of them had to been killed. This is not credible. These murders, in international waters, are all in aid of ensuring that Gaza remains impoverished and denied medical equipment and other aid.

Words fail me. International protests and condemnation has already begun, but nothing yet from the UK government.

[Loband: Object Removed -]

There will be protests today in;

London, Downing Street, 2pm

Aberdeen - St Nicholas Square, 5pm
Banff - Low Street, Council Buildings, 5pm
Brighton, Churchill Square, 6pm
Bristol, Centre (opposite the Hippodrome) starting at 3pm
Birmingham City Centre Waterstones 4pm
Cambridge, outside Guildhall, 2pm
Cardiff - Queen Street at Nye Bevan statue 3pm
Dundee - City Square, 5pm
Edinburgh - Foot of the Mound, 5pm
Glasgow - George Square, 5pm
Inverness - Townhouse, 5pm
Manchester outside the BBC on Oxford Rd, 5pm
Moffat - 2 Holm Street, 5pm
York St Sampsons Square, 2pm

Please do let me know of any I've missed.

3 comments Labels: Campaigns, Middle East

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, whether or not it was illegal. The fact that the UN refused to endorse the war with a second, clearer, resolution was an inconvenience to those who were determined to destroy the country and one they retrospectively decided was no barrier as the first resolution that they had previously thought inadequate did in fact give them carte blanche to obliterate hundreds of thousands of lives.

By refusing to pass the second resolution the UN made it clear they did not endorse the war that we all knew was, by this time, inevitable. However, even if they had passed that resolution it would not have made the suffering any the less acute, nor the injustice any less bald.

Tony Blair is giving evidence to the inquiry tomorrow (Friday) and the Stop the War Coalition is organising a welcome party for him starting at 8 am.

Assemble at:

Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad
Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE

Check out the website for their timetable of events although I'd recommend getting there early as the Metropolitan Police's idea of the right to peaceful protest and ours is not entirely contiguous.

Sadly this inquiry will bring no real reassessment of our foreign policy priorities from the government, opposition or the press, even as the Afghan 'President' cheerfully informs the world that he expects UK forces to stay in the country for another fifteen years.

This particular lie, that bit of spin, this specific distortion of the truth become the day to day fodder of a media that seems oblivious to the wider logic that set us on the course to war not on any given day but over decades. In my opinion we should be challenging the global imbalance of power and wealth in a system built on profit over need.

0 comments Labels: Campaigns, Diary Dates, Middle East, War

I'm fast becoming a fan of the blog of Richard Osley, the editor of one of the best local papers in the country, (the Camden New Journal). It really is a must read for Camden gossip and takes an often scathing journos-eye-view of local politics.

Recently he wrote a piece taking a gentle dig at Camden's Lib Dem Parliamentary candidates (sorry, shadow MPs, snigger) for taking opposing views on a very serious issue, Israel. He points out that;

In the north of Camden, Ed Fordham has been said to be ‘courting’ Jewish voters in Hampstead. He’s actually just back from Israel, a trip which Labour unkindly called a “publicity tour” during last week’s council meeting.

And in the south, Jo Shaw has signed her name to leaflets demanding that Britain no longer helps to arm Israel and denouncing a ‘lacklustre’ response to last year’s air strikes in Gaza.

Well, it may be that Labour and Conservatives politicians find this discrepancy irritating but this pluralistic approach to politics is entirely appropriate. Richard does describe this as "fair enough, all very democratic" but I don't think it would be unfair to say that he dishes this up with a large spoonful of lovely cynicism. That's one of the reasons I'm enjoying his blog.

However, in this case I think he might be wrong.

The public are rightly tired of the tribalism of politics where a bunch of hacks subsume their own personal opinions into the hive mind of today's party policy. Politicians from the same party taking different positions on the same issue is a sign of a healthy internal democracy and we shouldn't be encouraging a culture where it's seen as some sort of problem.

There are lines, of course. There comes a point when someone might be better suited to a different party, but no party that seeks to represent a political movement rather than just a political current has to incorporate difference as a safeguard against doctrinaire tribalism.

I was struck by this when, at a selection meeting for Lewisham Green Party's council candidates, two hopefuls unashamedly announced that they were in favour of nuclear power. A delicious frisson went round the room as everyone there realised we were being asked to select candidates who disagreed with a core part of Green Party policy, and we did.

That could have gone very differently and I was really pleased with the open minded approach we took to these people who were clearly in a minority. It doesn't mean I wouldn't vigorously defend the Green Party's anti-nuclear stance if people tried to change our policy - but the fact that policy is not some sort of thought control also has to be defended, even when people are wrong, I mean disagree with me.

It's to the Lib Dem's credit here that they have two prominent members that have wildly different views on an important issue without coming down on their candidates for daring to have political opinions of their own.

7 comments Labels: Lib Dems, London, Media, Middle East

Today the Israeli state agreed to pay the UN $10 million compensation for damage done to its buildings during last year's bombardment of Gaza.

gaza[i-gaza]This time last year 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in a remorseless attack which also left much infrastructure in ruins. The blockade of Gaza has been designed to immiserate the Palestinians in the area and prevent reconstruction.

Tonight Israel launched new strikes killing at least one person. So far we have three air strikes and two missile attacks on the area apparently in response to mortar attacks which were in response to an air strike which was, no doubt, in response to something else in this continuing cycle.

Haaretz also reports that thousands of leaflets were dropped on the area which "featured a map, and warns Gazans that anyone within 300 meters of the security fence is endangering himself."

These attacks coincide with rioting at the Egyptian border (pictured) over the aid convoy led by George Galloway hoping to break the blockade. These riots resulted in a number of injuries, the death of an Egyptian soldier and their eventual entry into Gaza. Green Party councillor Peter Offord is part of that convoy, and whilst he has been through the mill somewhat I believe he's currently alright.

Let's hope this is not the beginning a repeat of the horrors of last year.

1 comments Labels: Middle East, War

I was pleasantly surprised when listening to Radio Four last night to discover Walter Mosley was being interviewed on Front Row (16 mins in). Whilst I've not read everything he's ever written that's largely because he writes faster than I read and so it will take longer than forever for me to catch up.

walter-mosley-orig[i-walter-mosley-orig]Anyway, during the interview he mentioned that he was for the Afghan war. He thought that since Obama was elected "Now we're trying to change, we're trying to do the right thing." He conceded that Obama was upping the troops presence but he said he'd be willing to "go along with him" on that one.

I have to say I was shocked. Not that someone could say that, of course there are plenty of people in favour of an Afghan surge, but that this passionate critic of capitalism and imperialism was willing to "go along" with the war.

However, he introduced a condition. He'd only support it if "he institutes the draft." The draft would mean that "all Americans would have to go off to fight, not just the poor ones who have to join the Army."

The interviewer, knowing Mosley, was surprised and so Mosley explained;

"Look, if a country's going to go to war, a country should believe in that war... If [all the 18-27 year olds] are drafted and their parents are still okay with it and want them to go to war, you know the voters, then fine!...

I think that if middle class men and women have their daughters about to be trundled off the Afghanistan they're going to think two, three, four, five times, but they're not going to worry when some poor black, Mexican or white kid gets sent over."

I guess that's one way of getting your point across, although I still wish he'd warned, at my age any sudden surprises could be my last.

0 comments Labels: Culture, Middle East, War

The unchecked and arbitrary power of the privatised mercenaries in Iraq received another boost today as the Blackwater soldiers who massacred seventeen Iraqis in 2007 will not stand trial. A US dismissed the charges against the men;

on the grounds that the five had had their constitutional rights violated by the way confession statements they had made had been used by the prosecution.

The statements were made when the men were under threat of losing their jobs if they did not cooperate with investigators. The US government had promised that their statements would not be used against them in a criminal case.

The Guardian describes the incident in this way;

The incident began when a heavily armed Blackwater convoy moved into a busy square in Baghdad, after breaking an order to stay in the US-controlled green zone of the city, prosecutors allege. The five were accused of opening fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians, killing children, women and men attempting to flee in their cars. One victim was alleged to have been shot in the chest while standing with his hands in the air.

The men do not deny their role in the incident but claim they killed the men, women and children because they felt they were under enemy fire. I guess we'll never know.

6 comments Labels: Middle East, War

I've only just seen this but The Sunday Times had an in depth story by the exceptionally fine journalist Christina Lamb on Afghanistan. It includes revelations about the recent shooting of five British soldiers that made my blood run cold;

The 25-year-old, an unmarried man called Gulbuddin, was part of a 15-strong team that manned a police station in the Nad Ali district, in the heart of Helmand’s poppy-farming lands.

Embedded with the Afghan police were two trainers from the Royal Military Police and a protection force of 14 soldiers from Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, the Grenadier Guards.

The Taliban subsequently claimed Gulbuddin as one of theirs. Senior sources say local intelligence shows the claim is false, however. In addition, witnesses contacted by The Sunday Times say other factors lay behind the massacre.

According to two Afghans who knew him, Gulbuddin had complained of being brutally beaten, sodomised and sexually abused by a senior Afghan officer. A policeman named Ajmal, a friend of the gunman, said Gulbuddin had been constantly tortured. “He was being used for sexual purposes,” said Ajmal.

Another policeman, Kharullah, who was injured in the shooting, said: “Gulbuddin was beaten many times and that’s why he got angry. One day when he was patrolling with British soldiers, he swore he was going to kill him.”

When Gulbuddin opened fire with a machinegun, his target was his alleged abuser. According to the Afghan sources, the five British soldiers were killed simply because they were present and considered to be the man’s protectors.

The allied task to prop up this corrupt regime is not simply one where we are making the best out of a bad situation but one where we are actively protecting rapists, ballot-riggers and reactionaries.

Far from being killed by the Taliban it appears that these British servicemen were in fact killed by a police officer that we'd severely let down in the most horrendous way. I've no doubt that they did not deserve to be killed, just as Gulbuddin did not deserve to be raped and beaten by a superior officer protected by a ring of British bayonets.

Speaking on Question Time last week Sir Ian Blair had said the problem was that the police officers were being recruited "off the streets" (i.e. they come from Afghanistan) when in fact the main problem is that the regime the police serve is itself corrupt to the very top.

2 comments Labels: Middle East, War

I attended the anti-war demonstration today in London calling on our government to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan.

It seemed well attended and lively, and although I don't really bother much with the speeches at the end, Green Party member Farid Bakht spoke very well from the platform I thought. I'm sure others spoke well too but I was off for a sit down and a natter with pals I hadn't seen for a while.

This report on Channel Four News is probably the best mainstream coverage I've seen of an anti-war demo to date and it shows how important it is to reach out to those serving in the armed forces as part of our struggle for a truly ethical foreign policy.

[Loband: Embedded Object Removed - http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1184614595]

0 comments Labels: Middle East, Reports, War

The Iranian regime’s current actions over their nuclear capacity are certainly not very helpful. On this most of the world agrees, however, let’s not let that fact blind us to some other aspects of the current situation.

link[i-link]First, we have the West’s hypocrisy. The hypocrisy that says we can have nuclear weapons but no one else can. Obama expressly cited non-proliferation when he condemned the Iranian regime. Well, I think he might have to take a little more action on that himself before he starts pulling on his hiking boots for that journey up the moral high ground.

Token gestures towards a nuclear free world, like Brown’s idea to reduce our nuclear fleet from four to three submarines are thrown into sharp perspective when we discover that this does not reduce the number of missiles we own, just the number of craft they are to be launched from. We get the same level of genocide but with savings to the public purse - that's one of those good news bad news things isn't it?

The sky would not fall in if the UK, for example, was to scrap its nuclear weapons. Plenty of nations are able to play their part on the world stage without the ability to obliterate millions. However, if the UK did pursue unilateral disarmament it would be the biggest step towards world wide nuclear disarmament the world has ever seen. Brown's got until May to get that started, what are the chances do you think?

The Iranians (and others) would find it far harder to justify building their potential nuke building capacity in the context of other nations disarming. Instead we surround them with war and openly call for the overthrow of the regime by foul means or fetid. That’s not helpful either.

Second, the West has been teaching rogue nations for the last couple of decades that the one way to ensure you don’t get invaded is to have nukes. It might not be an incredible surprise then if some of these 'rogue nations' start thinking that some of their nation’s resources need to be diverted away from corruption, torture equipment and hospitals into developing actually existing weapons of mass destruction.

Third, it is of course great to hear our foreign secretary, David Miliband, say that he is 100% committed to a diplomatic solution. I welcome that, but the evasions and fudging we get when he is asked about military intervention is completely counter-productive. Britain is currently responsible for civil wars in two of Iran’s neighbours (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has somewhat of a record of being willing to use force it’s when necessary, and when it’s not.

No one needs convincing that the UK and the US are up for it when it comes to an international bundle, what some of us do need convincing of is whether the tried and tested methods of belligerence, violence and sanctions actually achieve their stated aims.

While we hear news of tougher sanctions, Israel demanding a military strike and the possibilities of wider military action in the future (and for the record I should say I don’t think it’s going to come to that right now) what we don’t hear is how on Earth this is going to help the situation. Surely our experience is that it will make both the circumstances we’re trying to address more intractable and have far wider implications across the globe. That’s without considering the fact that sanctions will indisputably have a terrible impact on the lives of ordinary people while actually consolidating the hold on power of the current regime.

I don’t want that. You don’t want that. Let’s not go there.

6 comments Labels: Middle East

You know, I always fancied being an editor. Just to try my hand I've taken this article from today's Guardian and applied a light editorial touch. In black is the original, as printed, and in white my editions - simply highlight them with your mouse to see my contributions. You'll get the best effect if you check it out space by space rather than all in one go.

Miliband looks beyond the war in Afghanistan into the abyss
Richard Norton-Taylor

With British soldiers and Afghan civilians being killed at the highest rate since the war against our former allies the Taliban started eight years ago, David Miliband, the hapless foreign secretary, will say tomorrow that more effort must be made to promote the political and economic development of Afghanistan in between bombing it back into the stone age.

In a speech at Nato headquarters in a secret volcano in Brussels, Miliband will stress the need for a comprehensive strategy beyond the fighting by mainly US, Afghan and British soldiers in southern Afghanistan as that clearly isn't working.

His intervention comes at a time of concern within the government at the impact on public opinion of the rising number of British deaths because public opinion matters, deaths don't. Ministers and defence chiefs have warned there will be more casualties as British and US troops mount extremely offensive operations in an attempt to provide more death and security for the Afghan presidential elections next month.

The incumbent puppet, Hamid Karzai, is expected to win, though privately both US and British officials are concerned about his dependence on corrupt warlords who pay scant regard to basic human rights but you can't fight a war without the Pentagon can you?.

Miliband is expected to emphasise the need for development aid to be channelled to economic and welfare programmes to help kill ordinary Afghans. Military action must be complemented by measures to improve the way the remaining Afghans are governed, Miliband is expected to say.

The coming months are regarded as crucial if Nato-led forces are to force the Taliban and any other Afghans who are in the way to retreat and lead to a humiliating reconciliation process involving at least some of their leaders to negotiate an inclusive agreement involving Pashtuns and with the blessing of Pakistan or else.

Whitehall officials said tonight that Miliband would go easy on European allies, most of whom have sensibly refused to allow their soldiers to be deployed for combat in a war that can't be won.

I enjoyed that. The whole process has reminded me of that excellent poem, the woman who wasn't there (I think that's what it was called). By the way, no offense to the journalist in question, he's actually one of the better ones.

2 comments Labels: Media, Middle East, War

Just a quick snippet on the video released by the Taliban of US soldier Private Bowe Bergdahl.

saddam_underwear[i-saddam_underwear]I'm not sure I have any particular revulsion at the way the Taliban are parading this captured soldier, although I certainly do hope that they treat him properly and release him without injury as all prisoners of war should be treated with respect, fed, watered and definitely not tortured (like in Guantanamo or Abu Graib).

It's more the response from the US armed forces themselves that I find interesting. According to the BBC "Capt Jon Stock, condemned the use of the video."

"The use of the soldier for propaganda purposes we view as against international law"

Well hold on. Who established this practice of parading prisoners for propaganda purposes? If the US regards this sort of thing as against international law why has it consistently allowed footage and stills of captured troops to be released to the media? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander surely?

Admittedly when we pioneered the practice it was to persuade the home population of the rights of our various invasions rather than to try to demoralise an invading force but none the less the US (and its allies) have been more than happy with the 'parading' of captured enemy combatants whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I hope this soldier is returned fit and well to his family soon and, in fact, that all Western soldiers are returned to their loved ones through the mechanism of a full and complete military withdrawal from the region.

0 comments Labels: Media, Middle East, War

There are lots of reasons to be opposed to the war in Afghanistan but British casualties isn't one of them. If the cause is right, if this war is just then we have to accept that some of our troops will die. We'd all hope those casualties would be kept to the absolute minimum but we should be hardened to the fact that if it's right to go to war then we have to take the tragically rough with the smooth.

If we're prepared to kill, or rather have someone kill for us, then we must also accept that some of 'our people' might be killed too. When British troops fought in Europe during the Second World War every casualty was a tragedy but there was never a time that people thought the cost was too high. Apart from fascist sympathisers obviously.

But whilst some seem to be saying that now British casualties are increasing (which they would do during a massive offensive) where were those voices when it was innocent Afghans feeling the brunt of our war? Take Razia (below) seen here in Bagram airbase where allied forces are kindly giving her medical attention.

Razia+Bagram[i-Razia+Bagram]
After all, she needs it because she received such severe burns when her home was attacked with our rockets containing white phosphorous. I guess that's what you get if you live in what The Sun calls 'The Badlands'.

What's the mission that justifies this carnage? Does anyone even know? Are we making the world safe from terrorists? If so we're failing as the level of terrorism today is far higher now than before the invasion. Mind you Al Quaida's left Afghanistan, they're all in Pakistan and Iraq now - mission accomplished!

Are we ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban scourge? Well, no. They appear more fighting fit than they were a few years ago and, more importantly, they now operate beyond the borders of the country.

Perhaps we're instituting democracy. If so other countries better watch out because once we've democratised Afghanistan flat I guess we'll be coming for them next. Of course, Afghanistan did have a fledgling democracy once, but then that was before thirty years of invasion and war obliterated the country. Never mind, they now have a President who rules several square acres of land in Kabul and surrounds himself with foreign mercenaries to ensure he's not whacked by the grateful citizenry of his country.

Maybe we're fighting the war on drugs. If so it's a shame we invaded in the first place as the Taliban used to be very anti-drugs and wouldn't tolerate it's presence. Nowadays it's their main cash crop and Afghanistan is a major league supplier of opium based dazes to the world. The pre-Obama American forces had been pressing for aerial crop spraying to eradicate the drugs - but seeing as we can't tell the difference between drugs and beans I suspect all this will do is further impoverish some of the poorest people on the planet.

Whatever reason we're there for I think it's fair to say that unless you know what you are doing. and why, having extra helicopters is pointless. They don't know what they're achieving but the government do know that they are killing Afghans in their missions and they have no real way of knowing the difference between a Taliban and a local who thinks a bunch of murderous Europeans shouldn't be wandering round in his backgarden. Which he shouldn't.

Can a war be winnable if we don't actually have any firm objectives? There is no evidence that the life of Afghans is better now than it was before and that truly is saying something. Maybe it's just a question of face now. If we aren't seen to have done something, anything, with the military presence then all those deaths, all that oppression, all those lies will have been for nothing.

Well, maybe they were.

afghan+graveyeard[i-afghan+graveyeard]
Oh, I forgot. The real reason we're in Afghanistan is to liberate the women. One burned child at a time. I think this video on women and Afghanistan is worth watching if you're wondering whether that's been a success or not;

[Loband: Object Removed -]

6 comments Labels: Middle East, War