Shutting the door on the poor

After 'British jobs for British workers' we now have 'British homes for British workers'_brought to us yet again by a Labour government. Labour is claiming that it will give more local rights to people waiting on the housing list to get homes. Ministers want to allay fears, they say, that local people are being by passed by 'immigrants with large families [who] vault to the top of the council house list', as it's so quaintly put in the Daily Mail.

This is another example of Labour trying to appease its serious disgruntled voting base by aping the BNP. What won't be on offer, we can be sure, is the emergency housebuilding programme which could deal with the root of the problem.

Here are two statistics which tell us what that problem is: there are 1 million fewer council and housing association houses and flats than there were 30 years ago; and in that same 30 years the government has siphoned a total of £68.6 billion from council house rents and sales.

That has created the greatest housing crisis since the Second World War. The right to buy council houses has led to houses being allocated on the basis of the market - who can pay - rather than who most needs a house, a principle first developed around 100 years ago. So housing built for the poor and needy no longer is allocated on the basis of need.

And given there are a lot of poor and needy around - after all inequality has grown over the same period- it stands to reason that with far fewer resources many more will lose out. At present there are 1.6 million households (around 4 million people) on waiting lists, with only 170,000 homes available a year. Of these, it is estimated only 5 to 7 % go to 'immigrant families' (which doesn't include asylum seekers, who have no right to council housing).

As usual with this government, there is little change on offer. But this isn't about solving the housing crisis, it's about telling Labour supporters on the doorsteps that Labour is doing something to be tough on immigrants, so that it can compete with the BNP.

This racist bidding war is taking place across Europe around the Euro elections. That champion of women's liberation Nicolas Sarkozy is attacking Muslim women's right to wear veils and his counterpart in Italy has opined that Milan looks like Africa (really?). Racist scapegoating is the order of the day. On Friday I was a speaker at the launch of a new campaign to defend Muslims, called Kafa _Enough in Arabic.

Personally I already feel I've had more than enough of this racism. Time to do something about it.

Deeds not words

Anyone expecting Barack Obama's speech 'to the Muslim world' to really alter the terms of debate round US role in the world looks like being disappointed. Obama makes some of the right noises: he greets the audience with 'assalaamu alaykum'; he praises advances in Muslim culture, science and education; and he quotes from the Koran.

But the core of the speech, carefully written and balanced by probably an army of speechwriters and diplomats, reflects the casual rejection of the concerns of millions _ both Muslim and non Muslims _who opposed George Bush and who continue to oppose Obama insofar as he follows Bush's policy.

The issues addressed are laid out in logical order: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Israel and Palestine; nuclear weapons; democracy; religious freedom; women's rights and economic development and opportunity. It might seem a bit rich to many Egyptians, and those from elsewhere in the region, for Obama to stress 'all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind...confidence in the rule of law..government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people..the freedom to live as you choose'. After all they live in a country where democracy campaigners, lawyers, strikers ..and yes, Muslim activists, are regularly imprisoned, repressed or tortured under the rule of the arch ally of the US, Hosni Mubarak. Which rather helps to put into perspective religious freedom.

In every instance Obama is understanding, thoughtful..but defends the status quo. Western economic development is hailed as the way forward, without any acknowledgement that capitalist economic expansion has left whole parts of the world behind, not least in the oil rich Middle East.

Education for girls and more money for development are promised, but so they have been before, most publicly when, after the invasion of Afghanistan which cost 10,000 Afghan lives, Tony Blair promised that, 'we will not walk away' from the problems of rebuilding the country. Now, tens times as much is spent on the military in Afghanistan as on reconstruction _ and most of that never benefits ordinary Afghans, who live in one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

There is no mention of the history of the US and its allies, in backing Israel in the Middle East, in carving up Asia and the Middle East as part of the western empires.

All the problems between the US and the Muslim world are explained as 'misunderstandings', or as due to the actions of 'violent extremists.' This doesn't explain why 'misunderstandings' have grown so substantially since the US became a major imperial power during the 20th century. The lack of empathy is shared not just by Muslim dominated countries but throughout Latin America, much of Asia and Africa and indeed in much of Europe. And where did the 'violent extremists' come from? Forty years ago, the main US enemy was the Vietnamese. Anyone who organises against the US is dubbed an extremist. 'Islamic extremists' have only developed since the increasingly aggressive foreign policy carried out by the US in the Middle East and south Asia.

The speech may contain fine words, but it promises nothing new that can address the real concerns of those who have heard US promises before, but who have seen very different consequences. Troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and an end to the arming and funding of Israel, would do more to address these concerns than a thousand speeches.

French lessons

I feel I've seen enough riot police in the past week to last me a lifetime. Strasbourg, where we went for the demo against Nato, was full of them _ complete with pads, shields, helmets, truncheons and an assortment of weapons. Last Saturday the city centre had police at every corner and a constant parade of police bikes, vans, water cannon and what looked like armoured cars. The smell of tear gas was in the air from early morning.

The assembly point for the demonstration was a car park on an island in the Rhine _ sounds idyllic but actually an industrial estate accessible only by bridges which were of course blocked by riot police. There was no local population to witness our march nor was it remotely near where the Nato summit was being held in the centre of town. It has to rank as the worst ever demonstration route I have been on.

Things kicked off early with various blockades which were pretty successful in delaying the start of the summit. Then it all moved to the bridges and the border with Germany. Around 7000 demonstrators assembled on the German side but were denied entry. As the morning wore on plumes of smoke started rising as the border post, an Ibis hotel and various other buildings were set on fire. The demo eventually marched to a blockaded bridge, turned round and was promptly attacked with tear gas.

This went on for hours, the demonstration was broken up and there was constant fighting between police and the Black Block. Bridges stayed blocked for hours, the police confiscated all banners (including our lovely new 'Jobs not Bombs' one) and there was absolutely no public transport so we got back to the city centre at 8pm.

A lot of criticism, from media and police but also from some march organisers, was reserved for the Black Block. Now I don't have a lot of time for them: I object to them throwing stones in a way which draws other demonstrators into being caught between them and the police; I don't see it's too clever to smash up telephones or bus shelters in working class areas; and I have a number of political criticisms of their ideas and behaviour. But it is also clear that they attract young people who are fed up with capitalism and want change.

The problem is that unless those criticising them can also attract those young people, they are in trouble. And the problem with the organisation of the main demo and the conference that went with it was that it didn't have a lot to appeal to those young people or other like them. The French authorities prohibited a march in the city centre but there didn't appear to be a serious political campaign against it. The conference organisers vetoed the attendance of a representative of the Lebanese resistance.

The movement has to try to be militant as well as broad. Incidentally, broad means engaging with wide sections of those who make up the oppressed and exploited, including the large Kurdish population of Strasbourg, and the Arabs and Africans who make up a big part of the population of the housing estates we limped through after the march. They were almost totally absent.

Here in Britain, the largely south Asian Muslims have been part of our mobilisations from the beginning. But here too, the police are resorting increasingly to repressive tactics, as we saw on our Gaza demos in January and again last week round the G20. True they don't have tear gas, but they are much more prone to using their truncheons and their practice of 'kettling' effectively deems demonstrations illegal. The death of Ian Tomlinson, last week reported as due to natural causes, now looks increasingly suspicious. I have been on two demos where people were killed _ in Red Lion Square in 1974 where Kevin Gately died, and in Genoa in 2001 where Carlo Guiliani died. I was ill in 1979 or otherwise would have been on a demonstration when the police locked down the largely Asian area of Southall to allow 100 fascists to march and where Blair Peach, a neighbour and comrade, was killed.

In all those cases, it was obvious by police behaviour and equipment that something terrible was likely to happen. And it was again last week. Civil liberties are under more threat than at any time I can remember.

Two torture Stories

Another week, another torture story. In fact this week two torture stories.
Binyam Mohammed came back from Guantanamo with a dignified statement but a terrible tale of genital torture in Morocco courtesy of the US. And defence minister John Hutton has announced today that very sorry but yes Britain was involved in extraordinary rendition of two prisoners to the US who have now ended up in prison back in Afghanistan.

If you're one of the few still wondering whether you can believe a
word this government says, Jack Straw has just made your life easier
- by banning publication of the Cabinet minutes of its meetings in the
run up to the Iraq war.

You wonder what conflict of interests lies behind this _ after all J
Straw Justice Minister was J Straw Foreign Secretary back in those
dark days of 2003. What does he have to hide? What does Peter (now
Lord) Goldsmith, who mysteriously seemed to change his mind on the
legality of the war in the course of two weeks in March 2003, have to
hide? Or Tony Blair, rewarded for his role in supporting George Bush
in the war by becoming the 'quartet's' envoy for peace in the Middle
East?

Even if there is nothing to hide, and that's certainly possible given
the supine and gullible nature of the average Cabinet minister, what
an insult that Straw is hiding behind the 30 year rule on the
disclosure of minutes. He claims disclosure would damage the ability
of ministers to have serious discussions on such topics. More likely
it would highlight the lack of discussion -let alone debate -in
Cabinet.

The problem for Straw and his colleagues is that 2 million people who
marched in 2003 rejected the arguments for war, so did the vast
majority of people in Britain, yet the politicians (with some
honourable exceptions) forced us to go to war. We are all still living
with the consequences: the rendition and torture, the devastation of
Iraq, Israel's aggression, and the attacks on civil liberties here at
home.

Latest of these was the leaked document saying that the new definition
for an extremist would be someone who supported resistance abroad.
That's a hell of a lot of people. Others might say that the definition
of extremsist are those dogmatic enough to keep spending money on
weapons of mass destruction when the world is in its worst economic
crisis for 70 years; who recklessly allow the torture of young men;
and consistently support a government bent on attacking thode they
drove of their land in the first place.

Oh, that would be the British government then. Which is where we
began.

Obama will be making his first visit to Britain on April 1/2 as
part of the summit of G20 leaders.

Is the gilt coming off the gingerbread with Obama? There is some
evidence that on questions of war and imperialism it is. First it was
Gaza, an operation green lighted in the last dark days of the Bush
presidency in order at least partly to tie Obama's hands. It seemed to
succeed, with Obama's inauguration speech failing to include the words
'Israel' or 'Gaza'. The rightward shift illustrated with the Israeli
elections should in theory lead to conflict with the US, but both the
nature of Obama's advisers, including of course his secretary of
state, Hillary Clinton, who is pro Israel and anti Iran, make that
less likely.

Then there is Afghanistan. Rising death toll (up by 40 percent among
Afghans in the last year), growing discontent among Afghans, a
collapsing and corrupt government. Obama's solution is 17,000 extra US
troops and the increased bombing of Pakistan by drones.

There is, it is true, some excitement about possible diplomatic
engagement in Syria or Iran. But the closure of Guantanamo is being
compensated for by expanding the Baghram base in Afghanistan. All good
reasons to demonstrate on 1 and 2 April. At least it'll give them
something to talk about in Cabinet.

From liberation to warlordism, the west's plan for Afghanistan

The headline of Max Hastings' article in today's Guardian reads 'Afghanistan's best hope is for controlled warlordism'. What an admission of defeat compared to the supposedly high ideals which accompanied the bombing and occupation of the country seven years ago. Then it was promises of democracy, modernisation and women's liberation. Now it's hanging on to what remains of the shambles the western intervention has become.

The problem is there already is a government of warlords, put in place and backed by the west. Corruption is rife in Afghanistan and goes right to the top of the Karzai government. This, and the increasing dependence on the opium crop, and the refugee problem, and the continued appalling situation of women, were all tolerated just as long as the Nato forces looked like they were on top.

Now they don't and there has been a change in western opinion. Already diplomats and top military have admitted the war can't be won and they must talk to the Taliban. Now the Financial Times editorial has joined the assessment. It's clear that everyone has given up on Karzai but no one knows what to put in his government's place, apart from a 'benevolent' dictator. And the economic crisis now hitting the world must raise questions about bankrolling failed wars and occupations when governments are having to bankroll the banks.

So more misery for Afghans, and Pakistanis. And that has a knock on here. Stop the War in Scotland are holding a protest to complain at the treatment of Afghan and Pakistani travellers going through Glasgow airport. They are often held 2-3 hours there, then asked to go for further questioning by Special Branch. Questions range from 'do you know where Osama bin Laden is ' to 'do you pray' to 'which mosque do you go to'.

It seems a bit unfair on Afghans travelling home for weddings or family visits to be asked the whereabouts of bin Laden, a question to which the world's biggest surveillance systems and agencies cannot find an answer. But hey. Tens of thousands have died, hundreds of thousands are refugees following the war over an issue which had nothing to do with ordinary Afghans. Why break the habit?

Losing the war in Afghanistan

Gordon brown called it ‘the most noble cause of the 21^st century.’ But today the commander of UK troops in Afghanistan has presented a rather different assessment. According to Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith ‘we’re not going to win this war’ and that talks with the Taliban are the way forward.

His remarks follow on from leaked remarks attributed to the British ambassador in Kabul, the exotically named Sherard Cowper-Coles, that foreign troops were part of the problem and that what was needed was an ‘acceptable dictator.’

It’s seven years tomorrow since the British government, along with the US and its other allies launched the war on Afghanistan _ the first war in the war on terror. An estimated 10,000 died during that war, but since then things have gone even further downhill. Many thousands more have died, there is a mass refugee problem, there has been virtually no reconstruction, despite the extravagant promises of Tony Blair seven years ago that ‘we will not walk away.’

No wonder dictatorship is the favoured British option. The Karzai government is corrupt and holds little sway in the country. Free elections would not produce a pro western government. So what’s needed is someone who runs the country on behalf of the occupiers.

What a lesson in humanitarian intervention Afghanistan is. No women’s liberation…no reconstruction..no peace….no democracy…dependence on the opium crop. It’s like a Brecht play except there’s no interval and no end.

The blame game

When the going gets tough, blame Iran. Defence Minister Des Browne told the Guardian that he had 'no doubt' that the Taliban was getting weapons from Iran. George Bush is poised to announce that the US is to treat Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a 'global terrorist' organisation. Deaths in Iraq are now routinely blamed on Iranian weapons, expertise and general interference in the region.

You wouldn't think that it was the US which has lost nearly 200,000 weapons, including lorry loads of AK47s, in Iraq. Nor would it be diplomatic to point out that blame for the siting of weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq can be more justly be laid at the door of the US or Britain than pinned on Iran, which cooperated with the US in 2001 over the launch of the war on terror and played no role in the Coalition of the Willing back in 2003.

But being wrong has never stopped Browne and his ilk from continuing merrily on regardless of facts which contradict them at every turn. His predecessor, John Reid, did after all predict not more than 18 months ago that British soldiers might well leave from their present tour in Helmand without a shot being fired in anger. Some prediction. Seven soldiers have been killed there in the past ten days.

Exit strategies are daily put forward for Iraq but none of them comes to very much. There are still troops in Basra palace, the central base in the city which is under attack constantly _ 300 rockets have been fired at it over the past two months_ despite predictions that all 5000 British troops would by now be at the airport base on the edge of the city.

Despite the very strong impression given by the British media that most violent attacks are between different groups of Iraqis, in Basra 90 percent of attacks are against British troops.

As Iraq proves intractable so Afghanistan is moving up the political and military agenda. There are now more troops there than in Iraq and the rate of deaths is increasing with over 70 in total dead. There is growing Afghan disquiet about civilian casualties, mainly caused by US airstrikes.


It must be slowly dawning on Des Browne, let alone the more perceptive Cabinet members, that not only are all options in Iraq fraught with difficulties but that their troubles will not end there.
Despite talk of a turning point and attempts to blame Iran or Pakistan for the problems, this looks like a war which will get worse before it gets better. It has all the makings of a long, colonial war with increasing casualties, loss of support from the local population and a growing sense domestically that it is unwinnable.


In Germany next month there is a major demo against the Afghan war, and there is political discontent in countries as far apart as South Korea, Canada and the Netherlands. Washington's response is typical: dragoon as many countries as possible to fight there, blame the Iraqis for not being able to run their own country, and step up the rhetoric against Iran.


Meanwhile Des Browne tells us that any 'drawdown' of troops in Iraq depends on agreement with the US. No change there then.