Hasn't got a Clwyd

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

A week ago it wans't like this. George and Tony's press conference in Washington looked like a low point at the time. But now it looks like the calm before the storm. Since then we've had: news of the Haditha massacre, where US marines killed innocent Iraqi civilians in an echo of Vietnam's My Lai; headline news on the BBC about another massacre; the death of two more British servicemen in Basra; the death of two British journalists in Baghdad; the Iraqi prime minister (still unable to appoint a defence or interior minister to his government)declaring a state of emergency in Basra; and the same prime minister saying he wants the troops to go.

Oh, and a serious anti western riot in Kabul, supposedly the safest place in Afghanistan.

Up pops Anne Clwyd MP, Tony Blair's human rights envoy to Iraq, to tell us that these are minor problems. What a grotesque title that is, by the way, coming from a government which has presided over a human rights catastrophe in Iraq and which now tries to minimise atrocities being committed there. Anne Clwyd must be last woman standing to back Tony Blair.

Even some of Washington's hawks are recognising that their grand plan to conquer the world is being thrown off track by events in Iraq. Hence the attempt last week at US diplomacy _not an entire contradiction in terms_aimed at making Iran look unreasonable if it refused an offer of talks coupled with abandoning its nuclear power programme. Not an especially reasonable offer _imagine if Iran offered Britain talks as long as they shut down Sellafield and Sizewell and committed not to rebuild Trident? But it shows the US is boxed in and unable to act easily, especially against the wishes of Russia and China.

The human rights argument has been central to winning liberal opinion in all the recent wars and is being trundled out again over Iran. The one about women's rights is particularly galling for those of us unlike George Bush who believe in women's equality. The Action Iran meeting on Friday night went a long way to dispelling the Anne Clwyd bomb them for liberation approach. Guest of honour was Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize winner and campaigner for women's rights. A former judge in Teheran who was forced out of her job, she has more reasons than most to hate the regime but her message was clear. We don't want Bush and Blair bombing, Iranians have to fight for the democracy that they want and that war will make this harder.

I was part of a platform where the only man was Tony Benn. Every speaker talked about women's rights, with Tony pointing out that his grandmother had to fight for the vote and that we didn't have women's equality in Britain. You only have to look at the house of commons to see that, or the boardrooms of the city of London.

A good weekend for women, with that meeting and the military families campaign in the Independent on Sunday, where mothers, grandmothers and wives of serving soldiers spoke out against the war.

Bad weekend for civil liberties and the Muslim community. The raid in Forest Gate involving 250 police looking for a chemical bomb factory led to one man being shot and he and his brother arrested, the next door family also being raided and detained for 12 hours, and much scepticism in the local community. Is it really necessary to shoot in such circumstances? Was there any evidence and has anything been found? The police seem to be backtracking already. And should attending a mosque regularly and growing a beard be seen as evidence of suspected terrorism?

Now where's Tony Blair's human rights envoy when you need her?

5/31/2006 05:21:00 PM | Permalink

Everyone's a winner

Friday, May 26, 2006

Mind your language! That's the message from the White House about how to conduct a war. The Iraq war would have gone much better if George Bush hadn't said 'wanted dead or alive' or hadn't challenged the resistance to 'bring it on'.

This attempt to assuage some criticism over the war only reveals how weak the two chief warmongers are. Even a usually supine Washington press has commented on how the two are locked together into a spiral of decline. They are both really finished now but are still acting out a charade of being in control of foreign policy and even of acting for the benefit of the Iraqis.

Blair's speech today apparently says that there is no justification for not supporting the new government in Iraq. He would say that, wouldn't he, since his and Bush's governments dug their heels in for 6 months, refusing to allow a government to be formed until those who lost the election were included in it. Democracy's an odd thing in the Middle East: everyone's a winner under American rules _unless it gets really bad and then they play the final card of civil war.

I heard a bit of Blairite spin the other day that the Iraqis have only taken the same time to form their government as the Germans did to achieve their Grand Coalition last year. One or two differences I think: Jack Straw and Condoleezza Rice didn't drop into Berlin to twist arms over the choice, the US ambassador wasn't the power broker, the German government only took a month, not six, to be formed, and Germany was not losing dozens of its citizens every day.

Moral and political bankruptcy ooze all around them. Cherie Blair signs a copy of the Hutton Report for a Labour Party fundraising auction. Just think about that for a minute. Arrogance and sickness in equal measure. Meanwhile 78 police were used to remove placards from Brian Haw's anti war protest in Parliament Square. That little raid cost £7,200 including £4,200 on transport, catering and the erection of road signs.

I'm fascinated by the catering element. How many cups of tea and bacon rolls are needed for the dismantling of one peace protest organised by one protester?

5/26/2006 10:52:00 AM | Permalink

If you can't say anything good...

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

I was rather surprised at the level of venom which greeted Hugo Chavez's visit to London. He was called a friend of Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe, accused of being completely undemocratic and a Latin American dictator. Pretty incredible when you consider that unelected dictators and monarchs visit London every week without a murmur of dissent from the media.

Chavez's success at trying to alleviate poverty and illiteracy in Venezuela is obviously enough to bring out media opposition and indeed government loyalists. Prize for brass neck must go to Denis MacShane, who as foreign office minister rushed to welcome an attmepted coup against Chavez two years ago, only to discover that it had been unsuccessful. He made no mention of this as he praised Chile and Brazil as reasonable Latin American regimes in preference to Venezuela.

I was invited to the lunch with Chavez hosted by Ken Livingstone at City Hall on Monday and along with the other 100 guests heard him make an impressive (and compared to the previous day short) speech which talked about among other things London's radical tradition, paid tribute to Tony Benn and spoke of his opposition to Bush's foreign policy.

That is the real reason for the bad press: he is very open and up front about his opposition to the new imperialism which is why he commands support and respect on a global scale.

Meanwhile, I see that Britain's entry to the Eurovision song contest is blaming Blair for projected failure this weekend. Daz Sampson says people won't vote for Britain because of our policy of bombing other people's countries. It was after all just after the Iraq war when Britain got nul points. So I think Daz has a point himself.

Message today about a debate at the Oxford Union, with my colleague Andrew Murray, about humanitarian intervention. Dress code black tie, it says. Oh dear I haven't got one.

5/16/2006 05:40:00 PM | Permalink

Hate something, change something

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

I received an email today headlined 'Study: Iraq is getting safer for British troops'. Can this be the same Iraq where five British service men and women were shot down in a helicopter last weekend and where they are already confined to their camps most of the time for fear of much higher casualty rates? It struck me as an example of formal logic - 'we are where we are' - or even no logic at all.

The author of the study, Brendan O'Neill, seems to be incapable of seeing the totality. After all, if troops are unable to move freely then that says something about how dangerous the situation is when they do move freely, even if no figures show up in the statistics. If families protest at this level of casualties much more than they did over higher casualties in previous wars, that tells you how illegitimate the war is among military families.

O'Neill claims that 'death has sometimes quite cynically been made into the defining issue of the conflict. It is time we made better arguments against the war than exaggerating how dangerous it is'. Thanks for that Brendan, we do our best. But surely we can't exaggerate how dangerous the war is. You see we don't judge it on British casualties alone but on the more than 100,000 Iraqi dead (is that exaggerated as well?), the effects of depleted uranium and other deadly weapons, and the general instability in the region.

A strike on Iran would make all this even more dangerous. But O'Neill probably thinks we're exaggerating that danger as well.

He should perhaps try talking to Egyptian pro democracy demonstrators who are at the sharp end this week. The regime, funded by and beloved of the US government, is cracking down after opening up a tiny bit last year. Even judges have come under the cosh. Some of them have complained about irregularities in last year's elections. That's a mild way of putting it since the main opposition candidate has since been sentenced to five years hard labour, and hundreds of Muslim brotherhood were jailed.

Now judges are threatened with dismissal for 'defaming the state'. Nearly 50 people are in jail for supporting them and demonstrators are regularly attacked by police.

Taking the no logic of O'Neill, it may not be that bad in Cairo since millions of people are going about their normal business and not being arrested. Or perhaps we should follow the dictum of, among others, Karl Marx and the BP advert: 'hate something, change something, make something better'.

A piece of advice that could be passed on to Paul Cantor who in the US magazine Counterpunch has bemoaned the usefulness of demonstrations, particularly the New York one two weeks ago, which some of the US left was dissing in advance but which turned into a mass event. We get similar criticisms here. So not being involved directly, here's a few of my thoughts.

First, demos show the world you're there. That in itself should be worth it. Secondly, it brings the movement together and builds solidarity. Doubly worth it. Thirdly it generates local activity and spreads anti war ideas. Also worth it. All right so one demo doesn't change the world but who ever said it would. It's the movement that can change the world and the demos are part of that.

So you were young in the 60s and it was better then. Grow old with dignity. Keep demonstrating.

5/10/2006 02:35:00 PM | Permalink

Blowing hot and cold

Monday, May 08, 2006

Looks like John Reid got out just in time. As he moves to the Home Office to preside over implementation of the terror laws, deportation of asylum seekers and the introduction of ID cards, Basra _ centre of British operations in occupied Iraq_ goes up in flames.

The shooting down of a British helicopter, with five personnel dead, and the shooting of at least five Iraqis, including children, marks a new stage in the war there. British troops are largely confined to their bases for fear of much higher casualties. They rely very heavily on helicopters. If the Iraqis can now shoot them down using missiles, the British are in big trouble.

And if the troops are shooting children as part of their response, then they will only fuel opposition to their presence _ already very great in Basra.

I reflected on this as I sat in the BBC's deserted Millbank studio on Saturday night for News 24. The news from Iraq was grim and I was asked a series of questions, culminating in the one which is de rigeur for the BBC, along the lines of, we know you opposed them going in but now don't they have to stay to finish the job?

It was obvious from the pictures on the screen that these are not peacekeepers but soldiers operating in a war situation, surrounded by a hostile population, incapable of winning hearts and minds by improving the lives of Iraqis. This is a job they shouldn't have started and simply can't finish.

Indeed, they may be operating in even more dangerous conditions if we attack Iran. Jack Straw's demotion from Foreign Secretary was at least in part about his public dismissal of such an attack. The Washington hawks (apart from his friend Condi of course) wanted his removal. An air strike on Iran would lead the country to retaliate _ and that retaliation would be at least in part in the south of Iraq.

One thing we should remember about the warmongers: they never learn from their mistakes _ in fact the mistakes seem to make them more arrogant and convinced of the need to reshape the world in their image. Take Tony Blair's reshuffle: now everyone connected with the war has gone _ except one, and the one that everyone blames for it in the first place. Or take Dick Cheney, ruthless architect of the new world order.

He made a speech in eastern Europe last week threatening Russia over it using oil and gas supplies for political bargaining _ something the Americans have never done! The Russians are likening it the Winston Churchill's Fulton speech in 1946 which heralded the Cold War. That's a pretty big deal. They are being pushed towards China.

From Bolivia and Venezuela to Russia and Iran we are now seeing an epic struggle for control of the world's resources. That's why the threat to Iran is so real. If we don't succeed, then Basra's flames will be only a small part of a much bigger conflagration.

5/08/2006 05:17:00 AM | Permalink

Listen up

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

When I was in New York in January I met some of the people from United for Peace and Justice, the US anti war organisation. They told me then about the planned mass march there at the end of April which they were hoping would bring the anti war movement together.

Looks like they succeeded. They describe at least 350,000 marching on Saturday and the pictures look great. They represent a growing movement against George Bush's policy. Let's hope it makes Washington think twice about attacking Iran. When added to the mass mobilisations of immigrant workers this weekend, you really begin to feel that something is on the move in the US.

Just as here, it's not just the war, stupid. When I was in the States people were concerned about the whole Hurricane Katrina issue and what that said about race nad class in America. The immigrants' stayaway yesterday shut restaurants and diners across the country, closed the meatpacking plants in the midwest, and left the California fields empty.

Instead these 'hidden' workers took to the streets of the major cities to demand they are treated as human beings, not criminals, for helping to keep the US economy going.

It made me feel good to see them. The immigration debate is so much dominated by the right and the racists and they've been pushed onto the defensive. Immigrant workers made one very central point: without us you couldn't cope.

In Norway at the weekend for a good debate on the future of Europe's left at a forum called Eurovisions, I was struck by the same thing. The rich European countries all depend heavily on immigrant labour yet many of them allow immigrants few rights and have right wing populist parties bidding to curtail even those still further.

The hijab, Muslim schools, raising the marriage age to stop arranged marriages, are all issues now. Maybe the immigrants of Europe should follow the Americans in demanding not to be criminalised and to be treated equally. Time for a new civil rights movement.

Perhaps as a contribution to this our governments should stop attacking other people's countries, destroying their livelihoods, making them refugees, and then when they get to our countries, treating them as outsiders or even criminals.

That made sense to the young audience in Norway, who like most people don't want to live in a divided society. What a pity _as Britain takes over Afghanistan's dangerous Helmand province and the screw is tightened on Iran_ that our governments aren't listening.

That's where this weekend's demos come in.

5/02/2006 04:17:00 PM | Permalink