When the talking has to start

Thursday, June 29, 2006

You don't experience many nights like the one we held to raise money for Malcolm Kendal Smith, the flight lieutenant who refused to serve in Iraq and who was court martialled and sentenced to eight months in prison. The beautiful St James's church in Piccadilly was standing room only last night. More than 600 people inside with another 100 turned away.

Music, poetry, readings, comedy, speeches, a scene from a play _ and a recording from the man himself, now out of prison but tagged and curfewed, courtesy of that defender of liberty and democracy the British government. Janet Suzman, Ken Loach, Tony Benn, Michael Nyman, David Edgar, Simon Callow and Vivienne Westwood were just some of the names who gave their time and talent to make it such a great evening.

But there was something more _ people coming together in outrage at the treatment of a brave and principled man, but also in celebration of a diverse and determined movement which keeps campaigning and finding ways of bringing new elements and ideas and individuals into it.

The atmosphere was therefore one of hope and solidarity. It kept me going even through the late night bendy bus experience on the 38 back to Hackney. The experience was somewhat shattered by the news this morning: prominent Palestinians including members of the Hamas government arrested by the Israelis while the Syrian president's summer palace has been buzzed by Israeli jets.

Aren't both of these pretty major breaches of international law or am I missing something? What if Iranian jets buzzed Turkey or Afghanistan? Can you imagine the talk about the international community, UN resolutions, rogue states and the rest? How about if the Irish government arrested Ian Paisley in revenge for Loyalist killings? Can't help feeling that would be a major international incident.

Of course they operate to rather different rules in the Middle East. Rule 1 is that Israel can get away with pretty much what it wants and the 'international community' looks on, wishing it would all go away. Rule 2 is that this behaviour is defended on the grounds of 'dealing with terrorism' or 'dealing with states who foster terrorism'.

Any state which is in conflict with the US or Israel is accused of fostering terrorism (rule 3). So Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Syria, Iran have all stood accused, as did Libya until it did a deal with the west.

Interesting developments then in post Saddam Iraq, where the new prime minister is now talking to terrorists. Or at least some of them. Not foreign terrorists of course, but home grown Iraqis. It's a recognition, of course, that this talk of terrorism hides a genuine opposition and resistance to the occupation which cannot be dealt with by designating all those who fight British and American troops as criminals, foreign fighters or fanatics.

At some point, the Iraqi government and their occupation masters are saying, we will have to do a deal. If they want to ever have a prospect of pulling the troops out they have to try to get stability, hence the talks.

They're not the first ones. We'll never talk to terrorists is the cry of politicians throughout the world. But of course they do. Those who were pariahs, outcasts and prisoners end up in positions of power and government, even taking tea with the queen as heads of Commonwealth states.

So when the Israelis and their supporters talk about being tough on terrorism, remember the way to end terrorism has always been to find a political solution, not to continue the oppression which helps to breed resistance in the first place.

6/29/2006 05:44:00 PM | Permalink

Good Muslim, bad Muslim

Monday, June 19, 2006

It seems to be let's support the Muslims week. That comes after let's raid a Muslim family's house and shoot one of them week. Sir Trevor Phillips, head of the CRE and never anything but a moderate on issues of race, has criticised the Forest Gate raid. 'It is clear that something went wrong on this occasion. But it's not the first time. We've seen thousands of British Muslims arrested under anti-terror legislation. Virtually all of them released without charge'.

Too right, Trevor. But it isn't just about the raid. Remember the headlines on all the papers about the raid, about the 'chemical vest' the police were looking for, the bomb factory, the threat to the whole area (although no neighbours were evacuated)? Remember the story in the News of the World that one of the brothers had shot the other? Remember the story in the Metro that another brother had been on a demonstration against the Danish cartoons?

All false. But where are the rebuttals of same point size or prominence? They don't exist. So this becomes another raid where probably millions read or hear the lies, but a fraction of that get the truth when it eventually seeps out.

It's enough to make a liberal commentator blush. That must be why so many of them have come out, however hesitantly, to defend Muslims. But, wait, they're only defending Muslims against the rest of us. Phillips praises their restraint in the face of the raid. Nick Cohen in the Observer has claimed a direct line from the Muslim community showing that they're not angry at all (that's just the left). Unfortunately the very same day that his column appeared, 2000 Muslims joined a local march.

They weren't angry according to the tabloid press stereotype. No one dressed up as suicide bombers or denouncing secularism. But they were angry according to the march's official statement, which called for the following: a full and unqualified apology from the Metropolitan police; an end to police privately 'briefing' newspapers; an end to politicisation of the police force; a demand that Muslims were not prepared to live in fear or be silenced; an end to the association of Islam with terrorism; a full apology from the prime minister; the war on terror to be urgently reviewed.

Howard Jacobson took me to task in the Independent for suggesting that these raids might even drive people to terrorism. This apparently was a slur on Muslims because it implied that they might respond in such a violent way to something like this. Surely the real slur on Muslims is to repeatedly portray them as extremists, terrorists, suicide bombers or religious fanatics.

Isn't it then a bit rich for journalists to praise Muslims for not responding to a stereotype that was largely a media creation in the first place!

Praise though to an unlikely ally. Johann Hari has written some splendid attacks on the celebrity TV historian Niall Ferguson, in which Hari has accurately portrayed the British empire as a bloody and oppressive affair. Ferguson's thesis (or one of them) is that the break up of empires leads to ethnic divisions (aka why the troops should stay in Iraq). Seems a bit self serving to me _ not to mention selective. The week we remembered the anniversary of the Soweto uprising doesn't seem a good one to praise the white man's burden.

6/19/2006 01:33:00 PM | Permalink

Community policing Afghan style

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The new Iraqi prime minister is given five minutes notice that George Bush is in Baghdad. He is summoned to the US embassy in a former Saddam palace for the privilege. He then has to engage in a video conference debate with Bush's cabinet in Camp David.

And they say it's a sovereign country.

Another supposedly sovereign country not far away (just the other side of Iran, in fact)is also causing the west some difficulties. Western diplomats are shocked at community policing Afghan style. This amounts to remobilising the disbanded and discredited militias which have run much of the country in the past.

A direct breach of UN policy which wants such groups outside the official police and army disarmed, and in contradiction of the statements by President Karzai that no such forces or authorisation for them yet exists, the militias are back on the move. One exists in Helmand province, the southern area where British troops are now stationed in large numbers. Far from being outlawed, it has been approved by the region's governor and operates under the command of his deputy, according to today's Independent.

One immediate problem for the British troops is that they cannot distinguish these supposed allies from the resurgent Taliban.

Those who say we can't leave Afghanistan because both sides are so terrible have been paying even less attention than usual. This is where we came in nearly five years ago. Then the Taliban was defeated but is now stronger than at any time since 2001. Erstwhile allies of the west in the militias are now becoming enemies.

So what exactly have we achieved?

6/14/2006 04:35:00 PM | Permalink

Political suicide

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

I'm glad we're fighting a war for civilisation. We condemn videos of hostages being beheaded _but then display al Zarqawi's corpse in images sent around the world. Colleen Graffy, deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy,(yes really) dismissed the three Guantanamo bay suicides as 'a good PR move'.

I didn't know Colleen Graffy had been promoted. I first came across her when George Bush made his state visit to Britain nearly 3 years ago and we organised mass demonstrations against him. We mobilised more people for a weekday demo than had ever been done before and there was barely a person outside government and its hangers on with a good word to say for him. Then Graffy was put up to debate as a representative of Republicans Abroad. All sweet reasonableness and Christian values, she was one of the few prepared to go on the air to defend the war and occupation. Her main argument, if I remember my debates with her correctly, was that the US was bringing civilisation, democracy and peace to the rest of the world.

Now we know what she had in mind. Brutal torture camps, detention without trial, criminalising whole communities. And when people react against that and commit suicide, denounce them for pulling a cheap stunt. No Christian charity there then.

The implication is that these suicides were part of a strategy of political Islam. Whether they were or not, there is, of course, a long history of such actions borne of desperation by various causes.

The suffragettes went on hunger strike while in prison and were force fed by the authorities, causing sometimes horrific injuries. The government introduced the barbaric Cat and Mouse Act, releasing the women when they were near death and then rearresting them when they recovered. Although no women died in custody, some were so weakened they died soon afterwards. One suffragette, Emily Wilding Davison, died after trying to stop the king's horse at the Derby.

Political prisoners, from Mahatma Gandhi to Bobby Sands, have gone on hunger strikes to demand justice. However badly they were treated by the authorities, it is hard to imagine their actions being dismissed as PR.

I met up with another apologist for the Bush regime yesterday. I was on BBC Newsnight with David Aaronovitch, the Times columnist who gives Communist renegades a bad name.
One apologist wasn't enough so we also got a Washington spokeswoman. Luckily there was also Hans Blix, the former weapons inspector, who pointed out that they should have listened to him three years ago.

Aaronovitch is quick to heap bullying abuse on those like me who have always opposed the war, but less hasty to own up to his own mistakes. He also remains in awe of the rich and powerful. He famously wrote three years ago that if no WMD were found he would never believe what the prime minister said in future. But here he goes falling for it all over again. Defending the raid in east London, supporting the war on terror, and dissing Iran for remarks it didn't make about Israel.

It's like an abusive relationship.

6/13/2006 02:28:00 PM | Permalink