Lindsey's Blog

The bitter year

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:36:00 +0000

2009 was the year that the war in Afghanistan went from the 'good war' to the bad war. Public opinion in Britain and the US hardened against the war. Any pretence that it was being fought for democracy was destroyed as the election process unfolded and the scale of the corruption was revealed.

This afternoon I'm going to Downing Street with representatives of people who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan to hand in a petition calling for the troops to leave. They will be joined by relatives of soldiers who died in Iraq and former British soldiers who oppose the war.

It is the end of a bitter year for many of these families, not least the more than 100 who have lost a soldier killed in Afghanistan during 2009. The scale of deaths there this year is twice what it was last year and the past few months have been as bloody as any in terms of casualties of Nato troops.

That hasn't made the Nato powers consider their failings in this war. Exactly the opposite. Barack Obama ended the year by announcing 30,000 more US troops as part of a surge supposedly aimed at reversing the fortunes of the Taliban but which threatens to embroil Obama's presidency in the most serious war since Vietnam.

The crazy logic of the warmongers is that they need to 'deal with terrorism' in order to make countries like Britain safer, and this can only be done by waging the war on terror. Yet it is obvious that even within its own terms this argument is failing. The situation in Iraq, supposedly a success story, is in fact deteriorating with more suicide bombing and sectarian divisions. In Afghanistan, the war is present in Kabul as well as in Kandahar.

The war against the Palestinians continues. In Yemen, the Saudis have now intervened in order to 'stop terrorism'.

After eight years of this, since victory was first declared in Kabul, it seems only reasonable to ask how exactly are these serial wars making the world safer? The grievances they cause have given rise to more attacks, not fewer.

There will be a great deal of talk about the war and the troops over the holidays. None of it should hide the fact that decisions made this year will lead to more war next year. In 2010, Gordon Brown is hosting a January conference over Afghanistan. In May at the latest there will be a general election in which all the main parties will try to down play the war as an election issue, given their commitment to it and its unpopularity among the electorate.

And then there's the small matter of Tony Blair's appearance before the Chilcot inquiry. So the war on terror and its consequences will continue to make their mark.

Poppies and politics

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:14:00 +0000

Talk about a bumper harvest of opium poppies in Afghanistan. There's certainly been a bumper crop of poppies in Britain round this remembrance day. I can never remember a year when the poppies have been worn so early, so ubiquitously, and where there has been so much pressure on people to wear one.

I went on Sky on Saturday morning to debate with the sports editor of a Manchester paper who was campaigning for all the premier league football clubs to wear poppies embroidered on their kit. Manchester United and Liverpool had refused, despite being denounced by the Daily Mail. This was supposedly an unpatriotic outrage.

It seems to me that, whatever your attitude to the poppy, no one should be forced to wear one. Yet it is already clear that some people are. All newscasters and journalists are obviously told that they must sport one, and their guests are clearly strongly encouraged to do so. When you walk down the street some people wear poppies and some don't, and no one seems to worry too much about that. But they are pretty much uniform for a month or so among politicians and media.

This is all the more remarkable because for most of my life, poppy day was not promoted in this way, even though the memories of the First and Second World Wars were much more recent. Why is that? Well it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that this promotion of the poppy has something to do with Britain's involvement in the wars of the last decade. Government and military want to promote the poppy as giving in some way legitimacy to these wars.
That's the point made by the Manchester sports editor _ that it means supporting what the troops are doing.

Nothing new in that. The poppy appeal was actually launched after the First World War by Earl Haig ..the same Haig who was a general responsible for much of the bloodshed of that war. That's why to many, especially those of us who have opposed these and previous wars, the poppy has always been identified with militarism. Some pacifists wear a white poppy to make this point.

The paradox is that most people in this country (now 73%) want the troops out within a few months. So when many of them wear the poppy they do so not to support this current war but for some other reason. Maybe they are remembering the dead in past wars, maybe they want to express sorrow at the increasing rate of deaths of soldiers this year. Whatever it is, that sentiment should not be used to justify an indefensible war.

How typical that the people busiest promoting the poppy are the politicians , the media and the generals who argue for this bloodshed to continue.

Fraud turns to farce

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:46:00 +0000

I hear that Gordon Brown has congratulated Afghan president Hamid Karzai on his reelection. There hasn't of course been an election, or not since the original fraudulent one three months ago when it's generally acknowledged that around a third of votes were rigged.

But that hasn't stopped Gordon. The key thing for the 'international community' from the beginning was to give the appearance that successful elections had taken place. That plan was scuppered when the widescale fraud was reported back on the nightly news bulletins, and when a huge row broke out between UN representatives about whether to accept these tainted election results.

The already problematic second round fell apart yesterday when Karzai's opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, withdrew. The choice _ to go ahead with an uncontested election or to simply declare Karzai the winner _was a no brainer. But now the western powers are stuck with a president lacking any democratic credentials who in truth they would all rather disappeared from the scene.

Still, if the emperor has no clothes, Gordon Brown and Hillary Clinton are certainly not going to be pointing that out. Much simpler to pretend that there really has been a free and fair election and that they have a proper president. So all the congratulations, the plans for a 'unifying programme for the future of Afghanistan', the hope that this will smooth the way for more troops from the US and Europe to fight in Afghanistan.

Because Karzai is essential for one reason only: to provide spurious democratic window dressing that allows the Nato/ISAF operation to continue its war. The generals in Britain and the US are all too well aware that public opinion is turning strongly against the war. That's why they are pushing for more troops now, before it is too late.

So in the Afghan election, where fraud has turned to farce, everyone is pretending there's nothing wrong. The worsening of the war continues to show that the opposite is the case.

President who?

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:31:00 +0000

So the inquiry into the Iraq war starts taking evidence on November 24th. By then Tony Blair may be the new president of the EU, stopping the traffic in capitals around the world. Or not, if we can stop him first.

The very thought of this appointment is enough to turn the stomach of millions of protesters _ or domestic extremists as they are now called. He lied to take us into war, he ignored democratic opinion, his government came out with increasingly lame brained excuses for not finding weapons of mass destruction. And then he went off to be Quartet envoy for peace in the Middle East.

When history looks back on this period in this place, the first decade of the 21st century in the Middle East and south Asia, it is highly likely that Blair will be seen as one of the figures most preventing peace in the region.

But in a world of corrupt governments, racist politicians, crooked arms companies and servile diplomats that probably doesn't matter too much.

The military families have certainly made it clear to Sir John Chilcot, who's running the inquiry, that they believe Blair's culpability in the war has to be central to that inquiry. Meanwhile, a number of them have been campaigning: to stop Blair's presidency, over the Nimrod case, where Graham and Trish Knight have spoken so eloquently over their son's death. And of course over the rising toll in Afghanistan.

Feeling that we are making progress over our campaign to get the troops out. The demo on Saturday gave everyone a tremendous buzz, we got loads of publicity and it brought together a really good range of people. Obviously the highlights were the military families, including serving soldier Joe Glenton and his wife Clare, but also Joan Humphries, whose grandson Kevin Elliott was 210th soldier to die in Afghanistan, Paul McGurk, who recently left the army over the war, and Peter Brierley whose son died in Iraq.

There were lots of young people and students on the demo, many of whom couldn't have marched over Iraq. Now we need a winter of protests, demos, lobbies, debates and meetings to build a mass campaign. A defeat for Blair's candidacy would be a good start. After all, there is no separation between the two wars. We are winning the argument that Afghanistan is not a 'good war'. And of course the Iraq situation remains dire. Defeating the key war criminal (after George Bush of course, but at least Bush doesn't strut the world stage like a sanctimonious army chaplain) would be a blow against both occupations.

There goes that domestic extremism again.

Blood on all their hands

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:43:00 +0000

Gordon Brown's announcement that Britain is to send another 500 troops to Afghanistan shows the direction he and the leaders of the other main parties are going where the war is concerned. Despite a groundswell of opinion against the war both in Britain and internationally, the politicians are united in demanding more of the same.

It is breathtaking that he chooses the same date, time and place to announce this as he did to read the names of the dead soldiers, 37 of whom were killed during parliament's summer recess. While MPs returned obsessed with their expenses and moaning and groaning about having to pay any of them back, they hardly raised their voices in opposition to a war which all but the most dense and deluded of them know is failing.

There is an eerie unreality about all this. The last three months have been the worst in terms of Nato troop casualties in Afghanistan. The arguments of those defending the war have become more threadbare. Even the military strategy now admits that the occupation has failed to reconstruct the country and win hearts and minds.

That phrase was best known from the Vietnam war, when the same path was followed. Send in more troops, train local troops and back leaders who purport to represent the population. That's what's on offer now, plus calls for other countries to 'shoulder the burden'.

In Vietnam they defended this strategy until it collapsed, and that will happen here.

Peter Brierley, who famously and courageously last week refused to shake Blair's hand because it had blood on it, lost his son in Iraq. He is one of the many who has suffered directly because of the war on terror. While Brown solemnly read the names of the dead in parliament, he was preparing for more troops _ with more deaths, more bereaved families here and in Afghanistan.

There's blood on all their hands.

Much too high a price

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:47:00 +0000

Some devastating letters in the Guardian today pointing up the 'international community' doublespeak over Iran. John Heawood (from York Stop the War) gives us a few facts which should have been dug up by the Guardian's journalists: Israel's nuclear weapons have existed for 30 years, but their existence is officially denied. It refuses to open up its plants for inspection, and won't sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty.

Even more astonishing is the equanimity with which Israel's threats against Iran are now used by the other western powers and are 'now discussed in the media in the same breath as sanctions,' according to another letter by Lawrence Glover. Yet that's what's happening.

While Obama's concessions over the missile shield have placated Russia, the quid pro quo is a tougher line on Iran. Horror at 'secret bunkers' (known about for two years) and missile tests play on a justified fear of nuclear weapons, but fail to look at the bigger picture, which is that Iran is surrounded by countries in possession of nuclear weapons.

Israel, for example, is estimated to have 200 nuclear warheads. Pakistan, India and China have nuclear weapons. The Middle East is surrounded by US bases and ships armed with nuclear weapons.

An attack on Iran genuinely frightens many people. Not surprising. Iraq has been destroyed by war. Iraqis who have visited recently talk about streams filled with sewage, a terrible water shortage and growing sectarian tensions exacerbated by the occupation. On the other side of Iran lies Afghanistan, sunk into a deepening and worsening war. Over a million people have died in these wars, even more are refugees, yet the answer from New York last week seemed to be more of the same.

If they send more troops to Afghanistan, it will take on more of the character of Vietnam, and will lead to the deaths of more soldiers. If they allow Israel to bomb Iran then the whole Middle East will become a theatre of war.

Few anywhere in the world can want the escalation of the war on terror (now given the anodyne name of 'overseas contingency operations' by the Obama administration), after what we have seen over the last eight years. One reason for the 12 percent vote for Die Linke in the German elections was the left party's strong opposition to the Afghan war.

There is a growing movement again, most importantly here in Britain. Unlike previous wars, military families are among the most disaffected at a war which they see as unwinnable and in which they understand their loved ones will be the ones to pay the price for bankrupt politicians.

Obama: the right resurgent

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:43:00 +0000

I went to New York and all I got was a lousy photo. That might be the sentiment of Mahmoud Abbas as he heads back to Palestine. It might also be that of Barack Obama. The summit between Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu and Abbas has been greeted widely as a predictable failure. Obama has been openly rebuffed in his attempts to halt Israeli settlements. Netanyahu and his far right foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, are putting two fingers up at the very moderate demands of the Obama administration.

Obama's troubles are now much greater than this immediate issue. His domestic politics have become stuck in the mire over health care reform and that impacts onto his foreign policy decisions. The right wing staged a large demonstration in Washington recently where they used the backlash over health care to mobilise around a range of issues. As former president Jimmy Carter said, a lot of this is about racism. The coalition which helped get Obama elected seems nowhere near as mobilised.

The Israelis are not the only ones riding this wave. General Stanley McChrystal, head of US armed forces in Afghanistan, has predicted failure for the Nato mission there unless...they send in more troops. Obama is so far resisting this but behind McChrystal stand the Republican right who brought us this war in the first place.

My bet is that they will force Obama into a 'surge' of troops (the figure of 30,000 is suggested on top of the 68,000 already there) before too long. That will mean further pressure on the British and other European governments to 'do their bit' and send more troops themselves. Gordon Brown seems prepared to send another 2000 British soldiers, despite the death toll of 217 _ all but 6 of those killed in the last three and a half years.

The British remain the most devoted followers of US imperialism. Even Silvio Berlusconi wants to get Italian troops out, following 6 dead in a Kabul suicide bombing last week. Afghanistan and troop withdrawal is a major issue in the German election this weekend. Canada has set a date to withdraw.

Obama is in danger of creating a new Vietnam, with more and more troops dragged in to an unwinnable war. As the right increase their pressure, anti war sentiment is also growing, with recent US polls showing a majority believing the war is wrong. Something has to give.

While on the subject of Afghanistan, my quote of the week is from home secretary Alan Johnson, who expressed his 'delight' at the 'swift and decisive' way French police cleared the makeshift refugee camp in Calais yesterday. So a Labour government minister delights in children crying and homeless, thousands of miles from their homes and families. But why not? After all, we've bombed and invaded their countries in the first place. These refugees are mostly Afghans, also Iraqis and Eritreans. Spot the connection?

What's in a name?

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:04:00 +0000

One of the weirdest manifestations of hostility to Muslims is concern about children's names. A couple of months ago it was reported that nearly all the most popular names of new born boys in Brussels were of Muslim origin. The right wing journalist Max Hastings joined in with a column which complained that Mohammed was actually one of the most popular names of British babies, but this fact was disguised by the different spellings of the name being listed separately.

You might think that people would have better things to do than check different spellings of names and aggregate the totals. Obviously not. Maybe Max should check whether 'Max', 'Maxim' and 'Maximilian' are listed separately, or 'John' and 'Jon'.

But that's unlikely to happen because this isn't about propriety of name spelling. The not so sub- text is clear: the Muslims are taking over Europe and driving out traditional Christian values. This is a variation on the familiar arguments that 'it's not our country any more' or 'whites don't have rights in this country'. The truth is that this is not even just about Muslims. Hastings writes 'the Muslim population of Britain is growing extraordinarily fast'. He immediately follows this with 'In 2007, 28 percent of children born in England and Wales, rising to 54 percent in London, had at least one foreign born parent.'

Foreign born is not of course the same as Muslim. Many of these parents will be Australian, French, Italian. Some will be Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Sikhs. Conversely, many Muslim parents will not be 'foreign born' but second or third generation British.

Despite their 'Britishness' however, many Muslims suffer discrimination as a result of their race or religion. Muslims suffer some of the worst housing, poverty, education and jobs in Britain. They are a tiny minority in Europe (in Britain 2 million out of 60 million) but are portrayed in the media as dominant, aggressive and refusing to integrate, harbouring within their separate communities extremists and terrorists who want to destroy 'our way of life' and 'western values'.

This is a travesty. But the interesting question is why it happens and where it comes from. Of course there are the hardline racists and fascists. The BNP has increasingly campaigned over Muslims and Islam. The English Defence League have organised provocative demonstrations against Muslims. It was heartening to see so many people, Muslims and non Muslims, coming out onto the streets to stop them from marching in Harrow recently.

But the fascists have been encouraged at every turn by media and politicians, who have engaged in scapegoating. I see that Jack Straw is supposed to be willing to debate the fascist Nick Griffin on Question Time. But it was he who expressed concern at having to talk with women wearing the veil. Funny sense of priorities.

I was reminded of all this at the Stop the War student conference last week where the speaker from Fosis (the Islamic students' organisation) made a powerful speech quoting Shakespeare's Henry V. Max Hastings just wouldn't understand. He thinks 'it seems fantastically naive to suppose that many of these newcomers [to Britain] -or even their children born here- will start reading Jane Austen or tuning in to the Archers.'

If the Archers is the new 'cricket test' then we're really in trouble.

Solidarity forever

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:53:00 +0000

It's a tribute to all those who have campaigned for Palestine, especially in the last year over Gaza, that the TUC has passed a resolution calling for boycott and critical of the Israeli union Histradut. At the first hint that this had been accepted at a meeting of the General Council _ by a majority of one_ the Israeli embassy was on to Downing Street trying to get the Brown government to pressurise the general secretaries of the unions to soften their approach. Or at least that was the very strong rumour going round the conference in Liverpool this week.

Doesn't this add up to unwarranted interference into the affairs of the TUC? And isn't it shocking that the government immediately does the embassy's bidding.

But however much there are attempts to water it down, the resolution shows how deeply solidarity with the Palestinians runs within the British working class movement, as we saw over the demos in Gaza and the twinning and boycott campaigns which have sprung up everywhere.

I was in Liverpool for a Stop the War meeting which was to raise money for the Palestinians. The 600 strong meeting raised £4000 but also heard speeches about Palestine (George Galloway put a strong argument for a one state solution) and Afghanistan. The meeting was by far the biggest of the TUC fringe - held in the Adelphi hotel and also with a large number of Liverpudlians.

We were there the same day as Gordon Brown addressed Congress, where he devoted one sentence to the war in Afghanistan. As one speaker said, he couldn't even come and defend to the unions why he supported the war. My suggestion was that if he wanted to cut public spending he could start by scrapping Trident and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the experience of Liverpool this week is anything to go on, war and occupation remain key issues inside the working class movement. The shame of Brown is that while Tony Blair really seemed to believe in these wars with a messianic fervour, Brown doesn't _ but he still carries on with them .

Corruption: surely not?

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:52:00 +0000

The count for the Afghan election must be the longest in the world...and every week prolongs the agony. Now as the Afghan authorities plan to declare Hamid Karzai the winner with over 50 percent of the vote, there is great upset among the western governments who are squirming at the levels of fraud and corruption. Results from nearly 500 polling stations are being disqualified.

Remember three months ago when extra British troops were sent to Afghanistan ..to ensure that fair elections took place? The government knew then that wasn't going to happen. Hamid Karzai's government ranks among the top ten most corrupt in the world. But the western powers hoped that no one would notice the fraud. Fat chance of that with pictures of hundreds of ballot papers being filled in by one man.

Now there are calls for a rerun. But let's remember this isn't one of the countries, for example Iran or Zimbabwe, where the major powers criticise from afar and if they can send in 'indepedendent observers' to oversee the ballot (we could do with a few of those to oversee our MPs' expenses). This is a country occupied by the west, who drew up its electoral system and who backed Karzai as their man after the Taliban were defeated in 2001.

The talk of bringing democracy was a lie then and it is exposed now. But the cost of that lie is being paid by the now 213 British soldiers dead (all but 6 since 2006).

The latest casualty was a soldier involved in a raid to rescue a British journalist captured by the Taliban. Unfortunately , an Afghan translator was also killed in this raid. Afghan journalists are outraged that the Sultan Munadi's body was not rescued with that of the dead soldier, and that he may well have been killed by British fire.

Angry protests at double standards have greeted the death. It is also clear that negotiations which could have freed everyone safely were going ahead.

Another great success in winning hearts and minds.

Ainsworth's army

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:36:00 +0000

Bob Ainsworth reminds me of something, but I'm not sure what. Maybe it's the recruiting sergeant in Richard Attenborough's film of Joan Littlewood's Oh what a lovely war. Maybe it's one of the less interesting characters in Dad's Army. He certainly doesn't fit in with my image of a minister in a Labour government. But I have a feeling that's because I'm stuck with an image of Labour ministers which doesn't really make sense any more.

After all, Bob is the latest in a line of Secretaries of State for Defence who have repeated every MOD line, milked deaths for a jingoistic moment, and denounced those of us who oppose the wars they have dragged us into.

Now Bob's at it again. In this week's New Statesman he bemoans that 'some in the UK believe the fight is not worth it'. He's quite right _ a definite majority, it appears from all the polls. He calls this 'defeatism'. What on earth is this meant to convey? I fear that it is a cynical attempt to defend the war in Afghanistan by harking back to the terminology of the Second World War.

Government ministers want to give the impression that the enemy is at the gates, that anyone who doesn't side with the government is on the other side. Partly they have to do so, because they have to pretend that this is a defensive war. How better to do this than to reference an age when careless talk cost lives and when any 'defeatist' could be pilloried by right minded people. They also have to pretend that the enemy is at least distantly related to Adolf Hitler and therefore has to be opposed.

The British are old hands at this: they said it of the Arab nationalist Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, over Suez, of Argentina's General Galtieri in 1982, and of course Saddam Hussein since, well since he stopped being their best friend in the Middle East.

It appears that Ainsworth was moved to this thought by the comment of a British officer 'We are here to help the Afghan people and to protect national security'. As he says, 'I was struck by his words'. No offence to the officer concerned, but I can't see why, since they represent exactly the kind of platitudes peddled by the army and government all the time.

Many soldiers don't accept this view, but like Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, who is facing court martial, feel that they should not be in Afghanistan. So do the growing number of 'defeatists' here, who ask what is the point of more deaths when they struggle daily to figure out the government's war aims.

Labour ministers promoting this scoundrel patriotism should be ashamed of themselves. The problem is they're not.

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:47:00 +0000

The last respectable racism

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:56:00 +0000

Those who oppose immigration usually use the argument that the country is too overcrowded. It's nothing to do with racism, they say, we just can't cope with all these people. But scratch the surface and you find that it's people of particular colours and from particular parts of the world who tend to generate the greatest fear and loathing from the anti immigration crowd.

I was reminded of this after reading an article by Adrian Michaels in the Telegraph. There's a demographic time bomb transforming Europe, he says. Muslims are poised to take over...maybe. Even his facts don't really bear this out. Take the juxtaposition of these sentences: 'Only 3.2 percent of Spain's population was foreign born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 percent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015.'

Yet does this increase in Spain's foreign born population represent an increase in Muslims? No, the figure is for all foreign born, which will include large numbers of Spanish speakers from latin America (largely Catholics by religion). It will also include many other Europeans. One big increase in the years between 1998 and 2007 has been the internal migration of Europeans between different EU states. We know that around 1 million Britons live in Spain. It's a fair bet that nearly all of these are non Muslims. Many of them move to Spain for the sun, sea and cheap sangria. It's also fairly obvious that they don't integrate very well into Spanish society, given that many live in English speaking coastal enclaves and don't seem to understand basic planning regulations in the country they have made their home.

But scares about immigrants aren't about white Europeans, they are about people who don't 'fit in' to 'our way of life': men with beards, women with hijabs, people whose religion is not Christian, and whose language is not European. Michaels quotes a Pew Research report which says that the EU countries 'possess deep historical, cultural, religious and linguistic traditions. Injecting hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people who look, speak and act differently into these settings often makes for a difficult social fit.'

Well Europe does possess deep traditions, but they're not all the same. It is divided by religion _a major source of tension including wars in the past. It has been riven by social, political and cultural divisions. European powers went to war twice in the 20th century with terrible consequences. Spain and Portugal continued their right wing or fascist dictatorships, with acquiescence from the other powers, for 30 years after the Second World War.

The current consensus of Europe as the seat of everything enlightened hardly bears much scrutiny. Religious toleration, scientific advance, human rights and freedom of expression all had to be fought for against bitter and often brutal opposition. And the last century did produce two world wars, dictatorship, fascism and the Holocaust, all in civilised Europe.

Of course language and culture have developed within Europe, although often with other roots and influences. But what's to stop non Europeans from learning English (as they do in their overwhelming majority when they come here) or appreciating Michelangelo? Anyway a person born in Europe is European. Get used to it.

But this isn't about culture, it's about race. Here's a clue: 'whites will be in a minority in Birmingham by 2026, says Christopher Caldwell, an American journalist, (read right wing neo con) and even sooner in Leicester'. So all the talk about culture, tradition, preserving 'our way of life' is a smokescreen _ it's about race and class. That's why, according to these people, it's acceptable for whites to live in Spain, or for relatively large numbers of French, Italian or Australian professionals to live in London, but not for workers who are Afro Caribbeans, Indians and Pakistanis to live in Birmingham.

Here the Muslims endure a double whammy. Long discriminated against on racial grounds, along with their black and Asian brothers and sisters of other religions or none, they also face racism in jobs, housing and education. But now their religion is used as code to attack blacks and Asians in the most reactionary way in Austria, the Netherlands, and increasingly here in Britain. Islamophobia has become the last 'respectable' racism in Europe, with those perpetrating it propagating the deceit that they are against religion not race.

Last week we had a pathetic demo against Islam in Birmingham called by among others the English Defence League who said in the Guardian: 'It is the people who threaten with bombs
and violence and threaten and bomb our troops -- they don't belong here.' That's exactly what the Iraqis and Afghans feel about the British and US troops in their countries. And I'm glad to see that black and white people in Birmingham engaged in that good old tradition of opposition to racism and fascism in their home city.
>

Women's liberation lite

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:40:00 +0000

Where would the newspapers be in August without Harriet Harman? She is not only standing in for the prime minister in the Labour government that they love to hate but she's a woman and a feminist. She has made a series of (allegedly) outrageous statements including that there should always be a woman at the highest level of government, that men can't be trusted to do things on their own, that Lehman Brothers would have been run differently if it were Lehman Sisters, and that we should have tougher rape laws.

Predictably she has been attacked by John Prescott, which I would take as something of a compliment, but it seems to me that the level of vitriol against her is out of all proportion to what she said, regardless of whether you agree with all of it. Can it be that even the gentlest critique of the male dominated politics of the City and Westminster grates on too many nerves?

After all, some of the worst sexual harassment cases which come to tribunals emanate from the banks and broking rooms, as in the case where one businesswoman recently said she was compelled to visit lap dancing clubs in order to keep clients company. Meanwhile it is estimated that it will take 40 elections _ yes, elections _ for women to be equally represented in parliament.

But at the same time, I do have reservations about some of Harman's comments. This is after all women's liberation lite, on a par with the ads where women all meet over a bottle of wine to slag off men. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it's what's not said that is so revealing.

A real defence of women would include defending maternity leave, and campaigning against women who are pregnant being forced out of jobs. It would also include defending jobs under attack in the present recession, whether the job losses were instigated by men or women bosses. It would also mean rejecting war and occupation as a means of defending women's liberation.

This is where, it seems to me, Harman falls down. Her involvement in a government which defends factory closures, believes that rights at work have to be subjugated to the profit motive, and has enthusiastically waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, means that she has a strong verbal commitment to equality which is not matched in practice.

The really shocking statistics about the growth of inequality in Britain or that social mobility is less likely for young people today than it was a generation ago reflect very badly on the government and impact particularly hard on women.

They don't happen because men can't be left to do things on their own or because men are necessarily more belligerent (remember Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands) but because the drive to profit and the drive to war are connected, and that both show a disregard for human life.

In this respect, women like Harriet Harman are backing policies which are detrimental to women. She's not alone. It seems that there are no end of feminist journalists, managers and businesswomen, and politicians telling women how to behave. After all, the whole ethos today is that nothing is beyond the reach of women as long as they are prepared to walk over everyone else, if necessary in their 5 inch heels.

Women's liberation was never meant to be about that. Nor could it ever be about liberating women by waging imperialist war. Women's liberation can only succeed if it's about challenging the rich and powerful in a society which puts profit before people. Don't hold your breath waiting for any government minister _ man or woman _to do that.

The value of protest

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:25:00 +0000

Could you really credit the new guidelines for citizenship? You get points for canvassing for a political party (no conflict of interest there!) but you can be penalised for demonstrating against British troops. Points are deducted for failure to integrate or 'an active disregard of UK values'.

This has widely been spun as penalising those like the tiny group of protesters in Luton who demonstrated against a parade of troops. That demonstration has become one of the most reported and publicised of any local demo, an almost too convenient example of 'extremists' against 'our way of life.'

While few would agree with some of the sentiments expressed on that demo, protesting against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does not represent 'active disregard for UK values'. You could argue the opposite: since public opinion, according to all polls, wants a rapid withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, then anti war demos more represent 'UK values' than the vociferous pro war lobby of military and politicians.

There is something very disconcerting and even scary about this points system. Who decides which values are acceptable or not? And where do you draw the line? The government ministers say they don't want protests against British troops, but who decides which anti war demo is against troops, and which against the government? At what point do all anti war demos become guilty of 'disregard for UK values'?

What about other issues? For example, where cleaners have had to demonstrate against exploitative employers; or demonstrations against the deportation of immigrants?

The truth is that there is almost total subjectivity on this question. What those proposing these tightening of immigration rules are arguing for is cultural and political homogeneity. You can come here as long as you don't protest or question the government (or its loyal opposition) too much.

This assumes a chasm between indigenous British citizens and those who migrate here _ politically, culturally and socially. It takes for granted that those from abroad have to 'integrate' in other words change in order to become more like us. It also takes for granted that British people share the same values _they don't. They are comprised of monarchists and republicans, atheists and deeply religious people, racists and anti racists _ and none of the above.

Government ministers who have presided over complicity in torture, the expenses scandal and the lengthening of the period of imprisonment without trial are great supporters of the supposed British values of liberty, honesty and fair play. But these values are not applied to many of its citizens, and are even more nebulous for those who come to this country as immigrants or refugees.

British people have always had to fight for their rights: the Chartists and early trade unionists against vicious employers; demonstrators against the police and government restrictions on their right to protest; women and working class men to get the vote.

Those fights and many more still continue, involving both people who were born here and those who have come to Britain from other parts of the world. One of the fights we all have an interest in is opposing these citizenship laws, whose not so hidden aim is to divide people on the basis of race or nation. Upholding the long tradition of protest in Britain is the best way to do so.

Don't let them jaw jaw us into war war

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:34:00 +0000

I was sorry to miss the great meeting at Conway Hall last night where the courageous Afghan woman MP, Malalai Joya, spoke about her experiences opposing the warlords and the occupation. Unfortunately suspected swine flu laid me low all week, and although I was beginning to recover it would probably have been unwise to speak to an audience of 300 people.

That meant I also missed the British soldier Joe Glenton, who has refused to return to fight in Afghanistan and who faces a court martial in August for going absent without leave. We at Stop the War get the feeling there are many people like him in the army or related to soldiers, who actually oppose the war. In fact, we know there are because so often people come up to stalls or places where people are petititoning and tell them just that.

I think one of the most sickening things about any war is the way that the pundits and politicians adopt a gung ho and patriotic attitude, cheering on fighting that they will never be involved in at close range, ignoring any facts or opinions which inconveniently get in their way. The First World War poet Wilfred Owen spoke for his comrades when he wrote his series of poems not just describing the horrors of war but also the cynicism and ignorance of those who sent them to fight.

The Sun used one of his lines for their headline to salute the dead soldiers coming back from Afghanistan: 'These men are worth your tears.' Owen added another, bitter line (which was not quoted): 'You are not worth their merriment' - by which he meant that the warmongers should not take comfort from any humanity or humour the troops expressed while fighting a monstrous war.

The socialist and suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst described a weekend visit to raise funds for a good cause at the stately home of Lady Astor where the lady screeched 'why aren't you in khaki?' at a young man she overtook in her car.

The politicians and their supporters casually take us into these wars and just as casually defend them until eventually they casually concede that maybe the war will have to end. 'We have to finish the job', 'we can't criticise our troops', 'things would be worse if we left' are the stock phrases which substitute for rigorous thinking. No wonder the politicians' stock is so low.

But let's also consider the military, which tends to get a much better press than the politicians _ partly because I reckon 80% of those interviewed on this subject are military not politicians. The general view is that they only follow orders. Not true. We now have near daily pronouncements by top brass _ the latest being Sir Jock Stirrup _about how we need more troops, helicopters, public spending for the war.

That shouldn't be their job in a democracy where the army is supposed to serve the elected government. There is of course a long history of how that doesn't happen, especially when there's a Labour government.

Labour is truly caught here _ banging the drum for war but still despised by the Tory Sandhurst crowd.

If we're not careful it will end in even more tears, which is why we have to keep reiterating that majority opinion wants the troops out (last week's Independent on Sunday showed 64% in favour). There is no surge of opinion in favour of this war as far as I can see, and we shouldn't allow the military the chance to create one.

This is why the movement matters

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:20:00 +0000

They really can't afford to lose this one. That's why, despite the sparseness of their arguments, the pro war lobby are desperate. One interesting aspect of the recent debate over British involvement in Afghanistan is the effect it's having in Washington. Britain has been the US's partner in crime in the war on terror and has been so doggedly loyal for so long that there is "some level of anxiety", according to the Financial Times (16 July 2009), about whether it will continue in this role.

An official in Obama's administration said, "It's hard to see our most capable partner struggling in this debate. When it happens in a country like Germany, you think, 'well, that's Germany and they have special difficulties in light of the upcoming [German] elections', but when it happens in London it hits hard." He added: "If we are going to have to backfill European countries that decide to leave, could we sustain that with US public opinion? That's an open question."

Bruce Riedel, an analyst at the Brookings Institution said: "The British are crucial to the Nato mission in Afghanistan. Public opinion here will be affected negatively against the war if our key ally in Helmand starts to look for a path out."

If there were any argument that we need to keep on doing what we are doing, it is this. The Americans desperately need the British, as they did in Iraq, for political cover, to convince their own people that the war has wide support. Both Britain and the US are desperate to prosecute the war, fearing that a loss in Afghanistan following the disaster of Iraq would be too much for them to sustain.

Building a troops out campaign over the next few months will make it clear to the Obama administration, and even more importantly to the US population, that they can no longer pretend that they have international support for this war.

A small by product of this campaign would be to scupper Tony Blair's chances of becoming president of the European Union. That this propoosition has even surfaced shows the lack of self recognition let alone contrition among Labour's leading lights, who cheerfully went into the voting lobbies for war in Iraq. The former minister Denis MacShane describes Blair as having the 'standing and authority' for the job. With whom? Obviously with Denis MacShane..anyone else? Oh, Glenys Kinnock.

Haven't they noticed Iraq? Lebanon? Afghanistan? Labour losing a million votes in the 2005 general election, generally attributed to the Iraq war. Not to mention a growth in inequality, privatisation of public services and attacks on working conditions.

Such an appointment, just as when he was appointed the envoy for peace in the Middle East, would be met with a mixture of incredulity, bitterness and disgust, yet another example of criminality being rewarded. What next? Silvio Berlusconi as commissioner for women's equality?

Blair's shamelessness is another form of the political bankruptcy and elitism which makes so many people feel there is something rotten in the state of Britain. The rich and powerful are always rewarded, and carry on oblivious to the plight of those who suffer in war.

Denying Blair this prize would be a prize in itself.

Spinning out of control

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:08:00 +0000

The fall out from the eight deaths of British soldiers at the end of last week goes on. The debate about what the war is for, and whether it is the right thing to do, is at the centre of British politics, and looks like staying there for the time being. The worst argument I have heard is that it would be a betrayal of those who have already died to withdraw the troops. What a terrible justification for a war, which would logically mean opposing the armistice in 1918 because it would be a betrayal of the millions who had died.

This 'I've started so I'll finish' argument was also deployed in Iraq as the war and occupation became increasingly bogged down, defending a rotten and unpopular government, and facing growing resistance from a population suffering from the occupation.

Sound familiar? It doesn't stop them repeating the same errors in Afghanistan. The politicians are increasingly calling for more troops or more equipment. They sense the unpopularity of the war but don't have the honesty to call for a withdrawal. Instead, they peddle the line that a few thousand more troops or more helicopters will make all the difference. They will not admit that this war has failed in every one of its aims.

It was originally launched by George Bush and Tony Blair in order to capture Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Its other justification was humanitarian intervention, including Laura Bush and Cherie Blair calling for war to help liberate women. None of these aims has been even remotely successful. Bush had to stop talking about bin Laden in the later years of his presidency because it drew attention to his failure.

So now we have another series of spurious arguments: that we are protecting democracy in Afghanistan or stopping terrorism on the streets of Britain. These arguments might have more purchase if the war were a few months old, but it has been going on for eight years. Eight years where the Taliban has emerged stronger, where the war has spread and where the connection between terrorist attacks in Britain and the prosecution of the war on terror is palpable.

This is a terrible dilemma for the enthusiasts for the war. They really have no coherent argument. So they resort to exhortation and desperate hope that it will turn out better than they fear. Having lost in Iraq, Britain and America have to win over Afghanistan. But they aren't.

Hence the onslaught of spin, calls to patriotism and (apparently) the wearing of black ties by Sky presenters when the 8 soldiers died. Hence also the Guardian poll which showed a narrow majority opposed to the war, and a total of 56% who want the troops out by the end of the year, headlined as 'Public support for war is firm'. Another poll, from ITN which puts support for troops out at 59%, is described by Guardian political editor, Patrick Wintour, as 'contradict[ing] a Newsnight Guardian poll...showing increased support for the war. '

No it didn't...both showed a majority for troops out. And I reckon that's firm support.

The week the 'good war' turned bad

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:33:00 +0000

It is said by the Guardian that the British government is very worried that the war in Afghanistan is becoming more unpopular. I don't know why ministers are surprised. Yesterday
the number of British troops killed there surpassed the total deaths of british troops in Iraq and is now, if the past week is anything to go by, rapidly heading to the 200 mark. Nearly all these deaths have occurred in the past three years, since the British went into Helmand province.

Indeed the deaths last year were only slightly lower than the most lethal year of the conflict in Iraq.

Defence Secretary John Reid said when he sent the troops in that he hoped they could leave again without a shot being fired.In this past long week in Afghanistan British soldiers were being killed at the rate of one day and where suddenly the death toll over one 24 hour period went up to eight. It adds up to 15 troops killed in the past ten days.

These figures have sobered up even the most gung ho media coverage, which has gone from triumph to tears in just a couple of weeks. Still, the banality of some of the reporting really takes your breath away. The worst day ever, they say. The bloodiest day. Agreed, for the British army. But maybe the Afghans feel a little differently after seeing film and photos of survivors from the airstrike on a village in May which killed over 140 people.
And here's the rub. This is a war, where Afghans will fight back against British or any other Nato troops who attack them. This is the 'good war' which has turned bad.

It seems to surprise some journalists. The embedded BBC reporter talked the other day about the Taliban standing their ground and fighting, as though this were somehow not playing by the Queensberry rules. There are repeated complaints that the Taliban use roadside bombs which are hidden. Yet this is an admission that the British army, one of the best financed and best equipped in the world, cannot deal with bombs made with mobile phones and improvised explosives from gas canisters.

Calls come from politicians for better protection, more money spent on vehicles and body armour. Of course it is hypocritical for politicians who bang the drum about the war to then fail to will the finances to pay for equipment. But this is not the central issue. The war is failing and will continue to fail because it is not about a noble cause, the protection of the Afghan people or _
most bizarrely _the protection of people in Britain.

It is about US and British control of a region which has long been the subject of inter imperialist rivalry. The Taliban are not the mortal enemies of the US _ their representatives visited Texas a decade ago to discuss an oil pipeline through the country, and as recently as last year there were secret talks with the Taliban to try to achieve peace.

The renewed fighting means another strategy is being pursued. In the course of that the foreign secretary, David Miliband, and the defence minister Bob Ainsworth, make a series of justifications which are straightforward lies. They say they are defending the Afghan government, but it is one of the most corrupt in the world. They say they are helping the Afghan people, but ten times as much is spent on military in the country as on reconstruction.
And they say they are protecting people here, all the while that they recognise the likelihood of future terrorism being fuelled by this war.

Gordon Brown said yesterday that 'there is a chain of terror that runs from the mountains and towns of Afghanistan to the streets of Britain'. Yet it is the war on terror that has increased terrorism and more and more people see Brown's arguments for the self serving ones that they are.

It is striking how, even among the friends and families of dead and wounded soldiers, there is growing unease about the war, and some outright calls for the troops to come home. They are right. Those who call for more troops to go there, or for more money to be spent, are not helping the troops but doing them a disservice.

Vietnam was the same: more troops were poured in, more politicians declared that this was the only way to maintain democracy and freedom. But the Americans lost, and who now justifies that war?

History will look back at the terrible cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wonder what on earth the major powers thought they were doing in the 21st century creating a wasteland in one of the poorest countries in the world _ and why people put up with it so long. It's time to organise.

Protest: Monday 13th July, 5-7pm, Downing Street.

It's the war what's done it

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:19:00 +0000

The connection between the Afghan war and prejudice against Muslims here is getting stronger. One of the main arguments put by defence minister Bob Ainsworth _ the latest in a line of Labour cheerleaders for the military and all its works _ is that this war is necessary to protect us in Britain from terrorist attack.

Think about it. There were no terrorist attacks in Britain before the war on terror began in 2001. There were no attacks before the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. In other words, any attacks on Britain took place after we were part of the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Surely that points to the fact that the wars helped to worsen the terrorism, not the other way round.

It's impossible to list all that Britain and the US have done in the past eight years to exacerbate this threat of terrorism, but they include bombing and killing innocent civilians on a horrific scale; the torture at Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay; support for the Afghan government, one of the most corrupt in the world; the concoction of evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; the vote for a war which the vast majority of the world's population opposed.

No wonder that some people around the world want to respond, in however misguided a way, by hitting back. In response, the level of repression in Britain and the US has increased. The terror laws are far more drastic than anything passed during the IRA bombing campaigns. There is growing evidence of torture, the latest and shocking case described by David Davies in parliament being where the British secret services effectively outsourced arrest and torture of a suspect to their counterparts in Pakistan.

And the latest calls to 'ban the burkha' are a direct attempt to link the war in Afghanistan (where most women wear burkhas) to Muslims here (where hardly any women wear the burkha). There is something of a deluge of stories about attacks on Muslims: an attack on an Islamic charity shop in Glasgow, on a mosque in Greenwich, an anti Muslim demo in Birmingham.

Most horrifying is the story of the Egyptian woman in Germany who took her Islamophobic neighbour to court, where he produced a knife and killed her. Her husband was shot by a security guard when he tried to protect her.

The equation of Muslim with extremist with terrorist is the one which creates an atmosphere where these vile attacks are able to flourish. Muslims become 'the enemy within' and become fair game for every racist and fascist. And the war in Afghanistan is fuelling these ideas.

Unrepentant empire

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:22:00 +0000

The long shadow of the Iraq war still hangs over British politics.

Instead of assuaging worries about the government's role in the war, and drawing a line under it, Gordon Brown's announcement of an inquiry into the war rekindled all the opposition and discontent which led to the mass movement against the war in the first place.

Brown's own goal is quite remarkable. Just days after committing to greater transparency and democracy he announced an inquiry in secret, which would not apportion blame and would be conducted by four knights and a baroness.

One of the knights, Sir John Chilcot, sat on the Butler inquiry - widely regarded as a whitewash; another, Sir Martin Gilbert, historian of Winston Churchill, said George Bush and Tony Blair might be compared to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Churchill; a third, Sir Laurence Freedman, wrote Blair's Chicago speech on humanitarian intervention in 1999.

Hardly an unbiased bunch. Even Butler has now said that Brown is putting his interests before national interest. The military top brass have complained, and the Tories have tabled a parliamentary debate. None of these people objected to the war before it happened. But that
was then.

Why are they making a fuss now? First, Gordon Brown has hung on as prime minister but he has no real power. His government is at an all time low, with disastrous European parliament election results, a rash of ministers sacked or having resigned over the expenses scandal and
strong odds on a Tory government within the year. The second reason is the damage the war did to the establishment. The generals are worried that the military has been permanently harmed by the war and that a secret inquiry will do nothing to redress this.

The decision by parliament to vote for war in March 2003 produced contempt for politicians which only increased with the expenses scandal. So the Iraq war marks a political failure in Britain as well as in the Middle East.

This matters because the imperialist project remains intact, despite the departures of Bush and Blair. That was clear from Barack Obama's speech in Cairo last month. It was well received in some quarters and was heralded as a new beginning. Some of it had an appeal. After years of Bush promoting militant Christianity and talking of crusades, Obama's quoting from the Koran, defending women wearing the hijab and talking about the Muslim contribution to civilisation and learning was a welcome change.

However, the speech beyond the soundbites is a rather different matter. Obama mostly reiterated US policy formulated by Bush and Bill Clinton before him. He made it clear that "violent extremism" was the cause of many of the problems between the US and the "Muslim world" and that this justified the war in Afghanistan.

He stated, "America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable." Obama called for a two-state solution and criticised the settlements, but failed to mention, let alone condemn, the bombardment of Gaza which killed more than 1,300 in January. While his speech is credited with forcing an acknowledgement of a Palestinian state from right wing Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel still proceeds with its settlements.

Obama also dealt with nuclear weapons, women's rights, democracy and economic development. Here the message was clear: the Middle East and south Asia could benefit from the modernity and free markets which the US is so eager to spread round the world.

He referred to misunderstandings between the US and Muslims. Strange that these "misunderstandings" began when the US started to take a greater interest in the oil-rich region of the Middle East.

US troops remain in Iraq and are being poured into Afghanistan. Obama claimed that the US had no desire for a permanent presence or bases in these countries. But there are very few countries invaded or occupied by the US where it has not maintained bases, and there are a string of bases across the Middle East and Asia.

There are now more British troops in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq. The rate of deaths of British soldiers there is increasing. But the war is not being won, with talk of it becoming a new 30-year war or a new Vietnam. The legacy of Iraq weighs heavily on the British ruling class and hampers its ability to fight this and future wars. Hence the need for closure on Iraq and why many top military figures and Tories are critical of Brown's proposal.

Brown is too weak not to make some concessions on this. Iraq just won't go away, and now we have a year's inquiry to remind people what their opposition to the war was all about.

Shutting the door on the poor

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:24:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:07:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Lindsey German) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:44:00 +0000

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.