Shot in the Foot

Tim Johnston (22/01/10)

If the British government were in school, it’d receive an “F”.

The new foreign policy for Yemen, following the attempted bomb plot by Omar Al-Farouk over Christmas break, is one that has met little criticism.  This is hardly surprising.  People tend to be appeased so long as their government seems to be doing something – no matter what it is – to reduce the threat of Al-Qaeda and improve security.

Omar Al-Farouk was, it would seem, “radicalised” in Yemen, and became an active member of Al-Qaeda (however, we must note that despite Al-Qaeda’s usual process of taking credit for attacks that it committed, Al-Farouk did not plead guilty).

We have retaliated in the most backward way possible.  The British government has decided to invest 5% of its national overseas counter-terrorism aid in Yemen, and has collaborated with the US government in creating a counter-terrorism police force in Yemen, to the tune of over $100 million.  Meanwhile, for the past few months, Saudi Arabia has been bombing Northern Yemen, destroying as much of the Northern population as possible.  This has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being made homeless, hundreds dead, driving them into even deeper poverty and creating an even more fertile ground for extremism.

It is not only Saudi Arabia that has been at the forefront of the attack, however.  Unknown to (or perhaps, well hidden from) the public, the United States has taken part in a bombing campaign with Saudi Arabia for the past few months.  Not only this, but the CIA has been giving tens of millions of dollars to the Yemeni government in order to increase its military/intelligence capabilities.

The idea that the US could both bomb a country and, simultaneously, provide aid to it, is one that at first seems counter-productive.  However, the Houthi population of Yemen has been on the negative side of the Yemeni government for over forty years.  The Houthi’s represent a Shi’ite majority in the North in comparison to, more generally, making up roughly 50% of the country’s population.  The Yemeni government has stated that Houthi fighters wish to see the return of a Shia government, the last of which was overthrown in a military coup, in 1962.  However, the Houthi’s claim that this is false, and that they are fighting for equal rights, civil liberties and economic and religious equality – something that has been rigorously denied to the Shia population in the North, and the Shia population as a whole.  Relations between the Houthi’s and the Yemeni government were relatively calm until August 11th, 2004, when the Yemeni military launched a huge military campaign against the fighters in the North.  It is from this point on that Saudi Arabia and the United States increased their involvement, both militarily and financially.  (It is now the case that Yemen is receiving double the amount of aid than was previously provided to it by the US, to $121 million).

The British and American government’s solution to Al-Farouk and the “threat of Al-Qaeda” is, as we have already seen, to give the Yemeni government more money, military intervention and military training, and the setting up of special government units, the Yemeni army etc., to crush “those violent extremists who target civilians without mercy or remorse”; according to the peace-loving Hillary Clinton.

The actions of the British and American governments have resulted in Houthi leaders and Al-Qaeda spokesmen in Yemen issuing statements telling us that we’ve made things a whole lot worse for ourselves, and that retaliation will continue, will become stronger etc.  Again, this is nothing new.

Our government knows full well that any extra intervention (or any intervention at all, for that matter) in Yemen and/or elsewhere, will result in “blowback” (the CIA’s term for “consequences” – recognition of the fact that if we decide to bomb someone, someone will probably decide to bomb us back).

The question as to “why bother interfering” if it will only make things worse is a sensible one.  The answer is obvious, however.  Imagine for a moment that the government did not do anything in response to the attempted terrorist attack over Christmas.  Would the population be OK with this?  I don’t think so.  The British and American public are revenge-obsessed.  With no real understanding of the situation (thanks to the mainstream press and some government officials) the public sees no reason as to why we shouldn’t be doing anything, and in fact sees it as wrong if we don’t do anything.

Beyond this, however, lies the fundamental principle that if you want to occupy and control a certain part of the world; wait for a terrorist attack.  These (let me be clear, failed and unsuccessful) attacks are gifts to our governments, which today need an excuse to occupy a country, whereas in the past we could get away with having no legitimate reason for doing so.  A failed terrorist attack works out well for the government given that no one gets hurt, no one dies and yet fear sky-rockets.

Our government is doing little more than shooting not only itself, but us, too, in the foot.  In fact, the British public gets the worst of it given that any terrorist attack that takes place is far more likely to affect the public, and not the government.

We must demand that our government reduce the chances of retaliation.  This isn’t done through hundreds of millions, billions altogether, of pounds being spent on airport security.  It is done through the refusal to occupy the Middle East, to stop interfering in its affairs negatively, and to give aid and help to those who need it.  If we do this, the threat of terrorism will vanish from the face of Britain.

Just Deserts

Tim Johnston (12/12/09)

Palestine is, at long last, the recipient of justice – if only a little of it.  The British government (or Defra – Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) has told British supermarkets to state, clearly and explicitly, whether imports from Israel were produced in either Israel or OPTs (Occupied Palestinian Territories).

The government has come under increasing pressure lately to pursue “pro-Palestinian” policies, particularly in the aftermath of “Operation Cast Lead” (the Israeli siege on Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009 – leaving 1,400 Palestinians dead and causing almost $2 billion worth of damage to the Palestinian economy – a blatant war crime, amassed with abject breaches of human rights).  Defra’s decision is, quite obviously, not only needed but wholly justified – just as supporting and abiding by international law and human rights has always been; necessary.

It is easy to claim that to be “pro-Palestine” is a biased position.  In fact, it is easy to claim that any position is biased.  However, this should always be challenged.  There are many instances, many positions and stances, that are not biased, but bear the unfortunate illusion of being biased due to the out-of-proportion facts of “X”.  I.e., there are some issues where to accuse someone of being biased is to ignore the argument completely.  A brief example: should you be called “biased” if you claim that “the slave trade was right to end”?  Of course not.  You’re a participant in the upholding of human rights law.  The issue is the same with the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The labels on Israeli imports should, according to Defra, read as similar to “Palestinian Produce” and “Israeli Settlement Produce”.  Defra has also said that any supermarket selling produce from OPTs as “Produce of Israel” would be committing an offence.  The justification for this being that “the area [of Occupied Palestinian Territories] does not fall within the internationally recognised borders of the State of Israel.”

Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman (a man who has stated that, in response to an effort by Amnesty International to free 350 Palestinians from Israeli Jails, “It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world”), has stated that Defra’s move “will only radicalise Palestinian positions even more” and that the “decision comes at a critical phase and harms Israeli and international efforts to renew the peace process on the basis of mutual agreements”.  This statement has been followed up by the words of an Israeli Settlement Spokesman, Dani Dayan, who stated that the decision was the “latest hostile step” from Britain.  (The Guardian).

Firstly, Defra’s proposals will not “radicalize Palestinian positions even more” (Italics mine).  What Palestinian “positions” is he referring to, and what does Palmor mean “even more”?  There is absolutely no way that this policy will radicalize Palestinian positions (assuming that by “positions” he means Palestinian hatred for Israel) – it will serve only to improve Palestinian livelihood and for them (Palestinians) to appreciate the rare but welcome gesture from an Israeli ally (UK).   I’d have thought that if anything were to “radicalize” the Palestinians it would be pillaging their lands and running, effectively, what amounts to a genocide campaign against them.

Secondly, the decision most certainly does not harm “Israeli and international efforts to renew the peace process on the basis of mutual agreements”.  There have been no mutual agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.  Mutual agreements are irrelevant (albeit made relevant) between Israel and the international community.  Mutual agreements between Israel and Palestine have either not taken place and/or failed due to Israel’s stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise.  It should be noted here that the Palestinians should not be forced to compromise on anything, given that everything Palestine is trying to get back has been unlawfully and forcefully taken from them by Israel.  You shouldn’t expect to negotiate with your burglar to get your things back(!)

Thirdly, all Israel’s done to “renew the peace process” is halt settlement activity in the West Bank for ten months (which has, subsequently, faced an attempted over-ruling by Israel’s Supreme Court).  Israel has not, however, agreed to halt settlement construction in East Jerusalem (the would-be capital city of a Palestinian state).  Israel has also continued to bomb Gaza, killing and wounding more innocent civilians, along with inflicting more damage on the Palestinian economy (and I use the phrase “economy” loosely).

And, finally, the “latest hostile step” from Britain is a total falsehood.  There is no “latest step”.  The last thing Britain’s done in relation to the Israel/Palestine conflict, before Defra, is to abstain from voting on the Goldstone Report.  A report which, had it made it to the Security Council, would see Israel prosecuted for the numerous war crimes and human rights violations, explicitly stated and recorded in the report, for its actions in the destruction of Gaza.

Defra’s decision is more than welcome and, after reading this, if you still find yourself in doubt as to the decency of Defra’s decision it is you who are biased.  Not me.  Not Defra.  And, most certainly, not the “pro-Palestinians”.

Taxi!

Tim Johnston (10/12/09)

There have been many absurdities in British politics over the years – but this one is quite incredible (although not, perhaps, a surprise) – that the evidence for Iraq having WMDs was based on the “testimony” of an Iraqi taxi driver who, two years prior to his “testament”, worked along the Iraqi/Jordanian border, where he overheard a conversation in the back of his cab on, almost laughably, Iraqi possession of WMDs (as if this was a conversation that Iraqi intelligence would have in front of a complete stranger).

After hearing this, intelligence analysts had flagged these claims up as “demonstrably untrue”.  Nevertheless, somehow, the government classified this testimony as reliable.

Sir John Scarlett (the man in charge of this intelligence) went up before the Chilcot panel on December 8^th and, after facing Chilcot, was dismissed given that the taxi driver’s claim was “not a matter for Scarlett to answer”.  Scarlett then went on to claim that “he acted in ‘good faith’ all along.”  (Telegraph).  Case closed.

Now, to anyone who is familiar with the many other problems that the invasion of Iraq had; its (more than) questionable “intelligence”, its illegalities etc., the obvious answer to this is that the government knew that the driver’s claim had no basis, but that it could be used as a justification for the invasion; using the taxi driver as a scapegoat should it ever emerge as a problem (which it has done).  Or, further still, that the cab driver or the conversation in his cab never took place, but was simply created in order to use him (the fictional “him”) as a scapegoat – this would be in line completely with its “demonstrably untrue” nature.  For anyone who doesn’t believe that the war in Iraq was knowingly carried out for the wrong reasons, I challenge you to ask why the government ignored the intelligence and classified it as something it wasn’t i.e., to classify the driver’s statement as reliable.

There couldn’t be a more obvious evidence that the Chilcot Inquiry is a complete farce, as I predicted it would be in an earlier piece.  The ultimate flaw in the Inquiry is still that it remains as an inquiry and not a trial.

Why hasn’t this blatant dismissal of the people responsible, in this case Sir John Scarlett, caused more concern?  Why aren’t people questioning the Inquiry’s legitimacy?  It must be questioned.

The government’s latest policies of “transparency” are merely a transition from the opaque to the translucent (with huge, opaque blotches).  To expect “full transparency” is to ask for more than we’ll ever get.  Do not be surprised on hearing that the government has done something dishonest, illegal, or outright wrong – for it is not a rare occurrence at all and, the sooner we get used to this, the better we become at determining what’s going on, and the quicker we can rid ourselves of “Feel” change and, instead, get the “real” change that this country, that our world, desperately needs.

Uncivil Liberties

Tim Johnston (05/12/09)

The Swiss ban on minarets exposes not only a severe problem in the rise of Islamophobia in Europe, but also the dangers and trivialities of direct democracy.

On the 29^th November, 2009, the Swiss government held a referendum on whether Swiss law should permit the further construction of minarets in Switzerland.  The answer was a resounding, “No”, with 22 out of 26 Swiss provinces voting in favour of the ban or, in real terms, a majority of 57.5%.

The idea that a government can hold a referendum on whatever it likes is a bad one.  When we consider the fact that there were only four minarets in the whole of Switzerland before the referendum was passed (yes, I did say four) it becomes more than apparent that the referendum was nothing more than a parade of abuse and religious intolerance.

I’d have sympathy with the Swiss government in holding such a referendum if the minarets’ appearance conflicted with the rest of “X” specific area (where the minarets were erected); but I’ve seen no evidence of this.  In fact, the minarets do more than a good job of blending in with their surroundings and are, in fact, aesthetically pleasing (far more so than many new churches that are currently being established).

But these are not the main concerns of the Swiss government.  This Swiss government’s main concerns, as they’ve stated, are that the minaret is a “symbol of radicalism” and, according to some radical Swiss feminists, minarets are “male power symbols” and serve as a reminder of Islam’s repression of women.  This is blatantly false.  Minarets are not “male power symbols” or “symbols of radicalism” any more than church spires are.  The purpose of a church spire (or tower) is so that the sound of the church bells can reach as many people as possible to announce that it’s time for the service, or to announce a wedding and so on.  The purpose of the minaret on a mosque is precisely the same – that the Muezzin (prayer-caller) can announce the call to prayer to as many people as possible.  Anyone who has any basic understanding of physics should know that sound struggles to travel through things but finds it far easier to travel around things – hence the minaret, the spire, etc., where sound is not obstructed by as much as it would be had the bells or Muezzin been at ground level.  To pretend that the “point” of a minaret is anything more than this is bordering on the stupid.

Add to all this the absurd paranoia of people like Julia Werner, a “local housewife” who was worried that “they’ll [Muslims] have us all wearing burqas” and that, “Before you know it, we’ll have Sharia law and women being stoned to death in our streets.”  Werner then goes on to say how, “We won’t be Swiss any more” (according to “The Times”).  Perhaps people like Julia, or the 4.2 million people who voted for the ban, should consider the fact that McDonalds is moving its European Headquarters to Geneva and that, as late as 2004, there were 119 McDonalds “restaurants” in Switzerland.  Nothing could be more anti-Swiss.

Our government has said almost nothing in response to the actions of the Swiss government.  As members of the European Union we have a responsibility to speak out against such flagrant violations of civil liberties and must point out the more than obvious breaches of human rights law.

For women to stop wearing the veil would serve only to alienate and remove themselves from the community.  The only pragmatic solution to resolving communal hostilities is to provoke understanding between peoples of different faith, race, etc. and to accept, value and learn from such differences.  This will not be advanced by the British government remaining silent on blatant human rights abuses by other governments (not to mention its own, evident, violations).

The minaret ban is nothing more than the manifestation of religious intolerance and a violation of human rights.  The Swiss government must stand trial for its human rights violations (as must all governments who commit such violations; including our own), or it must see the law overturned.

This is nothing short of embarrassing.

Look Out: Britain’s Coming to Get You

Tim Johnston (28/11/09)

The British government has, once again, been seduced by the rhetoric of impetuosity, inflexibility and outright stupidity.  This is no small matter.  Failure to contain Iran’s nuclear programme (if there were such a need) without further action i.e., force, would be far better than allowing Israel or the United States, or the complicity of the British armed forces, to bomb Iran.  Even if Iran was developing a nuclear bomb, it would never use it.  There would be far more destruction through the prevention of creating a nuclear weapon than in Iran possessing one.

I’m reminded of John McCain’s joke in the run up to the 2008 US Presidential election.  When asked by a member of the audience what he (McCain) would do about Iran, McCain replied, “Oh, you know that Beach Boys song?  ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’?”, followed up with a frail and sick yelping noise, which I suspect was intended to sound like laughter.

The British government has voted in favour of a new IAEA resolution (International Atomic Energy Agency) that requires Iran to cease all construction of its Fordo facility outside Tehran, to clarify the purpose and chronology of the plant’s construction and to confirm that it will not build any more nuclear plants and that there are no more “hidden” nuclear plants (despite there being no hidden plants in the first place).

However, not only has New Labour voted in favour of this resolution, but Gordon Brown has said that “I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote.”  David Miliband, Foreign Secretary, also issued warnings that, “Iran needs to understand the strength of feeling that has gone into the vote today” and that it “should send a very clear warning to Iran that it is not going to be able to divide the international community.”

The Iranian parliament is due to discuss its options insofar as the Iranian nuclear programme is concerned.  This will include questioning its relationship with the IAEA and NPT.  Iran couldn’t do anything more stupid – but its reasons for considering such drastic measures are understandable.

Iran has faced the complete refusal of its rights and has instead been given ultimatums, forced co-operations and, if these are not agreed with; “consequences”.  There is no legal justification for this.

If Iran withdrew from the NPT then they would be free to develop whatever nuclear technology they wanted to (despite the fact that the technology they want to develop is legal).  If they withdrew their cooperation with the IAEA then Iran would be able to develop nuclear weapons without any real trouble, given that the IAEA could be refused entry to Iran.  But, again, Iran has nothing to be concerned about given its commitment to a peaceful nuclear programme, with no desire to develop nuclear weapons whatsoever.

Iran is considering  whether it should withdraw its cooperation with these two groups given that if they do they cannot be pressured to live up to any international obligations (illegal obligations).  The fact that Iran has had to abide by the law so much that it has to consider looking as if it isn’t doing so is fundamentally wrong.  If you’re innocent then you should not be forced to look guilty.

The problem with refusing to cooperate with both the NPT and the IAEA is that the Western media will have a field day, shouting about the fact that Iran, “must be doing something wrong because they’re not complying with the IAEA, and they’ve refused to remain a signatory of the NPT!”  We would then be told that this happened before and that when Saddam “kicked out” the IAEA inspectors from Iraq in 1998, he must have been hiding something.  We’ll be told that we can’t let it happen again, and that Ahmadinejad definitely wants to develop nuclear weapons – “better safe than sorry” etc.  The fact is that in Iraq the IAEA inspectors left voluntarily after hearing that Operation Desert Fox was about to begin and, sensibly, the IAEA inspectors didn’t want to hang around and wait to be bombed.

Iran is considering these proposals as not only useful, insofar as it will not have to put up with the illegalities of the US, UK, Germany, France (and now Russia and China), but also as a form of symbolism: that if you threaten and humiliate someone – and in complete hypocrisy – who abides by international law, and are doing so because of their adherence to international law, you will not be dealt with.

The idea that Iran should withdraw is made more reasonable through the knowledge that Mohammed El-Baradei (the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency) confirmed that, after two inspections of the Fordo enrichment facility, the inspectors had found, “nothing to worry about”.

The British government knows full well that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.  The British government knows that there really is, “nothing to worry about”.  The British government serves only to toe the line of Israel and the United States (as far as its aggressive foreign policy is concerned).

We are on the precipice of a nuclear holocaust and a third World War due to the desire to control Iran’s oil supplies and, in Israel’s case, to expand an empire and political reach.  All the policies of the British government in regards to Iran are highly illegal.

Iran is fine.  It’s our own government we have to worry about.

The Chilcot Inquiry

Tim Johnston (26/11/09)

One of the most blatant follies of this inquiry is that of its very heading – it is an “inquiry”.  This should not be an “inquiry”.  There has been a mountain of evidence inquired after through government programmes in the past, along with the stacks of evidence that have come out not necessarily of government-run enquiries, but from the UN, HRW, Amnesty International, intellectuals, politicians, newspapers, medical journals etc.  The evidence is there.

In fact, one has to try very hard indeed in order to ignore it.  Almost everyone now is convinced (and rightly so) that there were no WMD’s in Iraq pre-invasion.  The fact is, however, that people knew this even before the invasion took place.  Some of the greatest journalists, intellectuals, nuclear experts etc. were telling us that there was absolutely nothing to worry about, that all of it (the idea that Saddam had nuclear weapons) was false.  Most people refused to listen.  It was far easier to trust one’s own government than to trust people with “unusual-sounding” names; Hans Blix, for example.  These sorts of messages were countered by Blair with his disgusting deliveries of “45 minutes until London’s blown to pieces” statements.  This is insanity.  But most people didn’t think so at the time.

As it was then, so it is now.  Iran stands accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons (the difference between Iraq here is that Iraq was alleged to already have nuclear weapons).  It is said that Iran could “nuke Israel”.  These allegations are almost pitiful.  To support them can mean only that a. you’re a terrible person or b. that you’re ignorant (although a. and b. are next to synonymous).  Most people will fall into the latter (b.), whilst the vast majority of those in power, both politicians and journalists, businessmen et al. across the world, fall into the former.  These are terrible people and they need instant removal.  (For more on Iran’s nuclear programme see http://parliamentarynews.co.uk/2009/11/06/irans-nuclear-programme).

The Guardian (25/11/09) reported on the Chilcot Inquiry that “[days] before the invasion of Iraq, the British government received intelligence that Saddam Hussein might be unable to use his chemical weapons” and that “intelligence about what Saddam was up to in the run-up to the war was patchy”.  There are two problems with this.  Firstly, the article is suggesting that these “chemical weapons” are in fact “nuclear weapons”.  They’re not.  By calling “X” weapons “chemical weapons” is to cloud the fact that Saddam had no nuclear weapons.  The Guardian mentions nuclear weapons and the lack of evidence for their assembly in the proceeding paragraph, though again it talks of whether Iraq had the capability to carry out the “effective dispersal of agents.” (Italics Mine).  Again, no mention here of Iraq’s supposed attacks on Britain with nuclear weapons.  And, secondly (and more importantly), to claim that evidence “in the run-up to the war was patchy” is wholly inadequate.  For evidence to be patchy there needs to be a reasonable amount of evidence, coupled with a “reasonable” amount of lies.  There wasn’t.  There isn’t.  And there never will be.  There is hardly any evidence at all of Saddam possessing nuclear weapons.

The Inquiry is expected, according to the BBC, to answer questions such as “were they [our government] reckless in their decision to invade Iraq?”  What sort of a question is that?  The question itself pre-supposes that the act of invasion and occupation were somehow trivial.  Given the consequences of the invasion of Iraq, its pretences, the question of “was it reckless” is reckless itself.  It conceals the issue – preventing the real answers as to “why the invasion?” from being found out.

The Inquiry, though not a trial, should in fact be conducted as a trial.  To be investigated in any other way is to lessen the gravity of the situation, leading to the appeasement of a public who, I’ve no doubt, will accept these “findings” of the Inquiry as reason to cease all further action i.e., potentially bringing about prosecution.

The Inquiry does not offer anything new.  All the evidence has been previously unearthed.  We must then conclude that the point of this Inquiry isn’t to determine new information, to uncover the truth, (for that information is already known).  It is merely a façade – a façade that will save the government from conviction (which it absolutely would get should all the evidence be examined in court; the International Criminal Court, for example) and calm public unrest and upset about a war that many are still “not sure” about.

What many people are still unaware of is that Britain had actually bombed Iraq in September, 2002.  RAF Tornado planes along with US F-15 Strike Eagle aircraft used precision techniques to bomb the air-defence facility  in western Iraq – the idea being that this would “[clear] the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan” (“The Nation”, June 1^st, 2005, “The Other Bomb Drops”).  The Nation goes on to state that “Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon’s goal was clear: Destroy Iraq’s ability to resist. This was war.”

It doesn’t get much clearer than this.  We must take notice of the fact that this was known by, at the latest, 2005.  The fact that the bombings were orchestrated in 2002 means that it is more than likely to have been reported at the time.  It’ll be interesting to see whether this is mentioned at the Inquiry.  I doubt it will be.

Again, what we need is not an Inquiry but a trial.  War crimes and crimes against humanity have been conducted.  The idea that they haven’t, or the seeming uncertainty of whether we have been a part of this or not, displays only the heights of ignorance and child-like naïveté.  There is more than enough evidence to be justified in establishing trials as opposed to inquiries.  Given that the evidence is already available, inquiries are beyond useless.

If our government is innocent, why refuse trial?  This is reason enough to suspect that our government is in fact guilty, even before examining the evidences.  We must not rely on the current authority to determine the truth for us.  Reason, evidence and critical thought are not suggestions or choices… they are necessities, and we’d do well to employ them.

Fox, Indeed

Tim Johnston (21/11/09)

It has recently emerged that the Shadow Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, is to withdraw British troops from Germany as our 20,000 strong presence there is “no longer necessary”.

The withdrawal sounds completely reasonable.  There is absolutely no point having 20,000 British soldiers in Germany whatsoever.  However, what is less reasonable is what Liam Fox plans on doing with these forces.  Whilst he hasn’t stated precisely what he wants to do with 20,000 extra troops, the answer is, in any case, obvious.

According to the BBC, Fox told the Daily Telegraph that “Other NATO member states should take up the UK’s responsibilities in Germany, allowing British troops to deploy elsewhere”.  The BBC goes on to report that “Estimates have suggested it could cost up to £5bn to relocate all the British troops in Germany to home bases.”  In the current economic climate, it is completely non-sensical for a Tory, no less, to bring these troops back home.  What is far easier is to move them somewhere else…

Fox goes on to say that what is needed is a “wholesale recasting of our foreign and defence policy”, a “more creative diplomatic solution” to NATO involving other countries such as Poland overtaking many of the UK’s responsibilities in NATO.

Far more worrying, however, is the idea that “if other countries are willing to take up roles in continental defence that leaves Britain and France able to take on expeditionary roles.”  Following this, Fox goes on to claim that “much as people regard it as a great political sport to be constantly berating our allies on what they do and don’t do in Afghanistan, it’s more important that we have more effective burden sharing so we can be freed up from some responsibilities.”  (Italics Mine).

Fox does concede, however, that removing troops from Germany would be a “long-term process” as British soldiers and their relatives contributed “1.5 billion Euros” to the German economy, “even after the Cold War”.  Germany would be pretty reluctant to allow this.

Fox has also outlined that the Defence department, under his command, would cut administrative costs by 25% by 2012 (three billion).  There is no mention here of cutting the military expenditures budget – there has even been talk of increasing it.  Cutting administrative costs in a recession may sound harmless, but could result not only in a loss of jobs, but also in cutting the red-tape in the Defence department, making it easier to move troops around, the purchasing and selling of arms etc.

This ties in conveniently with “freeing ourselves up” to do other things.  No doubt the Shadow Secretary is considering the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan and, eventually, Iran.

With fewer responsibilities within NATO Britain will be better placed to choose its own course of war.  (Not that it would be much different from what it currently is – doing whatever the US wants – with Fox’s ardent support for the “special relationship”).

A foreign policy under a Conservative government would be highly supportive of Israeli State and its military intervention in Iran which, incidentally, Fox has not ruled out.  This remains a strong possibility (given Israel’s candid and open claims that it wants nothing more than to bomb Iran).

The CFI (Conservative Friends of Israel) has dominated the Tory high-command for a number of years now – Liam Fox is no exception.  Remember, this is the man who, when asked whether he would vote for the war in Iraq again, he replied “Yes, I would.”  A man who, contrary to all evidences, believes that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme that could be used against Britain – hence Fox’s wish to renew Trident.

If Liam Fox does become Defence Secretary which, currently, looks exceedingly likely, Britain will find itself increasingly insecure, along with the rest of the world.  We will end up defending Israel when it decides to bomb Iran and we will, under a Conservative government, have no choice but to join in.

The withdrawal of British troops from Germany is simply the first step to invasion.  It has no benefit whatsoever.  Hardly fantastic, Mr. Fox.

The Poppy: a divisive wall

Siobhan Gabriella Gibney (11/11/09)

Monday 9 November marked twenty years since the Berlin Wall fell. An emotional and triumphant day for Germans and most Europeans, Chancellor Merkel was joined by fellow leaders in day-long celebrations in her capital. Brown was among the group that included Sarkozy and Gorbachev, among others. Today the British leader showed solidarity with his German counterpart, but this was certainly not the case at the time. Then PM Margaret Thatcher was firmly and passionately against the reunification of Germany, stating that it could simply not be allowed to happen. When the time came, of course, her words had little meaning.

Brown’s presence in Berlin on Monday served as a reminder of another event of remembrance this week – and another event that Europeans remember differently. Wednesday 11 November, referred to as Remembrance Day, Armistice Day, or Veterans Day, depending on what country you’re in, marks the end of the first World War. In the Commonwealth, most of the public wears a red poppy in the days (and even weeks) leading up to the day. Accordingly, Brown sported a red paper poppy on Monday in Berlin. While it’s seen as respectful symbol in the UK, and in some circles not wearing a poppy is even seen as offensive, it can cause quite a stir in other parts of Europe.

I recently attended a dinner in Brussels where a British guest was sporting a poppy. Another guest remarked that he too would like to wear one, but that in his multinational workplace it would be considered too controversial. Though I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the poppy tradition myself, I’d never thought it from this perspective. But of course such a tradition could be quite offensive in places like Germany and Austria. The British say it symbolizes respect and remembrance for the soldiers who lost their lives…killing our soldiers, their European colleagues might conclude. ‘You started it’ arguments are irrelevant here. The point is that millions died on either ‘side’, the vast majority of which had no say in the decision to go to war, and no real choice about fighting.

The first and second World Wars devastated Europe, in terms of demographics and morale. The European Union was born out of the wreckage of the second World War, in a political project to unite Europe, firstly in terms of trade and economies, but eventually in many other sectors, so much so that the thought of war between European nations would be unthinkable. And for all the criticisms it receives, the EU has certainly succeeded in this goal.

It’s understandable that the UK, France, Belgium and the like value their annual tribute to the soldiers who died defending their citizens. And they have to right to continue this tradition. But let’s be realistic about the poppy. It’s not solely a tribute to the sacrificial role of the armed forces. It symbolizes victory over the enemy, which in 1918 was Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. In light of this, the British would do well to be more sensitive about wearing a loud symbol around the continent that to many of their fellow EU citizens represents death and destruction, not glorious military success. We should celebrate our common achievements, not gloat about previous military defeats.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Afghan Awakening

Tim Johnston (07/11/09)

The “war” in Afghanistan is the one conflict which seems to have escaped any serious public concern and questioning until the past year or so.  The Iraq war received its scrutiny and questioning even before the invasion had begun – over 50% of British people rejected the proposed invasion.  But we went ahead and did it just the same.  (It is not a “war” given that the enemy is not a clear one.  It’s no use simply saying “the Taliban” when nothing distinguishes them from normal civilians.  Incidentally, the vast majority of Afghan fighters are not members of the Taliban – they are normal citizens opposing an occupying and imperial power.  In order to have a “war” the enemy must be clearly identifiable).

Perhaps it was because our casualties were slow or that it was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and therefore something “needed to be done” to appease the citizens of the Western worlds’ hatred.  Perhaps it was our fear of an attack on British soil (something that didn’t happen until four years after NATO began its campaign in Afghanistan).  Whatever the reason bore such little concern over Afghanistan the point remains that this war had never faced any in-depth scrutiny until now.

There is no “war” in Afghanistan.  There is only business.  Whatever reason given for our being there, be it democracy, human rights, Al-Qaeda, the prevention of a terrorist state etc., it is not to be trusted.  We have given our blessing to an election conducted without an opposition, to a President who committed fraud within the millions of votes.  Our inability to cooperate with democratically elected regimes is disgusting.  The most recent example of this would be that of trying to destabilise and delegitimise the Iranian elections in June.  It is likely that Ahmadinejad cheated.  However, even if he hadn’t had cheated, he’d still have won.  Post-election unrest was not purely original – it was created with our help.

As far as human rights are concerned, the British government has been complicit in torture for a number of years now, as well as in supporting regimes that have terrible records on human rights; far worse than anything Afghanistan has ever had.  Israel and Saudi Arabia have appalling records on human rights, but it’s alright for us to give significant amounts of aid to Israel and to abstain from voting on its proven violations of human rights for fear of upsetting it with our “yes, you’re criminal” vote.

Terrorism and Al-Qaeda.  7/7 did not happen until we had invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Osama Bin Laden has stated repeatedly that the only reasons Al-Qaeda has attacked and may be planning to attack the United Kingdom is because of our continuous aid to Israel and our persistence, interference and military presence in the Middle East.  These were and are the reasons for Al-Qaeda attacks both before and after 9/11 and 7/7.  Al-Qaeda is not attacking us because of its desire to convert us to Islam or its hatred of Western values (societal liberalism and capitalism – both of these concepts have caused a great deal of suffering to many within both our own and other peoples’ countries).  But again, these are not the reasons for terrorism.

We would obviously be far safer from Al-Qaeda if we left Afghanistan, given that the longer we stay the more justification Al-Qaeda has in committing terrorist acts against us.

The final argument for staying in Afghanistan is that Afghanistan will be subject to falling into the hands of the Taliban.  If this were to happen, then everything would go back to a similar state to how things were pre-2001.  People would have far more security than they do now, and every-day life can function normally.  Human rights abuses can and should be resolved – and it is possible to do this, even in the face of a Taliban government.

The purpose for invading Afghanistan was for the control of its oil reserves, along with its unique position geographically i.e., bordering Pakistan, Iran, as well as its neighbouring with China and Russia.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Tim Johnston (06/11/09)

Iran’s nuclear programme has been subject to some of the most intensive scrutiny of any nuclear power yet.  Not only that, but it has also been the most compliant and cooperative state on its nuclear programme.

This may come as a shock.  The United States, the EU and others have been calling on Iran for the past few years to cooperate with whatever the US and the EU says, without so much as mentioning to the Western public that Iran has been doing so.

In all its nuclear progressions, Iran has notified the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) far in advance of when it could have done.  The recent controversy over Iran’s “secret” nuclear facility in Qom was well-known to the US and, we can therefore quite reasonably presume, Britain as well.  In fact, the United States knew about this six months in advance of the UN General Assembly this October.  Iran informed the IAEA of the nuclear plant and received confirmation from the IAEA that Iran was well within the rules of notification and compliance.

Iran has allowed the IAEA to inspect all its nuclear facilities, and has gone further in allowing them to inspect all facilities and materials that are not necessarily related to what the IAEA had asked to see in the first place.

Iran was one of the first countries to sign up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty which the United States still has to sign.  Iran is also, under Article IV of the NPT (which claims that all non-nuclear states are allowed to develop nuclear power in the pursuit of peaceful means) well within its rights to develop nuclear materials and technology.  Iran has not broken any laws on its nuclear programme whatsoever, and Iran has even contributed to the transparency of its nuclear programme.  The idea that Iran is hiding something is utter fantasy.

Whilst Israel has roughly 200 nuclear warheads (in direct contravention of the NPT), and the US and Britain have been developing more nuclear weapons and materials for transporting/launching nuclear weapons, Iran has been doing nothing of concern.  Incidentally, the UK has been discussing whether or not we should “renew Trident” (our nuclear submarine deterrent) due to the current problems of the “economy” and “federal deficit” i.e., not having enough money to renew it.  The argument of whether or not to renew Trident mentioned nothing of whether renewing Trident would be legal or not – a question which, if asked, would prove fatal to both the Conservatives and Labour, as its renewal is illegal.  This law is, obviously, willing to be broken by both the current government and the (current) Shadow Cabinet.

Following this, it is only good to ask; “do we really hold the moral highground on whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons?  Are we right to make judgements as to whether Iran is doing anything illegal or not?”

All “concerns” that have arisen on Iran’s nuclear programme are mere fiction.

Britain is acting as a lawless Tyrant, determined to force the Iranian people to suffer – if not through sanctions, then through military action, which this government has not ruled out.  We cannot expect a Conservative government to rule out military action either.  In fact, David Cameron has said that the first thing he will do when Prime Minister is to create a “War Cabinet”, just as Churchill had in WWII.  Do we intend to start WWIII?  Because that is what will happen if we attack Iran.  A third World War is not an unreasonable prediction.  Iran will not simply sit still and takewhatever we give them.   Iran is very well prepared and would provide a decent resistance to whomever is stupid enough to attack it.

Who then is breaking the law?  Who is the “bad guy” in all this?  Undoubtedly, it is us.  We are the ones at fault.  To prevent a country from realizing its own sovereignty and to force them into negotiations on their own nuclear rights is itself highly coercive and immoral.  Why should Iran approach the negotiating table at all?  It’s as if your bank wrote you a letter saying that “We’ve noticed you’ve started to save money… if you are planning on saving 10,000 pounds then, we’re telling you that you can’t (despite your lawful right to do so).  If you don’t negotiate with us we will place numerous restrictions on your account that will prove incredibly detrimental to your lifestyle and those of others and, ifyou still don’t cooperate, we will cancel your account altogether and take all your money.”  The only difference between these two situations is that Israel and the international community is considering military action against Iran, and Israel has stated on numerous occasions that it is more than ready, and willing, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iran poses no threat whatsoever to anyone.  Even if it did develp nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t be able to tell them that they shouldn’t, given that it would be incredibly hypocritical (however, I’ve no doubt that if they did develop nuclear weapons, we’d make a huge deal out of it regardless).  We are far more of a threat to Iran than Iran is to us, and we are also far more of a threat to the Middle East than Iran is or ever will be.  If Iran developed a nuclear weapon it may actually stabilize the region (in countering Israel’s nuclear weapons programme – a state already threatening to use nuclear weapons).

Even if Iran was developing nuclear weapons, it could take decades to complete.  Enrichment needs to be at over 95%.  Iran’s enrichment programme stands at just over 5%.

A threat, indeed.