Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Phil Talbot

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18
241
From the STSTWC Web Archive 'shit-list' of the 'Dirty 400' (or so) '(right)honourable' (sic) British MPs who voted for the illegal attack on Iraq in March 2003...

...
Elliot Morley (Scunthorpe)
...
Andrew Mackay (Bracknell)
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (aka Mrs Julie Mackay)
...
(to be continued ...)

242
General Report On Stop the War Coalition ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2009, by Alex Snowdon

350 people attended this weekend's Stop the War Coalition national conference. There were motions passed, experiences shared, a new committee elected. Here, though, I'll merely attempt to summarise the diverse contributions from a range of platform speakers during the day. Simply glancing at the names is to be reminded of the strength of our movement, and this report should bring to attention how many issues we are campaigning over but also how interconnected they are.

Andrew Murray (Chair, Stop the War) opened the conference and commented on the need to re-assert our right to protest, noting that all the Gaza national demonstrations in January were attacked by police. Stop the War President Tony Benn said that the wars and occupations we oppose are imperialist and, in the context of colonial occupation, it is understandable if people resist with force. He also reminded us of the enormous contribution our coalition has made to British political life over more than seven years.

Lindsey German (convenor, Stop the War) celebrated the upsurge of protest in response to the assault on Gaza, in particular the university occupations that marked a revival of student activism, and warned that the economic crisis will make the world more unstable. Campaigning MP Jeremy Corbyn remarked that if Barack Obama isn't careful, Afghanistan will become the 'new Vietnam' and asserted that we must demand removal of ALL foreign troops. He called for a big turnout on 16 May - the national 'Free Palestine' march - partly because the media images will be reach the Middle East and give millions of people solidarity and hope.

Seumas Milne (Guardian columnist) also noted the longevity and futility of the Afghan occupation, commenting that the 'war on terror' - which is in fact a war OF terror against ordinary people - has now lasted longer than World War Two. The war is now spreading into Pakistan, which raises the stakes even further. Rose Gentle (Military Families Against the War) talked about how she turned the grief following the death of her son Gordon in Iraq into a determined campaign for justice - and to bring the troops home. She said the troops have been treated disgracefully and also called for the Iraq inquiry this summer to take place in public.

Daud Abdullah, the Deputy General Secretary of Muslim Council of Britain who has been vilified by the government, said the attacks on him have really been a backlash against the wider Muslim community being politically engaged. He warned that not only has Islamophobia increased in recent years but now the BNP is jumping on the bandwagon and using it to boost its prospects.

Jane Shallice (Stop the War officer) talked of the long history of imperialist intervention in Afghanistan by the great powers. There is, under Obama, a new liberal rhetoric to justify the occupation which we need to challenge. Mohammed Asif, an Afghan-born journalist now based in Glasgow, said that it's ordinary Afghans who are suffering, but it's also (contrary to most media reports) ordinary people, not just the Taliban, who are resisting the occupiers. UK policy is tied to US policy and we must seek to break that link.

Sarah Colborne (Palestine Solidarity Campaign) acknowledged the strength of the relationship between PSC and Stop the War, which stretches back to the early days of the latter's formation. Public opinion on Israel has changed and we should build on this - and the recent protests - to campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions targeted at Israel. She commented that the Scottish TUC led the way by passing a motion making these demands. We should build a mass demonstration on 16 May.

Stop the War officer John Rees, in possibly the most well-received speech of the day, asserted it is vital that the Gaza movement has been simultaneously broad and radical. This movement represented the return of mass involvement of British Muslims in political protest, displaying renewed confidence despite the brutality of the police. He also stressed the centrality of the Palestinian question to the whole politics of the Middle East, with the US relying on Israel as its proxy in the region. Karma Nablusi, Palestinian writer and academic, reported on visiting Gaza recently, seeing friends and being asked by them for pictures of the big London demonstrations because they were so inspired by them. She praised the many students in this country who organised occupations in solidarity with Palestine.

George Galloway reported on the hugely impressive Viva Palestina mission, noting that he spoke at some very large meetings in the North West to build it and there were hundreds of people attending these who had never been involved in our movement before. He announced that he and Ron Kovic, the Vietnam veteran, will lead a similar American convoy which is to be launched on 4 July.

Iraqi-born academic Sami Ramadani gave a briefing about the situation in Iraq and answered delegates' questions. He emphasised that Iraq is part of a bigger strategy of imperialist domination in the region: they may shift their forces, e.g from Iraq to Afghanistan, but there is no serious change. Walter Wolfgang of CND (and former Labour Party NEC member) brought the issues of nuclear weapons and US military bases into focus, taking inspiration from the Czech movement that has mobilised effectively against bases in their country.

Steve Bell (Stop the War Treasurer) announced, on behalf of the steering committee, a new drive to increase the coalition's national membership. He observed that there's a contradiction between Stop the War undoubtedly being a mass movement and the realtively low levels of membership. We also need to raise more regular income, through members taking out or increasing standing orders, to make the organisation more secure and to enhance what we can do as a movement.

Conference was rounded off with speeches on our practical tasks. Joseph Healy of the Green Party reported on the demonstrations at Strasbourg's NATO summit and stressed the importance of making connections with movements elsewhere. Tahmeena Bax gave an inspiring account of the occuaption at Queen Mary's University she was involved in and said there needs to be co-ordination amongst student activists around the country. Chris Nineham (Stop the War officer) closed the conference with a rallying call to keep the movment on the streets. He also called for rallies across Britain on what's happening in Afghanistan, and urged us to use the new national petition on the issue as a tool for mobilising. Finally, he made it clear we must always be prepared for an attack on Iran - if it happens we have to mobilise in massive numbers to protest, occupy and bring the country to a halt.

Alex Snowdon, Tyneside STWC

26th April 2009

243
South Tyneside Stop the War / Re: SilenceIsShameVolume10_DraftArticle
« on: April 21, 2009, 04:29:06 PM »
Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, by Lalon Amin

Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, for you I cry,
Knowing that as I write another child will die.
Women suffer,elders cry as your children shiver in fright.
Why has the world forgotten the Gazan plight?

Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, for you I weep,
Knowing that children lie in shelters not so deep.
750 of you have been killed.
Why has the world allowed your blood to be spilled?

Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, for you I pray,
Knowing that your leaders won't listen nor care.
In our schools, your blood flows.
Why has the world ignored your cause?

Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, for you I hope,
Knowing that amongst the death and misery, your children can't cope.
God protects your sons and daughters,
Why has the world not stopped the guns and mortars?

Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, for you I protest,
Knowing that not as a Muslim nor Jew, but as human I contest.
Your children killed as they play, which brings me tears.
Why have the world's leaders only thought of their political careers?

Oh Gaza, Oh Gaza, for you my heart bled,
Knowing that your children cried alone next to their dead.
How did we let this crime take place?
Why has the world let them slaughter the Gazan race?

244
South Tyneside Stop the War / Re: SilenceIsShameVolume10_DraftArticle
« on: April 21, 2009, 04:27:57 PM »
Personal Thoughts, by Doreen Henderson

There is so much wrong with this country at the moment I hardly know which calamity and 
government catastrophe to start with.
Take the credit crunch: a world-wide debacle not caused by ordinary people in Britain, nor 
those in the poorer Third World, but these are the people who have to suffer through the 
greed and incompetence of bankers and governments.
What was the first thing Blair and Brown did when they came to power in 1997? Give control 
to the Bank of England, instead of properly nationalising it.
Why do we need so many banks?
Why did we bail out the failing banks, which just gives them licence to carry on as 
before, with no conscience nor remorse for the misery they have caused to thousands and 
thousands of 'hard working families'.
(Have you noticed how politicians use that phrase 'hard working families' when they have 
done something wrong or are going to?)
Why did the government not give the working classes a chance to run the banks?
We have a nucleus already up and running in Credit Unions - a system which has been a 
success.
I would advise any one interested in the concept of 'People's Banks' to read 'From 
Mondragon to America' by Greg McLeod.
My next grievance is the MPs second home scam.
At the time of writing at least five of the supposed 'socialist' Labour Party MPs have been
caught 'red-handed fiddling'.
One of them, the employment minister Mr McNulty, tried to lessen the scale of his 'theft' 
by stating that he had not taken any money since January.
Wasn't 'January' about the time that Ms Smith the home secretary was exposed for a massive 
'fiddle' on her sister's house?
Did Mr McNulty perhaps take fright?
You can compare this to what happens when one of us ordinary people 'fiddles' our benefits:
we could go to jail, be forced to repay the fiddle money back, or do 200 hours of community service work.
Can you guess which of these sentences 'fiddling' MPs will get?
Right: none!
Instead, it has been suggested by some MPs that instead of the 'second house' expense fiddle loop holes they should get a £40,000 pay rise!
How dare they, when thousand and thousands of us are loosing our one and only home through 
the total incompetence an immorality which pervades this New Labour government.
Finally I cannot go without mentioning the 25th anniversary of the Miners' Strike.
All the rubbish that was spouted 25 years ago is still being peddled by people like (the former Labour leader, now 'Lord') Neil Kinnock.
There is still the same bias from the BBC.
The same mantra being spouted: 'the miners weren't given the right to a democratic vote on 
the strike'.
We now, in 2009, have a prime minister who was not voted into power by the British people.
(He even became New Labour leader without a proper vote.)
Then there are the people like 'Lord' Mandelson, 'Lord' Goldsmith, 'Lord' Robertson and other unelected people who now practically rule the country.
All are unelected. No one has a 'democratic vote' on them.
How dare these people criticise Arthur Scargill and the miners of the past when they have 
such an 'undemocratic' record like that?
It was not the miners who lost the strike in the 1980s.
It was the TUC and the Labour Party who lost the strike FOR the miners - as they lost the General Strike in 1926 - through lack of support for fellow working people.
I could also mention Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, but I am sure those who know me will know 
where my vote is not going in the next general election.
I would even say to people: 'Think hard and think twice before you vote at all!'

245
South Tyneside Stop the War / Re: SilenceIsShameVolume10_DraftArticle
« on: April 21, 2009, 04:26:19 PM »
Personal Thoughts, by Alan Trotter

I consider myself as a gentle and peaceful sort of man who has a sense of fairness in most things.
When I read reports from UNICEF and Oxfam stating that armed conflict in the last decade has resulted in the deaths of two million children across the globe, the rage I feel for this brutal barbarous waste of young lives is difficult to describe.
This is unforgivable no matter what the cause, motive or reason.
The only way we can prevent this horrific amount of deaths getting worse is by putting an end to armed conflict and war-mongering policies.
We must start talking to people instead of using violence.
We must get rid of hideous weapons like Trident - that costs an estimated £78 Billion and has the potential to kill 320 million people.
It is madness. Sheer madness.
The folk musician Colum Sands wrote:
'On the ones who we went and elected
The power has gone straight to their heads
There’s money for weapons and war games
And nothing for hospital beds'
We have the choice to follow the road we are on ... and go headlong into Armageddon, or try and save this delicate planet of ours, and give all a children a decent future.
Martin Luther King said we do have a choice: 'We can live together as brothers, or perish togther as fools.'
I don't think we can argue with that.


246
I'd vote for it! Phil

247
South Tyneside Stop the War / Against 'Demonization'
« on: April 05, 2009, 06:17:20 PM »
Transcript below - from STSTWC archives - provides
some contexts / alternative perspectives [of a sort
not much to be found in mainstream media] relating to
recent events re 'North Korea' / DPRK.
It records, as factually as possible, what was actually said by
DPRK envoys talking openly in North-East England.
Phil (a 'friend' of - but not an 'apologist' for - 'North Korea'/DPRK, which, the (unfriendly-seeming) BBC informs me today, 'has few friends')

On Thursday, 26 May 2005 Nader A-Naderi, Roger
Nettleship, Alan Newham and Philip Talbot, of South
Tyneside Stop The War Coalition, attended a meeting at
Newcastle University with Mr Ha Sin Guk, Second
Secretary of the Embassy of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea [DPRK] in London, and Mr Ri Kwang
Nam, another member of the DPRK embassy staff.

Mr Ha [speaking in English] gave a talk in which he
started by speaking about the development of
diplomatic relations between Britain and the DPRK
since 2001, when the London embassy was established.
He said that no one from the DPRK embassy had been to
Newcastle before, or indeed to the North East – a very
important area of England. He spoke about the visit in
the afternoon to the Redhills Miners' Hall in Durham
and its great importance in the history of the working
class movement, and the rooms and banners that reflect
how the workers have lived and campaigned to defend
their rights.

He then said that because of articles published in the
newspapers many people misunderstand and mistrust the
DPRK on nuclear issues and on human rights abuse, and
are disinformed on the internal situation on the
Korean peninsula. Therefore, he said, he would like to
mention specific issues and then to give some answers
to people’s questions.

Mr Ha said that 15 June 2000, was a very important
occasion for Korea. This was the date of the historic
meeting between Chairman Kim Jong Il, from the north,
and the former President Kim Dae-jung, from the south,
in Pyongyang. This, he said, declared the
determination of the Korean people to unify their
country by themselves peacefully and democratically,
without interference from other forces, principally
the US. Mr Ha said that all the Korean people were
very excited by the fact that unification could come
finally in our generation. After the 15 June
declaration, very positive events had happenined. He
said there were all kinds of bi-lateral cabinet,
ministerial, economic, cultural and other meetings.

He said Korean families have been divided since the
Korean war [early 1950s], and millions of people have
not been able to meet their parents, sister or
brothers and, even though they live in the north and
south of Korea, they cannot exchange letters or
telephone each other. It is a big national tragedy
that because of the intervention in the Korean War,
the people cannot meet each other. Therefore, he said,
it is the entire Korean people’s natural desire to
unify their country
peacefully and democratically as soon as possible.

Mr Ha then said that following 11 September 2001, and
the Bush administration's declaration of a 'war on
terrorism', George W Bush pinpointed the DPRK as part
of an "axis of evil" and targeted it for pre-emptive
nuclear strike.

The first term of the Bush administration discouraged
the South Korean authorities from engagement with the
north, so this did not bode well for the historic
declaration due to this American intervention. In its
second term, the Bush administration resumed the
argument that the DPRK is once again an "outpost of
tyranny". He said they do this even though they
sometimes acknowledge the DPRK as a sovereign state
demanding that they come to the table on the nuclear
issue.

Speaking about the nuclear issue, Mr Ha said the DPRK
was determined to solve this issue and had already
declared that it wants to make the Korean peninsula
nuclear free. He said the DPRK had  suspended uranium
enrichment and the development of its nuclear
programme for the talks. But the Bush administration
had destroyed the Framework Agreement which was signed
between the US and the DPRK under the Clinton
administration in 1994. In this agreement, the
Americans had guaranteed to build Light Water Reactors
to produce electricity in the DPRK, which in return
would suspend and would finally destroy all its
nuclear activities.

He said that in spite of their best efforts the DPRK
had been unable to solve the nuclear issue, mainly
because of the hostile policy of the US towards a
sovereign country the DPRK. So, he said, it was a very
difficult prospect to solve this issue unless the Bush
administration dropped their hostile policy towards
the DPRK.

He said that because of the rumours in the western
world, in Britain because of the disinformation put
out by the BBC and the newspapers, as well as in the
US, North Korea is blamed for pushing to protect its
nuclear weapons programme and other nuclear
activities.

Mr Ha suggested that a sovereign country has the right
to develop any kind of weapons, or forces, for its
defence. When such a superpower as the US threatens to
destroy their country, a people cannot accept such a
threat of nuclear war and they must have their own
forces for deterrence and to defend their sovereignty
and the system that they have chosen.

For centuries, Mr Ha said, Korea had been oppressed by
other countries like Japan. In three years during the
Korean war, the American side destroyed all of the
country. So, he said, people’s feelings are very
strong that they will never be occupied again and
oppressed by foreign forces.
Mr Ha said that the US still has 43,000 occupying
troops in south Korea and more than 1,000 nuclear
weapons stationed there. Therefore, the DPRK cannot
live peacefully without any preparations or
development of deterrent forces to confront the
American threat. So, he said, the people of the DPRK
are determined to defend their sovereign rights to
fight against possible American intervention.

Mr Ha then stressed that whilst he wanted to clarify
the background to the "nuclear issue", it is also the
case that the DPRK would like to make the Korean
peninsula a nuclear free zone. He said, therefore,
that if the circumstances are met and America drops
its hostile policy and has genuine intentions to show
us, to negotiate the fundamental issues on the Korean
peninsula, the DPRK is ready to go to the table at any
time, whatever the format of the negotiations.

He said that the DPRK wants to solve the outstanding
issues such as the nuclear issue and other related
issues. He said that if the American side listens to
our concerns we are also ready to listen to their
concerns. If both sides trust each other and drop
their suspicions and hostile policy then we think
there are possibilities.

He said that the DPRK has already shown in February
2005 that the country will defend itself against
American nuclear threat and that it will not go to the
six-party negotiations unless America has shown
genuine intention to solve this issue.

Concluding his remarks, Mr Ha said that on the 5th
anniversary of the joint North-South Declaration there
will be meetings held in Pyongyang and Seoul, with
celebrations in Pyongyang attended by representatives
from authorities and organisations from north and
south Korea and organisations from all over the world.

He then pointed out that Kim Jong Il is the National
Defence Commission Chairman of the DPRK, the leader
guiding the party and country, and that 19 June would
be the 41st anniversary of the commencement of his
work in the Central Committee of the Workers Party of
Korea.

Mr Ha and Mr Ri then answered questions.

The following are some of the remarks made by them in
the question and answer session:

Speaking about the allegations of famine in the DPRK,
Mr Ha said that there were many rumours in the western
mass media that 3 million people died during the
famine. He said that while this was quite false, they
are not hiding that there have been some problems and
difficulties and shortages of food. He said that from
1994-5 there were consecutive natural disasters of
flood and drought in all of the north of Korea.
Therefore, he said, our agricultural production
dropped rapidly. He mentioned the added factors of the
economic sanctions and blockade by the Americans and
that the socialist countries had collapsed. Before
this calamity, the system in the DPRK had been that
the government distributed food – mainly rice and corn
– but with this situation they were not able to
distribute the same proportion of food, and therefore
some families suffered to get proper food and there
were some difficulties. He said they had called this
period "the arduous march" because the society lacked
food and the economy lacked raw materials, especially
lack of electricity. DPRK had suffered this period for
five or six years he said, the hardest period in our
nation’s history to date, but now we have overcome
these difficulties, and food production has improved
radically and there is no famine at this moment
although there were still some food shortages. So they
had appealed to the world to donate food to their
country he said, and many bodies as the United Nations
World Food Programme have donated large amounts of
food and medicines, and many international
organisations are operating in Pyongyang and helping
us to provide the food. He said that the lack of food
and protein affected some elderly people and some
babies, possibly causing some deaths, but that 3
million people died, as the western media say, with
starvation in the whole of the country, is simply not
true.
He said that they don’t hide that this was a very
difficult period for 10 years which they have now
gradually overcome. From 2002 they have changed and
improved their economic management introducing some
farmer markets to the commodity market. They have
given the initiative to the cooperative farms to farm
more themselves so that the largest sector of the
economy, the agricultural sector, is gradually
improving. But, at the same time, they are still
cooperating with other countries for assistance and
sustainable development he concluded.

Asked about the geo-political situation and the aims
of the US in the region Mr Ha said that the DPRK had
lived with economic sanctions for over half a century.
He said the US regards the Korean peninsula as of
strategic importance to achieve American influence in
this very important area because the Korean peninsula
is surrounded with large countries. China has the
largest population in the world, Japan is the second
biggest economic power in the world and Russia is the
biggest country in the world with regard to territory.
With that, the Korean peninsula is in the middle of
the three countries. He said that the US wants the
Korean peninsula as their pro-American state to deter
and to influence China, Russia and this area. He said
they want the Korean peninsula as their own back yard.
Therefore, he said, the US wants to create every day
some nuclear issues, or on another day some
allegations of human rights abuse as a way of
provocation to keep their military presence in south
Korea. So, he said, if there is no confrontation, if
there is a peaceful situation there, then there is no
justification or argument for the US to keep their
military presence in south Korea. Of course, he said,
the US is cooperating now with China and Russia but
still China and Russia are their strategic enemy in
the long term. So, the US wants to maintain its
influence in this area but they want the Korean
peninsula as their forward base.

Speaking further about the nuclear issue, Mr Ha said
that because the US has declared the DPRK as a nuclear
pre-targeted country, the question arises as to how
the country can be defended from these huge military
arsenals? He said they only accused Iraq of having
weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to invade and
occupy Iraq. Therefore the DPRK has already proclaimed
that they have a nuclear deterrent.

Mr Ri then added that the nuclear issue is not the
main issue for the US. The only issue for the US was
to overthrow the socialist system in the DPRK in what
they call regime change. He then went on to detail
evidence the US provided themselves for this
conclusion.

Asked a question about China, Mr Ha said they are
their friendly neighbours and historically they have
had good relations with China and Russia. He said that
since Korea was liberated from Japanese colonial rule
in 1945, China has supported Korea and we have
supported China, and he went on to speak about their
support in the 6-party talks.

Answering a question about unification, Mr Ha said
that before 2000 there were bad feelings among the
people of south Korea about the north because of the
strong propaganda in south Korean media and newspapers
and under the American influence for more than fifty
years. However, since the historic meeting in
Pyongyang and the North South Declaration there have
been long talks with journalists of the south Korean
newspapers and the realisation that the north Koreans
are normal human beings! There have been dramatic
changes in the opinions of the south Korean people. Mr
Ha said that the Korean people have the same language
and a common history and the realisation has been
growing that we can now live peacefully together. He
said that the south Koreans don’t want to give up
their own political system and their own ideas. He
said this was the same for the north Koreans. He
explained that unification will only come about by
creating a confederation of the two Koreas that
respected the two political and economic systems. He
said that the economic cooperation between North and
South was going well and there had been some close
contact. He said that now tens of thousands of
tourists were being sent to the DPRK. However, he
warned that the
Americans don’t want this to go well and have no
intention to facilitate peaceful unification on the
Korean peninsula.

Answering a question about the apparent policy of the
British government to use its diplomatic relations to
demonise the DPRK as an "outpost of tyranny", Mr Ha
said that it is true 'they' [the British authorities]
want to have 'critical engagement' with 'us' [DPRK].
They have diplomatic relations with us, so why should
this mean 'critical engagement'? he asked. He said
that DPRK had sent many high-ranking delegations from
their side to visit Britain to promote diplomatic
relations – the Speaker had visited Britain, the
Deputy Foreign Minister had visited three times, as
well as the Prime Minister. From the UK side, only a
Minister of State in the last year had for the first
time visited the DPRK to discuss a number of issues,
but he had made a great show of concern about alleged
human rights abuse. Mr Ha said that it is completely
unfair that Britain, or other visiting countries, wish
to force them to follow the agenda and example of the
western world. He said each country is a sovereign
state, and has its own system and its own traditions.
How can they follow a British standard and or allow
Britain to regulate such things? He said that each
country has its own sovereign right to make people
more free and give people more democracy and realise
more harmony in society in its own way. He said all
systems and rules and regulations emerge from the
people’s desire and intentions and their traditions.
Mr Ha said that these visitors don’t care what our
people think, what their country’s situation is but
only they see the human rights situation in Korea with
their own views and their own standards. Mr Ha said
this is a blind policy. He said they must see it in
the context of historical background and cultural
traditions. He said that Korea is divided between
North and South and always threatened and pressured
from the American side, creating a dangerous
situation. The DPRK cannot only give the individual
rights and freedom but must think first of the
society, first of the state and then individual
interests. They are facing the threat of nuclear war
from the US, so how can they say that there should be
only individual freedom? He said the individual
interest should be combined with the state survival
because without the state how can individual people
make themselves exist freely if their country becomes
a colony again? Mr Ha said that under Japanese
colonial rule we cannot say anything of human rights
at that time because the people were oppressed by the
Japanese. He said they don’t look at the rights and
freedoms that exist now in the DPRK, but say that
there are no political rights and freedoms. They do
not look at the historical background and our
political situation, he said. He said we must put the
national interest first, but must make all the
society, all of the people, more happy he concluded.




248
South Tyneside Stop the War / SilenceIsShameVolume10_DraftArticle
« on: March 24, 2009, 04:19:45 PM »
'Modern (Re-)Arrangements' & 'Blocking Pro-War Governments' - Notes Towards A Sketchy Review
 
By Phil Talbot

+

Tuesday 23 March 2009

As I was sitting writing these notes, the background mainstream media chatter (as represented by the BBC) included yet another government-inspired 'al Qaeda' bogey-men scare story (with 'dirty bomb' nightmare fantasies added, as if as a bonus distraction from bankers' bonuses).

They were also plugging a ridiculous seeming (to me) scheme to recruit and train '60,000' (or make up your own number - all government numbers being dubious these days) amateur spooks to counter (the supposed) 'dangers of radicalization'.

How these '60,000' amateur spies were to be trained in 'radical spotting' was for some reason not reported by the BBC - though one can only imagine them using the standard Muslim bogey-men mug-shots (which we have all seen all too often).

People who questioned any of this stuff, it was suggested, were 'terrorists' or 'terrorist supporters' or 'dangerous radicals', or 'nutty conspiracy theorists' - or else 'well-meaning but naive trojan horses' (who would let in the 'bogey people').

Also on this day the British police announced they had done some early morning door knocks and arrested some 'violent extremists' in connection with events at protests in Britain earlier this year against the mass murder of Palestinian civilians by Israeli troops in Gaza.

The BBC, parroting police statements rather than actuallly reporting, mentioned reported injuries to police officers at these events, but not injuries sufferred by protestors - even though, in fact, evidence strongly suggests that more protesters were injured by police than police were injured by protestors at the Gaza protests.

Such 'dubious' - and perhaps even 'outright dishonest' - stuff reinforced my belief/fear that the 'establishment' (for want of a better expression) having nearly bankrupted the economy and being almost bankrupt of ideas, could think of nothing better to do than to spread distracting scare stories, narrow the range of debate - and stifle 'opposition' by all available means (while still prentending to be 'democratic').

In the Stop The War movement - which is not ashamed to call itself 'radical' - we work with this sort of 'mass distracting' babble going on in the mainstrem media backgound - while we are trying to do something different ... and more positive ...

In fact we have already championed the idea of 'democratic intelligence' - which is not a '60,000' force of volunteer spies snooping on 'radicals' on behalf of the state, but the pooling - by better informed debate - of the millions of human intelligences - of the majority of people who are anti-war and against 'terrorism' (including 'state terrorism').

+

One of the features of the modern day anti-war movement, and this is increasingly apparent in the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition and many other anti-war groups in North-East England, is the growing awareness that the anti-war struggle cannot be continued in the old way and that a fresh approach is required.

This is not just some future prospect, but something actually in the making - a genuine 'work in progress', as it were.

Of course it is not easy - especially in a world in which the elected British government never stops attempting to narrow the range of public discourse ... and even attempting to make 'being radical' a forbidden concept (or 'thought crime').

One of the greatest achievements of the anti-war work so far is that up and down the country there are numerous genuinely radical and free-thinking groups of activists thinking in unorthodox and fresh ways.

In South Tyneside, and other districts in the region, there are now anti-war groups where nothing existed before.

We are 'radicals', but we are not 'terrorists', nor 'terrorist supporters' - we are opponents of 'terrorism', especially organized 'state terror'.

Numbers of activists locally are still small, relative to the numbers that become involved in the movement when the threat of war is greatest, but it is clear that a shift is taking place.

Things are shifting from a conception of the anti-war movement as a pressure group aimed at persuading those in power to cease their warmongering activities to a conception of the movement that engages in serious discussion and actions as to how the people can empower themselves and to unite around a programme to defeat the warmongers once and for all. 

This first became evident in the small conference that the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition organised at the beginning of the occupation of Iraq by US and Britain in 2003.

One speaker reflected the seriousness of the work that our movement is undertaking for the future of humanity when he said: 'Wars of the 21st century are in fact an all out assault on the rights of people around the world. “Rights” that must remain sacred if we are to subscribe to notions of civilised transaction, with a view to stability of our societies, ultimately leading to a life free from molestation, threat, and danger for all the human family."

Another suggested: 'People have to do their own thinking and organising and create new arrangements to give this movement for peace permanent life.'

Another pointed to developing alternative bodies such the Peoples Assembly along a truly democratic path that empowered people from below and also standing anti-war candidates in the public elections.

The important thing is that today people are seriously searching for ways to develop the movement in order to defeat the warmongers.

There is also a growing realisation that the key to achieve this is to unleash the people's initiative by organising in such a way that the people consciously participate in decision-making at every level.

+
 
Still Waiting For David to do the Decent Thing ...

Letter to Shields Gazette, 04 December 2003

In a letter to the Shields Gazette on Wednesday, 3rd December, Mr. G Smith of Kensington Court, South Shields, called for the resignation of David Miliband (MP for South Shields and Minister of State for School Standards) because of his support for tuition fees.

We consider that there are also other grounds for Mr. Miliband’s resignation. In March this year, shortly before the war with Iraq, the Gazette asked him a number of questions on the Iraqi crisis, one of which was “Is there any scenario in this crisis where you may resign on principle as Clare Short and Robin Cook have threatened to do?” Miliband stated that his “bottom lines are that the Government acts in accordance with international law, pursue international cooperation at every stage……”  Shortly afterwards, Britain joined with the US in a war against Iraq, without a fresh UN resolution (which it had tried, and failed, because of international opposition, to obtain), and thus condemned by the great majority of international lawyers as illegal. Both Clare Short and Robin Cook resigned. We still await any action by David Miliband, or even a defence of his conduct. Perhaps voters will remember this at the next General Election.

Alan Newham and John Tinmouth

+

In February 2009 South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition continued its work with a discussion forum on the topic: 'Block the Plans For Another Pro-War Government'.

The forum focussed on making preparations to block new arrangements for another pro-war government in Britain and, more postitively, on our agenda of an anti-war government and standing anti-war candidates.

Despite President Obama being elected in America on the promise of ‘change’ there are many reasons for fearing new forms of pro-war government here and abroad.

The present pro-war British government has in recent months enabled the Israeli state to launch a murderous offensive against the civilians of Gaza.

Our local MP David Miliband, who is also the British foreign secretary, has played a key role in defending the Israeli zionists' war crimes against the Palestinians.

He also visited the Congo on behalf of the British government to support stepped up interference in Africa.

Mr Miliband and his friends have also plans for further militarisation in Afganistan and Pakistan.

And they have ongoing plans to suppress the population here - using the economic crisis (which they have responsibity for) to futher privatize public services, further impose economic bondage on people, while they continue to protect the wealth and interests of the very rich.

We have all seen how they are nationalizing debt and privatizing profit - allowing the rich to get richer (and escape all responsibility for the present economic crisis), while everyone else gets poorer.

All of these reasons increase the danger of more wars - and should encourage people bring forward their own anti-war candidates and build on their experience and make preparations to block the plan to elect another pro-war government.

+

In our work, South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition keeps in mind a simple (seeming) proposition: 'A World Without War Is Possible'.

To 'knowing' and 'worldly wise' people - who might also be described as 'cynics' (such as those in charge of the New Labour Party and 'New' Conservative Party, and too many others) - this is 'hopelessly naive unworldly idealism'.

In response to such 'cynicism', we might modify our 'simple' proposition to: 'A Genuinely Anti-War British Government Is Possible'

The carpers might sneer back words to the effect of: '... aren't we all anti-war? ... or rather wouldn't we all be against war ... if THEY - THE ENEMY - weren't such a THREAT to OUR WAY-OF-LIFE ... WE WANT PEACE! ... THEY DO NOT! ... so unfortunately ... WE have to go to war with THEM ...'

And so 'unfortunately' ... to such people as Mr David Miliband, a self-proclaimed 'progressive' (sic) New Labour Foreign Secretary, would have it ... 'We HAD to invade Iraq ... and we now HAVE to increase troop numbers in Afghanistan ... and we HAVE to ... etc etc etc ...'

Faced with such 'spinning gimmicks'... it is useful to back-track ... return to the facts ... (not mere speculations) ... of Mr Miliband's own record in his 'home' South Shields constituency.

When he was parachuted in by the New Labour machine, against the wishes of the local Labour Party, he was presented to the local people as 'the Bright Young Man' of 'modern' New Labour. His 'intelligence' was spun to the people at every possible opportunity. Some even believed such spin.

As a matter of fact, this 'intelligent Bright Young Thing' of New Labour has proved himself spectacularly unintelligent in some significant respects.

As a matter of fact, early in 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, Mr Miliband was asked a straight question by his local newspaper, the Shields Gazette, to which he gave a straight answer (which he has ever since wanted forgotten).

He was asked whether there was 'overwhelming evidence' that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction'.

He said, without qualification: 'yes' (there was 'overwhelming evidence').

This was a false statement. Either he was lying, or he did not know what he was talking about.

To repeat, on 15 March 2003 the present British Foreign Secretary told the Shields Gazette that 'yes' there was ‘overwhelming evidence' that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction'.

He has never had the honesty or decency to concede that he was mistaken - nor to retract his gross over-statement.

He further told the Gazette as reported on 15 March 2003:  ‘A week ago in New York the Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix published a 170-page dossier that detailed Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of banned material that could be used for weapons of mass destruction.  This includes athrax and nerve gas which has been missing since the 1990 Gulf War.’

He has never conceded that this was a distortion of Mr Blix’s careful and thoughtful report to the United Nations - and nor has he acknowledged what Mr Blix maintained, then and since, that ‘unaccounted for’ ('weapons of mass destruction') material does not mean the same thing as ‘still existing’ material.

When a Foreign Secretary has behaved in such a reality-distorting way, he does not deserve trust or respect.

In our reply to Mr Miliband's statement of 15 March 2003, which was published in the Gazette a few days later, we said:
‘In June 2002 the Director of the International Atomic Energy Authority, Dr Mohamed El Baradei, wrote “There are no indications that Iraq has nuclear weapons-usable material of the practical capabilities to produce them.”  Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter claims that most chemical-biological weapons were destroyed along with their production facilities during the 1990s.  Ritter states that “liquid bulk anthrax, even under ideal storage conditions, germinates in three years, becoming useless.”  So, if the hidden weapons exist, it may be their numbers would be small and most probably redundant.  At present we see no “overwhelming evidence”.

Mr Miliband (now with all the resources of the British Foreign Office behind him) has never had the guts or decency to acknowledge that the statement of our small town anti-war group was a more honest and accurate appraisal of the then available evidence than his own at that time.

He hoped it would all be forgotten.

It has not been forgotten.

It is illustrative of the arrogant elitist contempt New Labourites like Mr Miliband actually have for the 'intelligence' of the people of their 'home' constituencies.

With the fog of the false 'weapons of mass destrustion' claims blown away by reality, Mr Miliband and his New Labour cronies attempted to justify the illegal attack on Iraq by reference to getting rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately the 'intelligent' Mr Miliband did not seem to know much about Saddam - or the rest of modern Iraq - which is one of the reasons the whole enterprize has been a literally bloody disaster.

In a statement of principles first published in 1997  and signed by, among others, Dick Cheney, the Bushite U.S. Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld, the Bushite U.S. Defence Secretary and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz - this group calls on Americans to support an increase military spending and attempts to ‘rally support for American global leadership’.

Mr Miliband seemed happy to be a supporter of this NeoCon project - which was not in the best interests of Britain and the wider world.

The invasion of Iraq was an example of a new aggressive style of American imperialism - which, at best, Mr Miliband tamely supported, at worst he actively supported - and the world is a much more dangerous place as a result.

+

David Miliband: Ignorant Fool? and/Or Dangerous War-Monger? (Or The School Minister's School-boyish's Howler)

In the Shields Gazette, Saturday, 16 August, Mr Miliband, then minister for 'school standards' was reported as having responded to an open letter we had written to him.

His reported response included the following statement attributed directly to his mouth: ‘Saddam was in power for over 40 years, ...’

Question for general review: as a matter of fact, how long was Saddam in power in Iraq?

More matters of fact: In 2003 David Miliband M.P. was the British Government’s ‘schools standards’ minister.  He has a first class honours degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University.  He was a  friend and ally of the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair - and formerly part of the PM’s team of personal advisers inside 10 Downing Street - and one would assume that he has fairly high level access to the very latest ‘intelligence’ reports. 

Question: should not the British people be entitled to expect from their ‘school standards’ minister - who has a high standard of tax-funded education himself, and a privileged access to up-to-date ‘intelligence’ - a better informed understanding of basic matters of historical fact?

In other words, should they not be entitled to expect that their ‘school standards’ minister has a better awareness of how long Saddam was actually in power in Iraq?

As if as a reward for getting that sort of 'international intelligence' so wrong, Mr Miliband was promoted to Foreign Secretary - and seriously touted by his friends in the mainstream media as a future Prime Minister.

During his time as British Foreign Secretary Mr Miliband seems to have been keener to be seen 'acting tough' (or warmongering in an adolescent manner) rather than done responsible and respectable diplomacy.

He has been spotted on television screens ... picking fights with Russia and Pakistan among other countries, and also stirring imperialistic things up in Africa ...

During the Olympic Games last year, when he might have been expected to have worked to improve British-Chinese relations (given that the Olympic torch passed from China to Britain) Mr Miliband spent his time picking a fight with Russia - and directly/indirectly supporting the massacring of civilian children, women and men by Georgian paramilitary forces in Ossetia.

(And, incidentally, the children of his 'home constituency' have been wondering why their M.P. failed to get them a panda out of that Olympic hand-over - which amy half-decent 'international statesperson' could surely have managed.)

Four days before the end of the Bushite administraion, Mr Miliband finally started to distance himself for the Bushite 'war on terror' - publically renouncing the phrase, and even having he impertinence to suggest that he had for a long time not believed in it.

It seemed, to me, too little - and too late.

The Stop The War Coalition contains people of diverse views. Many were never supporters of Labour. Some, like myself, used to be Labour supporters but never will be again.

I did not vote in a Labour government to launch illegal attacks on other countries - and although they deny that, (in an almost pantomime 'oh ho we didn't' manner) that is in fact what they did.

I did not expect a Labour government to persecute Muslim people at home - and although they deny that, that is in fact what they are doing.

+

Returning to the proposition: 'A World Without War Is Possible.'

It can be supported with two further propositions:

1. A World without War becomes more possible when governments deal in truths rather than bad faith and reality distortion.

2. A World without war becomes more possible when governments do not invade, occupy and plunder other countries illegally - and on the basis of such false claims as Mr David Miliband the 'right honourable' Member of Parliament for South Shields made to his own constituents in March 2003.

+

We all have 'bogey-people' we dislike of course.

For a libertarian leftie like me they include:
right-wing war-mongers;
military corporations;
racists, especially 'white-supremacists';
... and my local New Labour MP David Miliband (who I believe has 'betrayed' Labour values).

+

Notes Towards A Clearer Understanding Of 'The New Face' Of '(The Project For) The American Century' ...

Aristotle, Politics:
'Our observations tell us that every state is an association of persons formed with a view to some good purpose. I say "good" because in their actions all people do in fact aim at what they THINK is "good" ...'

Contrasting with the mostly unimpressive leading characters of modern British politics, like Mr Miliband, is the rather more impressive and genuinely progressive-seeming Mr Obama in America.

Mr Obama, unlike Mr Miliband, consitently opposed the illegal NeoCon adventure in Iraq, and has spoken convincingly - unlike Mr Miliband - of his revulsion at the torture of 'terror suspects'.

The New Face Of The American Century?

In 2000, a year before the violent events of 11 September, a ‘think-tank’ called the ‘Project for the New American Century’ published the
latest of what had been a long-running series of policy statements. This one was called ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences: Strategy, Forces
and Resources’. It was a grand sounding document by a grand sounding group, but was, in fact, essentially, a statement of the right-wing war-mongering prejudices of a small group of men, including: Richard Cheney, who went on to become U.S. vice president; Donald Rumsfeld, who went on to become U.S. defence secretary; Paul Wolfowitz, who was Rumsfeld’s deputy and then director of the World Bank; and Richard
Perle, ostensibly a private businessman with oil, arms and media interests, in fact a major U.S. foreign policy decision maker with a
direct ‘hot-line’ to the White House.

In their 2000 document, these men called for a massive increase in U.S. arms spending, so that American could ‘fight and win multiple, simultaneous, major theatre wars’.

They acknowledged, however, that the American People were not then willing to support such action, nor to pay the taxes required to buy the military equipment and fund the wars. What was needed to change minds, they said, was ‘some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour’. It was actually rare to see such machiavellian calculations stated so openly. But it is a fact that these people put their aims - and one might even say hopes - quite openly on the public record – in advance of 11 September.

The events of 11 September 2001 were ‘opportunities’ for such people – something they had been waiting for … for quite some time.

It would be absurd, of course, to suggest that the new U.S. President Mr Obama was a right-wing neo-conservative reactionary like these people.

But he is does believe, and has regularly restated, that the world 'needs American leadership' - and he is the new face of the attempts to create an 'American Century'.

I do believe, and have regularly restated, that it is not anti-American not to want to live in an 'American-led Century'.

And it is a matter of fact that the same warmongering forces that used the previous American President Mr Bush as a willing front man would also use Mr Obama for similar purposes, even if he was unwilling front-man, given the chance.

With this in mind, it is instructive to look back at some details of the early days of Mr Obama's campaign to win the American presidency ...

On 20 May 2007 the British Sunday Times made what was almost like an official announcement on behalf of the NeoCons: 'Paul Wolfowitz's departure from the World Bank signals the end of an ideological era in Washington'.

In the same month, Robert Kagan, who was, with Mr Wolfowiz, one of the founders The Project For The New American Century, emerged as a surprizing seeming cheer-leader for Mr Obama (who had always opposed such Project-inspired schemes as the illegal attack on and plundering of Iraq).

Mr Kagan, it might be added, was not a man not to not hedge his bets ... because also at that time he was acting as an informal foreign policy adviser to the man who would emerge as the main Republican challenger to Mr Obama, John McCain.

In an article in the Washington Post, Mr Kagan wrote approvingly that a keynote speech by Mr Obama at the Chicago Council On Global Affairs was 'pure John (F.) Kennedy' (who, despite being a Democrat, and despite being regarded as a 'liberal hero', was also a neo-con hero 'for services to the Cold War'.

(It is also worth noting that at the same time Mr Obama was getting his first heavyweight Secret Service 'protection' - much earlier than was usual for presidental candidates 'after fears were raised of a white supermacist plot to kill him'.)

In that speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in the spring of 2007, Mr Obama, whether he intended to do so or not (and it cannot be denied that he is a skilled politician - who knows 'how to hit the marks') ticked many of the 'American Century' tick boxes:
* He called for an increase in 'defense' spending;
* He Called for an extra 65,000 U.S. soldiers and 27,000 U.S. Marines so that America could 'stay on the offense' against 'terrorism';
* He said said American had to 'ensure' that it had 'the strongest best equipped military in the world';
* He talked about 'building democracies', 'stopping weapons of mass destruction' and 'the right to take unilateral action to protect U.S. "vital interests" if necessary';
* He stressed the 'importance' of 'building alliances' against America's 'enemies'.

'Personally I like it,' wrote the Neo-Con Mr Kagan of this speech, not surprizingly perhaps.

+

Follow The Money ... Towards A Better Understanding Of Power Structures ... and (Their) Re-Arrangments ...

Much play was made in the later stages of Mr Obama's election campaign of the reportedly many 'small contributions' which, added together, had, apparently, funded it on a large scale.

Earlier on in the campaign he seems to have been more reliant on 'usual suspects' big donors.

One of these was Mr John Canning a Chicago investment banker.

Mr Canning had previously funded the 2004 Bush campaign.

He said in May 2007 that he was 'disenchanted' with the Bushites.

He added: 'I know lots of my friends in this business are disenchanted and are definitely looking for something different.'

In other words: the money-people can be spotted both following and directing the drift of power ...

In a word: a 're-arrangement' was going on ...

By the summer of 2007 the head of fund-raising for Mr Obama (whether officially or unofficially is not entirely clear) was a woman named Penny Pritzker.

On the evidence that she voted against Mr Bush and for the defeated Democrat candidate John Kerry in the 2004 Election, Ms Pritzker might be thought a 'faithful' Democrat.

In fact she was the head of her family firm, the Hyatt Hotel Chain, which had also donated in 2004 to the Bush campaign. (This might be known as 'hedge(-fund)ing)one'sbets'.)

Another prominent pitch-hitting-(playing it both ways) 'switcher' was Mr Tom Berstein. He was to Yale with Mr Bush. He formerly co-owned the Texas Rangers baseball team with Mr Bush. In 2004 he donated heavily to the Bush campaign. In the spring of 2007 he joined the ranks of the Bushite 'disenchanted' ... and prominently switched his support to Mr Obama.

As did One John Martin, founder of a militaristic seeming lobby group called 'Republicans For Obama'.

Mr Martin was a reservist in the American Military who had joined the forces AFTER the attack on Iraq - which Mr Obama always opposed.

He said in the spring of 2007: 'I disagree with Obama on the war, but I don't think it is a test of his patriotism. Obama has a message of hope for the country.'

This sort of endorsement from unlikely seeming supporters was crucial to Mr Obama's 'coalition building'.

As the film maker Spike Lee (a man with a keen eye for detail) noted, there was a striking contrast between the Obama rallies and the McCain rallies in the subsequent election campaign. Mr Obama's rallies were 'multi-coloured', varied, representing an obvious broad-coalition. Whereas Mr McCain's were 'all white'. It was like a modern 21st century vision of America contrasted with something from the 1950s. There could only be one winner if America wanted a future ...

For those of us in other parts of the world who welcomed Mr Obama's victory (as something genuinely 'progressive' seeming) ... welcoming his victory was not the same as giving him unqualified support ...

And to be sceptical about his statements of 'the world needing American leadership' is not to be anti-American ...

+

Reference Texts Include:
Sunday Times, 06_05_2007 'Republicans Defect to the Obama Camp'
Sunday Times, 06_05_2007 'Security Net For Democrat with Rally Appeal'
Sunday Times 20_05_2009  'Decline and Fall Of The Neo-Cons'
Silence Is Shame, Volume 1, 2003 'The Plot of the Project: A Review'

249
Oxfam International Women's Day Report

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/conflict_disasters/iraq-in-her-own-words.html

In her own words: Iraqi women talk about their greatest concerns and challenges

The plight of women in Iraq today has gone largely ignored, both within Iraqi society and by the

international community. For more than five years, headlines have been dominated by political and

social turmoil, the chaos of conflict and widespread violence. This has overshadowed the abysmal state

of the civilian population’s day-to-day lives, a result of that very turmoil and violence.

Behind the headlines, essential services have collapsed, families have been torn apart and women in

particular have fallen victim to the consequences of war. The specific hardships that some of Iraq’s

most vulnerable individuals cope with on a daily basis, as told by them, have overwhelmingly gone

unheard.

Introduction
As an international humanitarian agency working with Iraqi non-governmental organisations that help

civilians on the ground, Oxfam last year conceived the idea of conducting a survey of women in Iraq who

have been affected by the conflict, many of who represent some of the most at risk families in the

country. The largest group of women interviewed who are deemed especially vulnerable, consists of those

widowed by conflict who are now acting as the head of her household, and who have been driven deep into

poverty. This survey is a follow up to Oxfam’s 2007 report ‘Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in

Iraq,’ which found that one-third of the Iraqi population was in need of humanitarian assistance and

that essential services were in ruins.

At the time, there was a striking absence in the public sphere of a collective female voice from the

cities, towns and villages of Iraq about the specific challenges women and their families face on a

daily basis. In fact, there was very little comprehensive, detailed information available about the

daily challenges of the Iraqi civilian population as a whole and their struggle to make ends meet –

largely due to rampant insecurity. So a team of Oxfam-supported surveyors last year fanned out across

the country, knocked on doors, and unlocked hundreds of women’s voices that, until that point, had

found nobody to listen.

Oxfam and the Al-Amal Association, the Iraqi partner organization that conducted the survey in the five

provinces of Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk, Najaf and Nineveh, do not claim that the information they gathered

from 1,700 respondents represents the situation facing all Iraqis, or even all women in Iraq. However,

it does provide a disturbing snapshot of many women’s lives and those of their children and other

family members. The information presented in this paper was collected over a period of several months,

starting in the summer of 2008.

The women revealed that their families’ everyday lives had worsened in many cases since Oxfam released

its humanitarian report – and despite the improved overall security situation in Iraq that began in

mid-2007. Not only did a large proportion of women say that access to basic services had grown more

difficult, but they also told surveyors that they had become more and more impoverished over the past

six years, and that their own personal safety remained a pressing concern.

Some of the survey results were:
Nearly 60 per cent of women said that safety and security continued to be their number one concern

despite improvements in overall security in Iraq
As compared with 2007 and 2006, more than 40 per cent of respondents said their security situation

worsened last year and slightly more than 22 per cent said it had remained static compared to both

years
55 per cent had been a victim of violence since 2003; 22 per cent of women had been victims of domestic

violence; More than 30 per cent had family members who died violently
Some 45 per cent of women said their income was worse in 2008 compared with 2007 and 2006, while

roughly 30 per cent said it had not changed in that same time period
33 per cent had received no humanitarian assistance since 2003
76 per cent of widows said they did not receive a pension from the government
Nearly 25 per cent of women had no daily access to drinking water and half of those who did have daily

access to water said it was not potable; 69 per cent said access to water was worse or the same as it

was in 2006 and 2007
One-third of respondents had electricity three hours or less per day; two-thirds had six hours or less;

80 per cent said access to electricity was more difficult or the same as in 2007, 82 per cent said the

same in comparison to 2006 and 84 per cent compared to 2003
Nearly half of women said access to quality healthcare was more difficult in 2008 compared with 2006

and 2007
40 per cent of women with children reported that their sons and daughters were not attending school
After analysing the survey results, it was also found that 35.5 per cent of participants were acting as

head of the household, primarily as a result of conflict. Nearly 25 per cent of women had not been

married. If this reflects Iraq as a whole, it is the highest rate in the larger region, a result of the

loss of men of marrying age as a result of the conflict. 55 per cent of women said they had been

displaced or forced to abandon their homes at least once since 2003. Nearly half reported sharing their

homes with other families.

In early 2009, reports of improved security in Iraq, and even a return to ‘normality,’ began appearing

in the media. Similar reports of diminished suicide bombs and other violent indiscriminate attacks

emerged at the time of the initial data collection last year. However insecurity remains in many

provinces including Baghdad, Kirkuk and Nineveh where small-scale attacks, assassination and

kidnappings continue. Women in particular are less safe now than at any other time during the conflict

or in the years before.

Beyond security, the overwhelming concern women voiced was extreme difficulty accessing basic services

such as clean water, electricity and adequate shelter despite billions of US dollars that have been

spent in the effort to rehabilitate damaged or destroyed infrastructure. Availability of essentials

such as water, sanitation and health care is far below national averages. Both the Iraqi organisation

and researcher that carried out the survey and analysed its findings corroborated that the overall

challenges facing women and the Iraqi population as a whole remained the same in early 2009 as they did

in the second half of 2008 when the data presented in this paper was collected.

Women especially appear to have been hard hit by the crippled essential services sector because many

have also been driven into debilitating poverty since 2003. The survey and more detailed interviews

revealed that a large number of women have been left unable to earn an income because many of their

husbands or sons – the family breadwinners – had been killed, disappeared, abducted or suffered from

mental or physical illness. Although there are no precise figures, it is estimated that there are now

some 740,000 widows in Iraq.

Many of the women interviewed reported that they have been unable to secure financial assistance, in

the form of a widow’s pension, or compensation from the government for the loss or debilitating injury

of family members during the current conflict or previous ones. Of the widows that were surveyed (25

per cent of respondents), 76 per cent said that they were not receiving a pension from the government.

As a result, women who are now acting as head of household are much less likely to be able to afford to

send their children to school, pay fees to access private community generators or buy clean water and

medicines.

In summary, now that overall security situation, although still very fragile, begins to stabilise, and

as the Iraqi government is now benefiting from tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues (despite

falling global prices), countless mothers, wives, widows and daughters of Iraq remain caught in the

grip of a silent emergency. They are in urgent need of protection and – along with their families – are

in desperate need of regular access to affordable and quality basic services, and urgently require

enhanced humanitarian and financial assistance. Considering recent security gains, it is in the best

interest of the Iraqi government to now begin robust investment into the lives of the war-battered

civilian population, with the support – including technical support – of the international community.



250
South Tyneside Stop the War / Diabolical Liberty-Taking(s) ...
« on: March 08, 2009, 04:54:25 PM »
Diabolical Liberty-Taking ... even the tamed NewLabour Stooges at the Guardian, etc, seem to be beginning to notice it ...

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/07/surveillance-police-politics

Politicised prying

Editorial The Guardian, Saturday 7 March 2009

Yesterday the Guardian reported that firms were buying information about which workers are active in unions. Today we expose how the police monitor protesters, and upload their details on to a central database. And their own films from last year's climate camp, which can be seen on the Guardian website, show that while they are at it, they also take the chance to pry on journalists who are covering the story.

Taken together, these stories provide a reminder of why last weekend's Convention on Modern Liberty was so timely. There are those, well represented in the government, who argue that the great eye of surveillance is a hallucination of the paranoid middle class. For most voters, certainly, paying the bills and being safe on the street are more pressing concerns than the proliferation of CCTV. The deep worry, however, has never been mere discomfort at the idea of being filmed or otherwise tracked. Rather, it is the potential for abuse that comes with the electronic logbooks. The lesson of history is that the powerful cannot be relied on to use the information they possess for the public good, as opposed to their own convenience.

The dangers are most obvious when the prying has a political dimension, as it does in the case of today's story. The police will first have to explain how collating details on protesters - and holding them for years - tallies with their recent claim in a separate court case that such evidence is only kept as an insurance policy against being sued. They said then that they kept the material on CD in case it one day proved useful in their defence. Next they will need to establish how the secretive transfer of such data to a central system is compatible with the right to privacy enshrined in the European convention, which could well prove to be difficult to do. Legal niceties aside, the fundamental question is what the service thinks it is doing keeping tabs on the political activities of individuals who are not suspected of any crime, or indeed spying on journalists who are doing their job.

If today's revelations underline the perils surveillance represent for democracy, the employer-funded blacklist of supposedly awkward workers, which the information commissioner exposed yesterday, illustrates how it also affects the bread and butter of life. Two electricians who fear they are on the list, whom we interviewed yesterday, believe it was employers' improper knowledge of their working history that left them unable to find work. The black mark was given for having taken bad bosses to tribunals; in other cases, past union activism may have had the same effect. Rights at work count for little when the right to confidentiality is trampled on. The public interest thus requires respect for private lives.

251
In The Beginning ... (almost six years ago) ...

The start of the South Tyneside Stop the War Coaliton forum in committee room C at South Shields town hall, 7pm (BST), 21st May, 2003, was almost delayed because it was growing dark outside, and so inside, and most of the dozen or so people present in the room could not find the light switch.
No town hall staff seemed to be on duty to help with this technical problem.
Fortunately one person present, Roger Nettleship, hospital worker, Unison union official, and one-time independent parliamentary candidate, had the wit and wisdom to continue searching the wall area near the main door until he found the switch ... just in the nick of time ... so that the meeting could start in a brightened state ... more or less on time.
In the forum's opening address Alan Newham celebrated the "unlikely alliances" that have been building up in the anti-war movement.
He cited the well-testified example of: "The Socialist Workers' Party marching shoulder-to-shoulder with the Mothers' Union."
From an openly open-minded socialist perspective, Alan (who remembers that Marx's mottoes included 'DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM - to doubt of everything') then went on to address the historical background of the present world situation.
He called attention to the recently published Perpetual War For Perpetual Peace, by Gore Vidal.
The title is a quote from the American historian Charles A. Beard.
The book lists the number of wars and conflicts in which the U.S. has been involved.
To quote: "In these several hundred wars against communism, terrorism, drugs, or something nothing much between Pearl Harbour and Tuesday, September 11, 2001, we tended to strike the first blow. But then we`re the good guys, right? Right."
Gore is a somewhat prickly, partly exiled, fairly ageing, thorn in the American - and wider world - consiousness.
In an article published in the British Observer (27/10/02 - copyrights observed) Gore directly quoted the words of James Madison at the dawn of the American republic:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded beause it comprises and develops the germ of very other.  As the parent of armies, war encourges debts and taxes, the known insturments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.  In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is extended .. and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people ..."
Words that might give all food for thought, it might be thought.
But as everyone knows, words are not enough ... and actions speak louder than ...
Speaking at the forum, Alan Newham wondered: "What do we DO here - our area?"
What indeed?
In all cases, human actions and communications take place (on a relatively small scale)in a widening (literal or metaphorical) forest of symbols, which include sounds, smells, tastes ... and physical things ...
While giving his opening address Alan was wearing a commercially produced sweatshirt of complex design, which included a representation of a musical score by Shostakovich.
Dmitry Dmitryovich Shostakovich was a state-sponsored musician working mostly in the former USSR, who was widely recognized as one of the 20th Century's greatest classical composers.
Dmitry watched apalled, but feeling almost powerless himself, as the Stalinist state machine (which supported his own work, and which he mostly supported on principle) massacred  (along with many others) the folk bards of the Ukraine, as part of a cultural war.
Most of the slaughtered bards were old and frail, and from the point of view of the Soviet authorities represented out-of-date ways of thinking, feeling and doing that had no place in the new Soviet world of the early 20th Century. (But where is that 'brave new world' now?)
The official justification of the purge was a clampdown on nationalism in the name of 'Internationalism' - even though, at the time, the Stalinists themselves were in the process diverting their ideology from one of 'international socialism' to one of 'socialism in one country'.
Watching the killing of the bards - and many others - from a personally relatively safe academic distance, Dmitry wondered about his own compromised position.
What was he to do?  Give up his state-sponsored vocation in protest? - and probably be persecuted himself as a consequence. Or continue to compose in what many would regard as the service of a regime that violently suppressed the freeedom of music?
Wracked by such private doubts - which perhaps helped his creative flows - Dmitry went on making music - which in some ways preserved and recreated the massacred bards' work ...
Then, despite his personal caution, and despite his mostly orthodox Soviet outlook, Dmitry was almost purged himself in 1936, when the officicial Soviet paper Pravda published an article headlined 'Chaos Instead Of Music'  accusing him of 'leftist distortion', 'petty bourgeios senstaionalism' and 'formalism'.
His survival was largely due to the popular success of his 5th symphony - to which he gave the subtitle 'a Soviet artists' practical creative response to just criticism.'
In the second world war, Dmitry worked as a firefighter during the Nazi seige of Leningrad - out of which came his 7th Symphony, The Leningrad, which became a classical anthem of the struggle against fascism, widely performed in the USSR, the UK, and the USA during the war.
Dmitry's works are marked by sharp contrasts, which some interpret as akin to political dialectics.  They have tragic intensity, grotesque often bizarre wit, humour, parody and satire - and he frequently uses quotation, including of his own previous work.
The ways of free expression - musical or otherwise -  and open dialogue are never without complexities ... and compromises ... and ambiguities ...
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum ...
At the People's Assembly, Westminister Hall, London, March 12, 2003,  Nader Naderi, who gave the second opening address at the STSTWC forum on May 21, met George Galloway.
George is a maverick British Labour MP who - since meeting Nader - has been smeared and pillaried by the mainstream British media for saying things about the war in Iraq that many other people believe - in this country and elsewhere. (Many others believe George went too far ... but that is the way open debate sometimes goes ..)
What happened when George (known to some as 'Georgeous') met Nader (a respectably married  South Tynesider, with good family links to Iran, and, by his own description, a 'capitalist' businessman.)?
In Nader's own words: 'I shook him by the hand and said to him: "May I commend you on your balls?".'
(Context. Just before Nader spoke to him, George had openly suggested to the People's Assembly - attended by more than 1,000 people, but little reported in the mainstream media - that British troops should refuse to fight in Iraq.  Nader reported this remark back to STSTWC a few days later - and expressed surprize that what seemed to be an open call to mutiny by an elected MP of the governing party had not attracted attention in the national press, tv, and radio. Later a few soliders did refuse to fight - in barely reported episodes - and later still George was widely accused of 'treason' - but the idea that the soldiers were directly influenced by George's previously barely reported remarks must be very open to doubt.)
Nader can spin out ambiguous - even kinky - sounding lines, but he can also put things straight.
He told it as he saw it to the forum:
"The fact was, and is, Saddam offered little in the way of a threat to the national security of the U.S., and the U.K - a historical fact, considering the length of the war, and the manner of defeat of an ill-equipped, and rag-tag Iraqi Army ...
... since the downfuall of the tryannical regime of Saddam, one fact is clearly emerging: annexation of the Iraqi oil by the warring factions, , and its incorporation into various American corporate bodies - with further money being siphoned by those managing to get lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq.
Simple fact is if these players were to divert such funds from U.S., and U.K. taxes, they most probably would have been found guilty of fraud, and sent to jail, however by going through the route of war, they have laundered their proceeeds, at the cost to those who died fighting this war.  The simple fact you should all remember is: crime should not pay, however sophisticated the criminal, and his or her methods of committing crimes.  In other words, it is up to you to be aware of why violence is chosen in preference to civilized modes of human discourse."
Anna Snowdon, who was informally chairing the 21 May forum, thanked Nader and Alan for their contributions, and went on to highlight some of the relative successes of the anit-war movement .
It had without doubt helped to save lives by acting as a restraining influence on the use of force by the U.S. and U.K.
And then Anna said: "We nearly stopped the war"
This simple phrase was not greeted with universal politeness at the forum.
It was a trigger for a somehwat heated discussion on the question of 'how nearly was "nearly"?'
Why the idea of 'nearly' stopping a war should provoke anger is a question causes a pause for thought
Meanwhile, the forum continues ... perhaps with ongoing regret that, for the people killed an maimed in the war, our 'nearly' was, indeed, not nearly enough ...

(Philip Talbot, 22/05/03 (Reviewed - spelling etc tidied a little - 14_02_2009))

252
News Items / American Nuke Jobs For British Workers!
« on: February 10, 2009, 02:28:22 PM »
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/09/us-uk-atomic-weapons-nuclear-power

US using British atomic weapons factory for its nuclear programme• Joint warhead research carried out at Aldermaston • Work breaches nuclear treaty, campaigners warn

Matthew Taylor and Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Monday 9 February 2009 Article history

The US military has been using Britain's atomic weapons factory to carry out research into its own nuclear warhead programme, according to evidence seen by the Guardian.

US defence officials said that "very valuable" warhead research has taken place at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire as part of an ongoing and secretive deal between the British and American governments.

The Ministry of Defence admitted it is working with the US on the UK's "existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available" but declined to give any further information.

Last night, opposition MPs called for a full parliamentary inquiry into the extent of the collaboration at Aldermaston and campaign groups warned any such deal was in breach of international law. They added that it also undermined Britain's claim to have an independent nuclear weapons programme and meant British taxpayers were effectively subsidising America's nuclear programme.

The US president, Barack Obama, while on the campaign trail said he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons and that one of his first actions on taking office would be to "stop the development of new nuclear weapons". But the Pentagon is at odds with the president. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, and other senior officials argue that the US's existing arsenal needs to be upgraded and that would not constitute "new" weapons.

Kate Hudson, of CND, said: "Any work preparing the way for new warheads cuts right across the UK's commitment to disarm, which it signed up to in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That this work may be contributing to both future US and British warheads is nothing short of scandalous."

Nick Harvey, defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said parliament and the country would react with "outrage" at the prospect of British taxpayers funding a new US nuclear weapon.

"All this backroom dealing and smoke and mirrors policy is totally unacceptable, the government must open the Aldermaston accounts to full parliamentary scrutiny," he added.

The extent of US involvement at Aldermaston came to light in an interview with John Harvey, policy and planning director at the US National Nuclear Security Administration, carried out last year by the thinktanks Chatham House and the Centre for Strategic Studies.

Referring to "dual axis hydrodynamic" experiments which, with the help of computer modelling, replicate the conditions inside a warhead at the moment it starts to explode, Harvey said: "There are some capabilities that the UK has that we don't have and that we borrow... that I believe we have been able to exploit that's been very valuable to us."

It is unclear whether the experiments are still being carried out but, in the same interview, Harvey admitted that the US and UK had struck a new deal over the level of cooperation, including work on US plans for a new generation of nuclear warhead known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). He said: "We have recently, I can't tell you when, taken steps to amend the MDA [Mutual Defence Agreement], not only to extend it but to amend it to allow for a broader extent of cooperation than in the past, and this has to do with the RRW effort."

Campaigners said the comments represent the first direct evidence that the US is using UK facilities to develop its nuclear programme. Lawyers acting on their behalf said the increasing levels of cooperation and the extension the MDA breach the non-proliferation treaty, which states: "Each nuclear weapon state party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices indirectly or indirectly."

The MoD admitted the two countries are working together, "examining both the optimum life of the UK's existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available to inform decisions on whether and how we may need to refurbish or replace the existing warhead likely to be necessary in the next parliament".

Congress has stopped funding research into RRW but campaigners believe the US military may have used facilities in the UK to get around the restrictions at home.

"Billions of pounds have been poured into the Atomic Weapons Establishment over recent years to build new research facilities," said Hudson. "If these are being used to support US programmes outside Congress's controls on spending, it raises even more serious questions about why the British taxpayer is paying for a so-called 'independent deterrent'."

253
South Tyneside Stop the War / Re: 'Greens slam callous Miliband'
« on: February 05, 2009, 02:59:38 PM »
Mr Miliband Shamelessly Denies Everything (Again) - a never ending series?
Or 'Don't Blame Mr Miliband for CIA torture, etc, he's only the British Foreign Secretary ...'

Am I alone in feeling shame that the MP for my home town is helping to cover up torture (on a huge scale)? How did we ever get such a disgrace of an MP landed on us?!
 
I note with interest what the brother of the tortured man said:
Mr Mohamed's brother, Dr Benhur Mohamed, said he had written to Mr Miliband asking him to help his brother but had not got an answer from him.
He told the BBC: "I feel very sad. I feel betrayed. It's very cruel from a person who is elected by the people to protect humanity and freedom and the rule of law."

Phil

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7871226.stm

David Miliband statement on US 'torture pressure'

David Miliband has said that disclosing classified information provided by the US could do "real and significant damage" to British national security.

He defended his decision not to release the US papers in a Commons statement about Binyam Mohamed, a Guantanamo detainee who claims he was tortured.

The foreign secretary said the UK would "never condone" torture.

And he denied the US threatened to "break off" security cooperation if its secret papers had been made public.

But he told MPs it was his judgement that "the disclosure of the intelligence documents at issue by order of UK courts against the wishes of the US authorities would indeed cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country".

He added: "Our intelligence relationship with the US is vital to the national security of the UK.

"It is essential that the ability of the US to communicate such material in confidence to the UK is protected. Without such confidence they will simply not share that material with us."

Binyam Mohamed, 30, has been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years after being accused by the US authorities of planning a terrorist attack.

He alleges he was tortured while being questioned in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, and that UK intelligence agencies were complicit in the practice. He wants US papers detailing his treatment to be released.

But the High Court ruled they should remain secret as Mr Miliband felt there was a risk to intelligence co-operation from the US if they were published.

Mr Miliband told MPs there would be "no prejudice" to Mr Mohamed's case as a result of the ruling as the information was available to his US legal counsel.

"The issue at stake is not the content of the intelligence material but the principle at the heart of all intelligence relationships - that a country retains control of its intelligence information and it cannot be disclosed by foreign authorities without its consent.

"That is a principle we neglect at our peril."

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague urged him to raise the issue with the new Obama administration in the US.

He suggested that, with the changes in the new administration's policy as well as personnel changes in the CIA, "would it not be right to put it to the US administration that it could change its approach to this case without fundamentally breaching the principle of which the foreign secretary has spoken?"

He pointed out that the High Court had said there was nothing in paragraphs kept secret that could be considered "highly sensitive, classified by US intelligence".

Mr Miliband replied that only the Americans could make a decision about whether sources would be compromised by disclosure adding: "I am not going to join a lobbying campaign against the American government for this decision. It is a decision they have to make... This case hinges not on the content of the redacted paragraphs but of the nature of the redacted paragraphs."

Ed Davey, for the Liberal Democrats, suggested the government had "rolled over in the face of a scarcely credible threat from a friend".

"The truth is, the question of publication of the summary was not about security and intelligence, it was about whether or not to cover up torture and the United States' interest in avoiding political embarrassment and potential criminal investigations against their security services," he said.

The White House has thanked the UK government "for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information".

On Wednesday, two British judges claimed that the US had threatened to stop sharing intelligence with the UK if it made public details of Mr Mohamed's treatment.

They said it was "difficult to conceive" that a democratically elected and accountable government could have any rational objection to publishing the summary of Mr Mohamed's treatment by US agencies.

The government has asked the attorney general to investigate the torture claims. But Amnesty International director Kate Allen said: "It's not enough to pass this matter to a semi-secret committee or the attorney general, instead we need a proper independent public inquiry into Binyam's case and the wider practice of rendition and secret detention."

Mr Mohamed's brother, Dr Benhur Mohamed, said he had written to Mr Miliband asking him to help his brother but had not got an answer from him.

He told the BBC: "I feel very sad. I feel betrayed. It's very cruel from a person who is elected by the people to protect humanity and freedom and the rule of law."

Dr Mohamed said of his brother: "He is very supportive and very considerate. He is not the kind of person who would want to hurt anybody."
 

254
Repeat Posting

Newcastle Rally 03_01_2008: Sunday Sun Report
« on: January 04, 2009, 04:35:48 PM » Quote Modify Remove 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2009/01/04/gaza-raids-spark-anger-on-north-streets-79310-22600607/

Gaza raids spark anger on North streets

Jan 4 2009 by Ian Robson, Sunday Sun

 
THOUSANDS took to the streets yesterday to protest against Israeli military action in Gaza.

Demonstrations in Newcastle and York were among 18 across the country.

Hundreds of protesters gathered at Grey’s Monument, Newcastle to show support for the Palestinians.

Supporters, including children, waved flags and banners during the event, organised by the protest group Fight Racism Fight Imperialism North East.

A spokesman said: “The initiative has come from Palestinians living in Newcastle. Let’s make this just the beginning of a renewed wave of resistance on the streets of Britain. In Palestine there has been talk of a third intifada. We have a duty living in a heartland of imperialism to also play our role.”

A spokeswoman for Northumbria Police said the official attendance figure was 150.

She said: “There were no arrests and it went off peacefully.”

A protest in York at the city’s St Sampson’s Square was followed by a march.

The London protest was supported by singer Annie Lennox and Bianca Jagger.

Police put the numbers at Trafalgar Square at 5000 to 6000 but organisers said that figure was a gross underestimate. Ms Lennox, formerly part of Eurythmics with her ex-partner Dave Stewart, of Sunderland, called for a ceasefire.

She said: “I’m here today as a mother, not as a politician. I’m not pro anybody, I’m here for human rights. We are looking at a huge human rights tragedy in front of us. The idea of an air assault combined with a ground war in such a tightly packed area as Gaza is unimaginable.

“There are 2000 people injured already. It will be a bloodbath.

“The turnout today is absolutely incredible . . . it shows that so many people really care about the issue. Hopefully, now, we will see dialogue, dialogue, dialogue.”

She said President George Bush, who has described Hamas’s rocket attacks as an act of terror, was not helping the situation.

255
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2009/01/04/north-east-bears-the-brunt-of-war-deaths-79310-22600474/

North East bears the brunt of war deaths

Jan 4 2009 by Phil Doherty, Sunday Sun

THE North has paid a heavy price for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suffering more deaths per head of population than anywhere else in the country.

According to Ministry of Defence figures there have been 316 fatalities in the two conflicts, of which 34 involved troops from the region.

That equates to nearly 11 per cent of the death toll in a population that makes up just six per cent of the entire country.

Families who have lost loved ones in the wars are divided as to whether the cost in lives has been worth it.

John Miller, father of Simon Miller, one of six Royal Military Police personnel killed in Iraq in 2003, said: “I’m shocked at the level of casualties from the region.

“It looks like our region is bearing the brunt of it. Lives are being ruined for nothing and it’s not been worth one life. The soldiers signed up to protect Queen and country and not some foreign land like Iraq or Afghanistan.”

The latest soldier to be killed was sergeant Chris Reed of the 6th Battalion, The Rifles, who was blown up by a roadside bomb in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on New Year’s day. He came from Plymouth and planned to marry after his tour of duty..

His death was the first casualty of 2009 and follows a year in which Britain lost 51 troops in Afghanistan.

However, John Hyde, whose son Ben Hyde died alongside Simon Miller, believes the sacrifices made have been worth it.

He said: “I’m very proud of what Ben and his colleagues have achieved. That Britain will pull its troops out of Iraq by March and the Americans have handed security of the Green Zone to the Iraqi security forces shows there has been significant improvement in the security in the country.

“We have stabilised the country, although it was never going to be easy.

“I would like to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq because that would be a fitting memorial for all those who have lost their lives.”


Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18