Sam PF's Journal
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Sam PF" journal:[<< Previous 20 entries]
|
11:59 pm
[Link] |
Every problem a nail
Yet more craziness and slaughter in Iraq, as forces of Nouri al-Maliki's government continue their assault on the Mehdi army militia in Basra. This attack has been loudly praised by George Bush, and US and UK planes have chimed in with air attacks.
Things have been pretty horrendous in Basra, controlled by rival Shia militias (including the Badr brigade, which is the militia of al-Maliki's Dawa party.), and their rule has not been pretty, especially for women. But so this is the way to solve it? Start an all-out civil war (on top of the various other civil wars still raging in Iraq) in an attempt to destroy the official 'bad guys'?
Juan Cole is probably the best available regular commentary in English on what's going on in Iraq. He reckons (amongst others) that this move is linked to forthcoming provincial elections in Iraq in October, in which al-Maliki and the US are distinctly afraid that Muqtada al-Sadr's party, of which the Mehdi is the militia, will win in the Shia provinces. The Sadrists are strongly against the US presence in Iraq, and have at times been engaged in direct armed resistance against US and UK forces, though currently they are on ceasefire. (Not that the other Shiite parties are that thrilled about the occupation, and Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the spiritual leader of many Shia, including Maliki's party, has been a strong critic of the US presence. But US forces are what keep the government in power, so they go along.) So, destroy the militia, destroy the party may be the thinking. Whether it works is another matter, as the Sadrists are rather popular amongst the Shia, and the US - not so much.
So, Maliki, with the hand up his back moving his mouth barely hidden, vows to fight the Sadrists to the death. Attempts at negotiations are stifled. Basra - and now many other areas of southern Iraq - is turned into a warzone, the US and UK drop righteous bombs which only ever kill "militants" (except that Iraqi sources, including police and medical, have an annoying habit of revealing that actually they were civilians), and the humanitarian situation - never good, with the chronic failure of the 'rebuilding' project in Iraq to provide basic services - deteriorates further.
Thing is, it's not just Iraq. It's the same pattern in every conflict at the moment where the US see their interests as at stake. In Afghanistan, the heavy-handed military approach to dealing with the Taliban insurgency, where Coalition forces appear to be killing more civilians than the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai occasionally makes protests for form's sake, but he's not the one calling the shots. Talk to the Hand.
Then there's Somalia. Without a government since 1991, it was largely controlled by various warlords [1], although there was a theoretical Transitional Government that controlled only the town of Baidoa. In 2006, an Islamist group, the Union of Islamic Courts, captured a large chunk of territory, including the capital Mogadishu, temporarily ending the warlords' rule.
Now these were probably not an entirely nice bunch, but maybe that might have been an opportunity for, say, some sort of negotiations between the UIC and the Transitional Government? Maybe there'd have even been a vague chance of uniting the country? But noooo, the US decides (without any actual evidence) that the UIC are linked to Al-Qaida, and instead back an invasion by Ethiopia. The Ethiopians force the UIC out of Mogadishu in short order, but then comes the inevitable insurgency, plus the warlords return to Mogadishu, as always no-one is particularly keen on foreign occupation (and Somalia and Ethiopia have something of a history) and now aid agencies say that a humanitarian catastrophe is impending. Another triumph of US policy!
Then there's Palestine. Leaving aside the US's ongoing unconditional support for Israel, there's their role in the intra-Palestinian conflict between Fatah and Hamas. which has been, of course, to stoke it up as much as possible. Ever since Hamas unexpectedly won the 2006 elections, they have been doing their darndest to overturn that result, leading an international boycott of the PA, plunging the Palestinians into even deeper poverty, and opposing all attempts at dialogue between the parties, continuing to boycott the unity government that was set up early in 2007.
Then of course there was the Hamas coup in Gaza, since when that territory has been kept under siege. As I said at the time, there was a lot to suggest this was pretty much the inevitable outcome of US policy of playing the two sides against each other. But recently there's been evidence that their role was even more direct than this, with Vanity Fair claiming to have leaked documents showing that the US was arming Fatah forces under Mohammed Dahlan, their strongman in Gaza, and was seeking to orchestrate a coup against Hamas - a policy which of course went horribly wrong with Hamas winning the battle instead.
Every time, every situation, the US policy is the same. Pick an ally, decide who the bad guys are, and pursue a military solution to wipe the bad guys out, and never mind how many innocent people suffer in the process. Pretty much every case where the US's baleful influence is felt, the result is humanitarian catastrophe. You think they might have noticed by now that it doesn't work? Except at one level it does work. Doesn't solve the problem, but it does succeed in dividing and ruling, preventing any unity amongst the subject population that might oppose US interests.
One final case where things may be going a little bit differently - Pakistan. There, the US had President Musharraf as their friendly dictator, pursuing the usual strategy against Taliban insurgents in the North-West Frontier Province. Rather horribly ineffectually, and with the usual dire consequences. But in February, parliamentary elections led to the overwhelming defeat of Musharraf's allies, and a governing coalition that has left the President isolated. And now the new government, unbeholden to the US, wants to try a different approach, with more talk and less killing. No, not suddenly becoming pacifist, and yes the insurgents they're dealing with are an extremely unpleasant bunch, but now that the Pakistanis are free(r) to choose their own approach, they've decided that maybe there's a better way than fighting until every last enemy is dead, no matter the cost. Good luck to them.
I hope, hope to God that things might be a little different with a new Administration - not that evil began with Bush and every past US government was pure as the driven, but there does seem to be a strong current in US opinion that is heartily sick of perpetual war, which might just find a voice in a Democrat Whitehouse. McCain, who gets far too easy a ride in the British press, let alone the American, quite clearly represents more, even more of the same - if anything, "no more Mr. Nice Guy", and I shudder to think what the future holds if he wins.
[1]Except for the self-declared republic of Somaliland in the North, which I gather is fairly peaceful, although it is not recognised by the UN, and the region of Puntland which is likewise de-facto self-governing
Tags: iraq, palestine, peace, politics, us politics, war
|
|
09:08 pm
[Link] |
Stoppa kriget!
Went on an anti-Iraq war demonstration today, one of a number around the world to mark the fifth anniversary of the war in a few days time. Hum, trying to find a picture. Ah, here are a few. Not such a trendy activity these days, but the turnout was better than I expected - maybe up to 1,000. Dagens Nyheter said 'hundreds', which is consistent with that.
A lot of Iraqis there, who were carrying a giganimous Iraqi flag near the head of the demo. Sweden has been very good at taking in Iraqi refugees from the war, compared to other EU countries - though now they are apparently being monumentally stupid, with the immigration authorities apparently now deciding that there is not a war in Iraq, so they can refuse asylum claims to new arrivals. (Not sure of the details, whether they're actually sending people back). Also a large number of Iraqis, principally Kurds, from a previous generation of refugees, though I imagine many of their attitudes towards the war might be (understandably) rather different.
A plus point compared to the British demos was that there was a bit of a rally at the start as well as the end. With music, including a blues band from the Left Party, who gained loads of awesome points in my books by playing A las Barricadas. Also some hip-hoppers.
Lots of chanting in Swedish of course, which makes a change from the British ones - also quite good for language in terms of getting one's mouth properly round the sounds - somewhat like. I think my favourite was
Vad tänker vi om Bush?
Illa! Illa!
Hur illa?
Skit illa! Usch! Usch! Usch!
Also nice clear, slowly-spoken speeches, which is good listening practice, as my ear is lagging badly behind my reading and even my speaking. Could actually get a reasonable proportion of what they were saying, which is encouraging.
More seriously, a young Iraqi teenager, Ayat Suleiman and her father Ismail spoke - she had been badly injured by a US cluster bomb, leaving her with 65% burns. Four of her brothers, Ishak, Yakub, Yosef and Yassin (sp?) were killed in the explosion.
Cluster munitions are weapons that spread a large number - sometimes hundreds of small submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Delivered from land or air, their aim is to act as an area-denial weapon. This makes them fundamentally indiscriminate, and even if there are no civilians in the area at the time, a significant proportion of submunitions (even so-called 'smart' ones) fail to explode, and remain as a deadly leftover - especially as a lot of them are brightly coloured and can look like children's toys. (One of Ayat's brothers did just that and brought one home, the source of the Suleimans' tragedy.) War is always hell, but cluster bombs add one more gruesome circle. There is an international campaign to ban them.
Current Music: A las barricadas
Tags: peace, politics, sweden, war
|
|
09:48 pm
[Link] |
Logistics and life
A while since I've made a general update - not a whole lot to report it must be said - mostly the usual rounds of work and Swedish classes and choir practice and spending too much time on the internet and watching DS9.
I did spend a couple of days in Brussels the week before last, on work, which I'd totally meant to write about but you know how it is. I was at the European Defence Agency (EDA) confernce on "Commercialising Logistics?", which they'd invited SIPRI to send someone too, and which was of considerable interest as we're writing about the privatizing and outsourcing of military activities right now.
The focus of the conference was on the potential for outsourcing logistical supply for EU Crisis Management missions such as those in Chad and DRC.
( Logistical geekiness )
The best talk though was from Amer Daoudi from the World Food Programme, who'se the head of their Logistics Service. He was basically "We're the biggest logistical operation on the planet, we have 3,000 people doing this alone, we shift so many gazillion tonnes a year, we do it cheaper and faster than anyone else, over the worst terrain imaginable - you guys are amateurs!" (well, he didn't say the last bit.) Oh, and they use elephants where necessary to deliver stuff when the going gets really bad! He sort of stole the show.
Moving in rather fluffier circles, I found it very noticeable just how male-dominated the whole thing was. (Not that I should be surprised.) There were maybe an 10-15% of the participants women, but all the speakers, panellists, moderators, and all the people making questions and comments from the floor (quite a number) were men.
Also not surprisingly, very white - I think Amer Daoudi may have been the only non-white person there out of about 300. Though I can't really claim that the fluffier circles are often much better on that score.
( general pootling (SPOILER for Buffy S8.12) )
In other news, my brother is now in New York, visiting our grandmother for 10 days before going on to California where he will be living. (As mentioned here which can be unlocked now I've sent him the tunes.)
Also I have finally got round to going to the doctor over my persistent sleeping problems. I basically tend to fail at sleep a lot of the time, which is not good for my productivity or general well-being. Getting a full examination next week. Should have gone ages ago, but I am an avoidant idiot.
Tags: family, life, logistics, war, work
|
|
03:27 pm
[Link] |
Couldn't resist...
According to the UK MoD (Defence News Analysis 5th Novermber 07):
"The Dickin Medal, awarded to exceptionally brave animals, has been awarded 62 times: to 32 messenger pigeons, 26 dogs, three horses and one cat"
Tags: war
|
|
12:49 am
[Link] |
Four years
Four years ago today, the United States and Britain invaded Iraq.
655,000 dead, according to the best available estimate from the Lancet. 2 million have fled Iraq for neighbouring countries, and 1.9 million are internally displaced, according to the UN High Commission for Refugees. From a population of around 28 million. Many are killed by our own forces; oh, it doesn't get reported much, but the US has been intsensifying its air war in Iraq, a tactic that inevitably leads to indiscriminate killing. But many more are now killed not by the US/UK forces themselves, but by the forces unleashed by the occupation, the sectarian violence that has been the result of the Coalition's manouevres to try to control a hostile population. But all of it follows from that first act, the crime of aggression, which "contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" as the Nurenberg Tribunals found.
But all, or most of this is commonplace by now, and the arguments as to why it was a bad idea scarcely need repeating.
A day perhaps, rather, simply to mourn, to mourn the dead and the suffering of all involved, and to mourn the failures of our collactive humanity and of our democracies that allowed this to happen - and how it can be stopped from happening again.
Our leaders, pursuing their own malign agendas, lied. Our obedient media broadcast the lies uncritically. Our craven legislators followed their leaders, whether from blind loyalty or the fear of seeming unpatriotic. So many people bought into the lies, swallowed the fear, blew the patriotic trumpet; the small lies about WMD, but also the big lie behind all the others, the lie that is so all-pervasive it hardly needs to be stated - that 'we' are the good guys, that 'our' goals must be by definition virtuous and benevolent, even if there is debate about the means.
And we, who saw through the lies, or at least some of them, who saw something of what a disaster this invasion would be (though I don't think anyone imagined just how much. When Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak prophecied that it would 'open the gates of Hell', I thought he was speaking in hyperbole), we did not do enough to stop it.
Maybe we never could have done. Maybe not. But whatever we did, it was not enough.
Two million marched in the streets of London; (I was not one of them, for I was in Stockholm at the time, and was one of the 35,000 marching there.) Biggest demonstration in British history. When recently one million people signed an internet petition against road pricing, people said "Surely the government can't go ahead now", and indeed the Government looks to be backing off. Signed a fricking petition. Showed just how much they cared. Two million got off their arses and spent a day marching in the cold and the Government ignored them.
I always say that the two million who marched that day made one fatal mistake: they went home. The government can ignore any number of people who march around London for a day with placards and then go home. Especially when it comes to a war, because if (as they will always assume) the war is won, public opinion will usually come onside. The only way Britain's entry into the Iraq war could have been prevented, I believe, is if enough people that day had stayed on the streets, had surrounded Parliament and filled Whitehall, and refused to budge until Blair resigned and the threat of war removed. I'm not talking about overthwrowing the system here; merely forcing the resignation of a leader and new elections. It's been done recently in a number of other countries where the government has flouted the will of the people, and our leaders and media have applauded.
And that, I suspect, is the only thing that would have a chance of stopping our leaders going to war against Iran, if that is what they are set on doing; a war whose consequences could be truly Apocalyptic, putting even Iraq in the shade. I read many articles from a variety of commentators as to whether this is likely, and some say it is, and some say it is not; (more of the first I think). And not just leftists, but a fair few Neo-cons are convinced that this, which is what they want, will indeed happen. At any rate, I do not think we can afford to be complacent, or assume that because Iraq is going so badly they "couldn't be so crazy" as to attack Iran. They could be more than crazy enough. So many people thought "No, they wouldn't actually do it" over Iraq, until it was realised too late that that is exactly what they were going to do.
In the United States, Congress has now flunked what could be the last opportunity to place legislative shackles on the Bush administration, with Democrats (influenced in part by the Israeli lobby) abandoning plans to attach a rider to the Appropriations bill for Iraq that would have required specific Congressional authority for an attack on Iran.
As for Britain, it is hard to believe that the government would support an attack on Iran, but we have been here before; the public is at least (for now) far more sceptical now about justifications for military attacks, according to a BBC poll. But I truly believe that Tony Blair would follow George Bush into Hell, regardless of the opinions of party, Parliament or people. And as for Parliament, there are still enough blind Blair loyalists, and the Tories, for all Cameron's fluffiness, remain a party of war.
If Bush decided to attack Iran, and Blair were intent on following him, it would once again be up to the people to stop them. And like last time, asking nicely or even threatening to withold votes will not cut it. (Bush and Blair in any case have no further interest in re-election.) If the time comes to march against imminent war in Iran, then march we must; but if we value the future of humanity, we must not go home at the end of the day. We must not go home.
Do people care enough? Do people have enough belief anymore that would they do can make a difference? Are people willing to take risks and step beyond the comfortable and predictable to be able to make such a difference?
No, almost certainly not. And perhaps that above all is to be mourned.
Tags: iraq, peace, war
|
|
02:48 am
[Link] |
Deterring logic
One of the silliest arguments used by the pro-nuclear lobby in the UK, but which they totally get away with, is the claim that they were proved right by the way the Cold War turned out, that nuclear weapons Kept the Peace.
Now, a case can certainly be made that the 'balance of terror' between the US and the USSR made open war between them much less likely. (They exported it to the 3rd World instead.) The contrary case can also be made that we were actually very, very lucky, and came very close to annihilation during the Cuba missile crisis. But you can certainly argue that, had the US not had nuclear weapons, things might have been very different and quite likely less peaceful. Indeed, there's a very strong case that had the USSR not had nuclear weapons then Russia might well now be a nuclear wasteland; there were strong and persistent voices at high levels of US decision-making that advocated nuking the Soviet Union out of existence before they developed a sufficiently credible deterrent of their own.
But to argue that Britain's nuclear weapons kept the peace is really quite absurd. This would seem to suggest that the USSR were unconcerned by the US's vast arsenal, but were kept in their box by Britain's titchy but plucky contribution that the Americans have allowed us to have. The argument also totally fails to explain why Germany, Norway, Greece, etc. etc. enjoyed the same relative peace we did. One could, with just as much logic, claim that it was Sweden, Finland and Austria's neutrality that kept the peace, or Czechoslovakia's non-nuclear-armed membership of the Warsaw Pact that kept the peace; there is nothing more to any of these arguments than "X happened, and there was peace, therefore X kept the peace."
I would suggest that in fact Britain's 'independent' nuclear deterrent made no difference whatsoever to the likelihood of war in Europe. Except for the undeniable fact that it added one to the number of countries with a very small but non-zero probability of starting a nuclear war by accident.
There is little more logic to the contention that we need nuclear weapons as an ultimate deterrent because 'you never know' what threats may lie around the corner. Somehow this doesn't seem to bother Australia or Germany or Sweden or Brazil or whoever. Ah, say the pro-nuclear lobby, but we're recognised as a nuclear power by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), so we're allowed to have this insurance policy, and they're not. Well gosh, all these other countries must be really kicking themselves that they signed the NPT in the first place and deprived themselves of the possibility of enjoying this indispensible safeguard. In fact, they must be seriously thinking about withdrawing from the NPT themselves; after all, if they're all thinking like that, then once one does it the rest will and you can't impose sanctions on all of them. Wait, they're not all thinking like that you say? Very strange.
Ah, the pro-nuclear folks further protest, but Britain is far more involved in world affairs than the rest, we are a global power, so we are much more of a potential target. What you mean is, we piss off enough of the rest of the world that some of them might actually want to drop a bomb on us some day, given the chance. In which case, how about not pissing them off? Anyone thought of that? (Oh wait, we piss them off just by being free, I forgot, silly me.) So what it comes down to is that we need nuclear weapons to back up our frequent use of military force to impose our will on weaker nations, in case any of these nations were to attempt to get us back. Personally I can do without that.
Now, it is not only the other side of the debate that can be guilty of weak logic. The 'good example' argument often deployed by our side, for instance. The other side can justly point out that Iran (for example) are not going to base their decision on whether to develop nukes (which there is no evidence they are doing) on whether the UK has nukes. With a hostile US on their borders, and a nuclear-armed Israel off to the west, it is the balance of these threats against the risk of bringing down the wrath of the US by attempting to get a bomb that will be the deciding factor for them.
However, there is an aspect of the 'good example' argument which I think is usually missed: the UK's decision might not influence a country that was bent on developing the bomb; but it might well influence the rest of the world in deciding what to do about it. If Britain is one of the countries leading the calls for sanctions against an emerging nuclear power (as we undoubtedly would be), then these calls are going to sound decidedly hollow coming from a country busy upgrading its own arsenal, arguably in violation of the NPT, despite facing no obvious threat. The stench of hypocricy might weaken our case somewhat. Thus, Britain's decision to upgrade Trident could well have negative consequences for non-proliferation after all.
Tags: peace, politics, trident, war
|
|
12:45 am
[Link] |
Trident replacement
As many will be aware, British MPs vote today on Government proposals to replace Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system tomorrow. Despite a substantial Labour rebellion expected, with two government resignations already, the government is expected to win the vote easily with Tory support.
The moral and strategic arguments on this are well-rehearsed; I shan't add to them, but refer you to two op-eds in tomorrow's Guardian, one from someone who supported Britain's possession of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and one from someone who opposed it, but who are both firmly against Trident replacement.
Where I will add my two-pennorth is regarding the economics of the issue, where my academic work and political interests have come together lately, in a report I and my colleague Paul done have been working on for Greenpeace over the past year on "The Opportunity Costs of Trident Replacement and the Aircraft Carrier Programme". For no doubt very good internal reasons, Greenpeace have not yet published it (though we are confident it will be published at some point), but you may read our final draft, which Paul presented at the House of Commons last week. The views expressed are the authors' own and not necessarily those of Greenpeace.
( more on the report )
So there we have it. Hopefuly Greenpeace will before long afford a more public outlet for this work than my Livejournal, but at any rate it's been presented before a fair few MPs and researchers, so hopefully it'll have had some impact.
Tags: academia, peace, politics, uk politics, war
|
|
12:47 am
[Link] |
On demo numbers
It is well known that police and demo organisers always give wildly different figures for numbers at demonstrations. (The pro-hunting Countryside Alliance demo of 2002 being a noticable exception - hmm, wonder why). At last week's Stop the War demo, the organisers claimed 100,000, the police claimed 10,000. (Having originally said 2-3,000, which was clearly ludicrous.) I am highly suspicious of police figures, but obviously organisers have a clear incentive to exaggerate. It is hard to know what to think - the facile thing is to say "The truth is probably somewhere inbetween", but there's no real evidence for that. What exactly does 100,000 people look like anyway? If it happened to be 120,000, how would the organisers know that they should be exaggerating things up to 200,000 rather than sticking with the 100,000 they were planning on saying? There is no real good science of this, afaik.
Just once in a while though, someone gets caught in a blatant porky. Apparently one time at Greenham Common, the police estimate was actually lower than the number of protestors' cars in the nearby car park!
Regarding last weekend's demo, the police seem to have once again been a little overeager in massaging down the numbers. This from teh STW email bulletin (can't find website version):
"How do we know the figure of 10,000 was nonsense? The combined total of placards distributed at the start of the rally by Stop the War, CND, BMI and just two other organisations affiliated to Stop the War was over 10,000. Many more placards were distributed by other groups. Look at
any picture of the march and it is clear that only a minority carried placards. The ratio is around 5-10 people not carrying placards to one person carrying a placard. The maths is quite simple for the whole demonstration."
Granted that it's possible that some people took more than one placard (I sometimes do), and that the 5-10 people per placard may be just as wild a guess as the rest, the basic point would seem to stand that the actual numbers must have been much higher than the police estimate.
How does one estimate numbers at a demo anyway? (Apart from the traditional 'ideologically motivated guess')
Tags: peace, politics, uk politics, war
|
|
10:34 pm
[Link] |
Lacking a title
Weekend away at Unite for Peace, sadly without a poorly ![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) mirabehn, and mostly_a_cat. As Fellowship of Reconciliation have now sold the Eirene Centre in Northamptonshire where we used to meet, we were at Douai Abbey in Berkshire, which seems quite satisfactory, and is certainly more convenient for me, though not so much for the Midland folks.
Normally we have various sessions, discussions, sometimes speakers, on one topic or another, but this time as our weekend coincided with the latest Stop the War demo in London, we spent the Saturday there.
A good day out, nice to be going with a bunch of people I know well, though the lack of effectiveness of these demos is rather dispiriting to me at any rate. Between 10-100,000, depending on whether you believe the random numbers made up by the police or the organisers (I don't believe either, nor do I believe that "the truth is probably somewhere in the middle"), but pretty much lacking in political impact either way. Although we seem to be sliding ever closer to war with Iran, which would be an untold catastrophe, there seems to be a total sense of apathy and... torpor amongst people about it - and Stop the War seem to just keep on bashing their heads against the same wall, another demo every six months, congratulating themselves on how many people are still coming and how this is the greatest anti-war movement ever, and just absolutely no new ideas about how to actually mobilise people and have an impact. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for mass demos. I make a point of going on them whenever I can. But if marching from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square every six months is all we've got, we're screwed. (There was the demo at the Labour Conference in Manchester 6 months ago which, hypocrite, I missed as I was on my way back from Turkey, but still pretty much just another big demo.)
Still, a good day out. Seventeen of us, nine adults and eight children, the eldest of whom have been growing up with our little group (7 now). Just before the march set off we had a group photo with the FoR banner just outside Hyde Park, and all of a sudden there was this feeding frenzy of cameras around us - including some quite professional-looking ones - all wanting a piece of us! Either it was the whole "Look - cute children campaigning for peace!" thing, or a "Look at these terrible people BRAINWASHING their children and taking them on DEMOS ALONG WITH OMG MUSLIM FANATICS!!!!" thing. Hopefully the former.
Thursday evening I was in Birmingham, planning the next Called to be Peacemakers conference. Gah, I was most remiss in barely blogging the last one, before or after. We're planning it for late Octoberish again, date tbc, general theme of Conflict Resolution/Transformation (at all levels). Martha, the FoR worker doing the main organising, seems pleased to treat me as an honorary young-person (or at least a slightly-older-than-young person wot comes along in a nominally organisey/helping-out capacity), and seems to think me being around is a Good Thing despite my advanced years, so I stick around. There were several of the new people from the last conference along at the planning meeting, which is an encouraging sign. Anyway, watch this space for further details.
*sigh* Monday beckons ever larger. Rarely a popular day of the week, this year I have had the supreme joy of starting the week with an 8.30am seminar. I'm sure 8.30am classes must count as Cruel and Unusual, for both students and teachers. And that's the first of six hours teaching, so I finish the day a crumpled-up ball of deadness. Ah, well. Set internal dukebox to Boomtown Rats.
Tags: life, peace, politics, uk politics, unite for peace, war
|
|
01:17 am
[Link] |
Violence and non-Violence
It’s just over a year ago that I last came back from Palestine. As you may remember, the last thing I did when I was there was to take part in a demo in Bil’in against the wall, where I was arrested.
Things have got worse there. The wall is now built there, the villagers’ land is cut off; and the military’s brutality against the continuing demonstrations gets worse. Two weeks ago, an Israeli protestor was shot in the head with a rubber-coated steel bullet, and a Danish protestor was beaten unconscious and suffered a fractured skull by being beaten with a baton. Two days ago, several demonstrators were badly beaten, with two internationals suffering concussion, and a Palestinian co-ordinator shot several times with rubber-coated steel bullets. It will not be long before someone is killed there. Of course several have been killed in other such demonstrations in Budrus and Biddu.
It does make me wonder what this non-violent resistance, which I have often exalted in this journal, can actually achieve, principled and courageous as it is. It doesn’t obstruct what the occupying forces want to do. (It’s different when they’re actually trying to control a people directly; but if they’re just trying to build walls round you and leave you to stew, not so much.) It doesn’t apparently change hearts and minds of the soldiers, or of the Israeli people generally. It doesn’t get media coverage. It does keep the spirit of those who participate in such resistance strong, it represents a refusal to lie down and accept oppression, and for that alone it is worth doing. But as for achieving political effects? At the moment, nada.
One left-wing evangelical Christian writer I read, it might have been Tony Campolo, talks about the civil rights movement in the USA in the 1960s, and this time when he was watching TV images of the demonstrators kneeling down to pray on this bridge, and being baton-charged by the police, and he thought to himself, "That’s it, they’ve won". And sure enough, or so the fairy-tale version of events goes, the dignity and humanity of the black protestors won people over and civil rights legislation was passed and, if they didn’t all live happily ever after, at least happier.
Seems though that dignity and humanity doesn’t really work on Israeli soldiers.
You know what does work really well on Israeli soldiers? Or so the past month or two have shown. Anti-tank missiles. Helped Hizbollah give the murderous might of the IDF an ass-kicking they richly deserved. Thrown the Israeli government into turmoil. Changed the mood of defeatism around the Arab world.
Not that it’s bringing peace any nearer. A recent poll in Israel shows that, while the government has massively lost popularity, the beneficiaries are the far-right Likud party, and the even further right Yisrael Beiteinu. The logical conclusion that is apparent to 90% of the rest of the world, that Israel can only hope to get security in the long-run by negotiating peace with its neighbours, does not yet seem to have sunk in for the majority of Israelis. (That’s probably what comes from lobbing Katyushas at people. Like the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon really made most Lebanese want to disarm Hizbollah. Amazing that politicians and military leaders still haven’t worked out this elementary point: bombing civilian populations pisses them off.)
But anyway, where was I? Soul-searching, about why I’m not in Palestine getting beaten and shot at with the rest of them, and about whether non-violence really works.
Ah, but what do you mean "works"? Surely the claim is not that by loving your enemies you will eventually defeat them; it is that in loving your enemies, you have already defeated them, defeated their hatred and their attempt to force you to submit to their will. Is that not the message of the Cross?
That might sound more convincing if I weren’t sat here typing at a computer while other people get bombed and beaten and shot.
Those looking for a conclusion to this post will be disappointed.
Tags: bil'in, palestine, peace, politics, war
|
|
11:03 pm
[Link] |
CPT hostages
Needless to say I am delighted by the release of the CPT hostages in Iraq, Norman Kember, James Loney and Harmeet Sooden. Though we can never forget Tom Fox, who did not return. He is with God now, so my faith holds, and praying for we who continue to struggle here on earth.
There seems to have been quite a lot of negative coverage of the CPT since the release/resuce - the suggestion being that they were foolish to be there in the first place, that they were putting the lives of those who had to rescue them in the end in danger, and that the fact that they had to be resuced by the military proves the folly of their pacifist ideals.
To these charges, I would first and foremost point out what Norman, James, Harmeet, Tom, and the rest of CPT Iraq were doing. They were there in solidarity with the Iraqi people. That's not some airy-fairy waffle. Their main specific work was working for the rights of Iraqi detainees in US and Iraqi custody, documenting human rights abuses, trying to gain family members access to their detained relatives, and raising awareness about the realities of what is going on in Iraq in their home countries, including promoting an "adopt a detainee" programme amongst churches.
Detainees in Iraq are often held for months or years without charge, frequently without their families having any idea where they are, and frequently subject to abuse. (Believe it or not, not every case of prisoner mistreatment gets videod and leaked to the media. The CPT were onto Abu Ghraib months before the scandal broke.) These detainees, and their families, most often have no-one to speak for them. No-one. Certainly no westerners, and it is westerners who have the best chance of being listened to. The CPT in Iraq are in many cases providing the only lifeline these detainees and their families have.
As well as this, CPTers continue to provide an alternative view of what's going on in Iraq, from the ground level, actually able to report what they're hearing and seeing from ordinary Iraqis, rather than relaying official briefings from the safety of the Green Zone. They are also working with Muslim groups to set up a Muslim Peacemaker Team. Most recently, some CPTers have been intervening on behalf of a group of Palestinian Iraqis trapped in the country, trying to escape from increasing violence against their community.
I understand that at one point the CPT were considering leaving Iraq because it was to dangerous, or even had left, but were asked to stay by Iraqis they are working with.
More about the CPT's work in Iraq can be found at this article in the Toronto Star, and at the CPT Iraq website.
Yes, being there was and is dangerous. So is being there as a soldier, or a contractor. So why is it OK for a soldier to put their life, and potentially other people's lives, at risk so that they can be there as an occupying army, or for a contractor to be there making vast profits for Halliburton, but not for someone to put their life at risk supporting human rights? All the CPTers knew the risks. They all underwent rigorous training and screening. And they all signed statements saying they did not want to be rescued by military force, in the event that they were taken hostage. They were willing to put their lives at risk, not out of some naive, starry-eyed idealism, but to provide very real and practical help and solidarity to people who had no-one else to speak for them.
In the end they were released with the aid of military forces. The operation was carried out, thankfully, without a shot being fired, and the hostage-takers were not there when the troops arrived. I suspect there is more to this story than we are currently being told. Apparently, CPT had been in contact with British forces, and the British assured Kember's family and church that they would only mount a rescue attempt if they could be reasonably confident no-one would be killed. It is to their credit that they kept to this.
The BBC has a discussion forum on the CPT hostages, so if anyone feels like adding a comment to counter all the negative views, that would be very welcome. Of course, if you want to add more negative views then that's up to you.
Tags: iraq, peace, politics, war
|
|
12:30 am
[Link] |
Glorifying terrorism
Last week, the UK House of Commons passed, for the second time, a bill outlawing the ‘glorification of terrorism’. Despite continued House of Lords opposition, it now looks like this absurd and ill-defined piece of legislation will become law. It represents yet another attack on freedom of speech and civil liberties by the most authoritarian government we’ve had… well at the very least since before WW2.
Exactly what does it mean to ‘glorify’ terrorism? And exactly what is meant by ‘terrorism’? Actually, the second question is answered in the Terrorism Act 2000 to which this law refers back. The definition is very broad; it does not require, for example, that an act be directed at civilians to be counted as terrorism; gone is the aphorism, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. They are all terrorists. In fact, it doesn’t even require that an act be directed at people. Violence against property, if it seeks to influence the government and/or the population or a section thereof, and is in furtherance of a political cause, counts as terrorism under UK law.
( This leads to all sorts of possibilities, from the absurd to the scary. )
Now, as I say, I think that one of the biggest dangers of this law is self-censorship – the law is hopefully quite unenforceable, except in the case of things which are already crimes such as incitement to murder, for which Abu Hamza was recently convicted, proving just how unnecessary this law is. But fear of prosecution could constrain discussion.
It seems to me, therefore, that the best way to combat this fear-induced self-censorship is to refuse to self-censor and to glorify ‘terrorism’ for all you’re worth. For a start, I need to learn plenty more Irish rebel songs. Like, buy some Wolftones albums. And English ones. Colours for example.
But that’s really a bit too tame and historical an act of glorification to truly satisfy. Now, you might think glorifying terrorism would be a bit of a problem for a pacifist[3], but as I say, the official definition of terrorism includes ‘violence’ against property, so in brave new equal-opportunities Britain, even dyed-in-the-wool pacifists can now too be terrorists, or glorifiers of terrorism.
( So here goes... )
So, I think I have very thoroughly glorified ‘terrorism’, at least by the government’s definition. I repeat that I am opposed to violence against people, and do not in any way encourage anyone to engage in such, or in actions that endanger human safety. As I say, I will link to this again if and when the Bill is passed.
( footnotes )
( The Ballad of the Hawk and the Doves )
Current Mood: Glorifying
Current Music: Glory O, Glory O, to the bold Fenian men
Tags: peace, politics, terrorism, uk politics, war
|
|
10:14 pm
[Link] |
Songs for Remembrance Sunday
Missed doing this on Remembrance Day itself, as I was off to the CAAT National Gathering, but it's Remembrance Sunday today in the UK at least, so thought I'd post some songs I thought fitting to the occasion. Some may well be familiar to many of you, others, possibly not so much.
Hope I'm doing this right with You Send It. Downloads should be good for seven days, limited number for each.
Fairport Convention, Red and Gold
Eric Bogle, Green Fields of France, sung by June Tabor
Eric Bogle, The Band Played Waltzing Matilda, sung by June Tabor
Hamish Henderson, Freedom Come All Ye, performed by the Mick West Band.
Dixie Chicks, Travelin' Soldier
And one more, which is sort of an odd one out, as it's more a 'war' song than a 'peace' song. But it had to be done. :)
Christy Moore, Viva la Quince Brigada!
Tags: folk music, peace, war
|
|
02:11 am
[Link] |
Iraq ponderings
It's been a big news day in Iraq, as most people will probably be aware. The results of the constitutional referendum was announced, showing that Iraqi voters approved the proposed document by 78%, although 'no' voters were not far off achieving the 2/3 majority against in three provinces needed to block it. Meanwhile, the US military death toll in Iraq reached 2000. Oh, and some more bombs, this time in Iraqi Kurdistan. Iraqbodycount's (fairly conservative) estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths since the start of the war now stands at 26,670-30,051.
One piece of news from Iraq a few days ago that received a lot less coverage was the results of a leaked opinion poll that found that 82% of Iraqis 'strongly opposed' the presence of coalition troops in their country, and 45% thought attacks on the troops were justified. This figure was as high as 65% in one province, Maysan - not a Sunni province, but Shia, run by the British.
( I find these figures interesting in a number of ways... )
Tags: iraq, politics, war
|
|
12:21 am
[Link] |
Stop the arms fair!
Just because the one thing the world really needs at the moment is more and better weapons, Spearhead Exhibitions (owned by Reed Elsevier) in association with the UK MOD have organised the Defence Systems Equipment International arms fair (DSEi), from 13th-16th September, at the ExCel Centre in London's Docklands.
The exhibition, heavily subsidised by the UK taxpayer, claims to be the world's largest arms fair. It brings together the major buyers and sellers of arms, and is a crucial meeting place where deals are made or set in motion. Exhibitors at DSEi 2005 include most of the world's major arms companies, including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northropp Grumann from the US, Britain's BAE Systems, France's Thales, and the Franco/German/Spanish company EADS. The guest list of buyers has not yet been made public, but in the past invitees have included numerous countries involved in conflict and/or responsible for serious human rights abuses and/or violations of international law, including Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Colombia, India and Pakistan. (And of course the US, who pretty much come under all three categories). More (biased and partisan) information about DSEi can be found here. The full Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) briefing on DSEi can be downloaded here.
A week of action against the arms fair is being co-ordinated by Disarm DSEi, along with CAAT. The main demo is on Tuesday 13th September, to coincide with the opening of the arms fair. The full list of events is:
( list of events )
Disarm DSEi have a Call to Action that can be downloaded from their website, printed and distributed. However because the site uses frames I can't link to it directly.
In addition, or if you can't make any of these events, you could write to Reed Elsevier to call upon them to stop organising arms fairs such as these. And of course, writing to your MP is always an option. CAAT are making a specific call to close down the Defence Export Services Organisation, a branch of the MOD dedicated to promoting UK arms exports at the taxpayer's expense, and which is heavily involved in organising DSEi.
ETA: Naturally, forward at will.
Tags: arms trade, campaign against arms trade, peace, politics, war
|
|
11:28 pm
[Link] |
Miscellaneous stuff
Well, I'm all packed, and I've made sure I don't have anything on me that could connect me to that scoundrel Sam Perlo-Freeman, so pretty much all ready to go. Just about time for another quick update!
Interesting week. Was at a Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting in Bristol last night in fact - a Palestinian film-maker was there, Osama Qashoo, showing a short film called My beautiful olive tree, about the importance of said trees to the Palestinians, and footage of protests against the demolition of olive trees to make way for the wall. Also discussion of trying to get a twinning arrangement going between a school in Bristol and one in Tulkaram.
This evening, there was a vigil outside Easton Mosque, about 15 minutes cycle-ride from me - it's been firebombed twice since 7/7, and there have been a lot of attacks on Muslims, so it was a sort of communal solidarity thing, organised by various anti-war and lefty groups in the area. Pretty good turnout.
Couple of actual good news (from my pov) articles I think I'll post. First, the news that lone-wolf Christian peace campaigner Brian Haw has won his case in the High court to continue the anti-war protest he's maintained in Parliament Square since the invasion of Afghanistan. He's there 24/7, with a forest of placards, haranguing our Honorable representatives as they pass. Well, it seems the poor little lambs didn't like the horrible man being nasty to them, so they passed a law to get rid of him. Specifically, banning protests in Parliament Square - even of a single person - that didn't have prior police permission. Then, our beloved Home Secretary Charles Clarke sneakily extended it to any protest within half a mile of Parliament Square, which includes opposite Downing Street.
Only problem was, the idiots forgot to make the law retroactive. So Brian Haw successfully argued that as his protest started before the law was passed, it wasn't covered. So now the government'll be in the extraordinary position of having to pass a second law specifically aimed at a single individual! Or maybe they'll desist for sheer embarrasment.
They interviewed Haw on 5 Live. The presenter was extremely patronising and showed severe ignorance about what's going on in Iraq. Brian Haw strikes me as being like the Old Testament Prophets. Mad as a box of frogs, but knows when something terribly wrong is happening in his country, and is not going to shut up about it.
The second good news story is one that considerably restores my faith in the good sense of the American people. Apparently, the US Army and Marines are experiencing an unprecedented recruitment crisis. Young people are not signing up. Many people who do sign up are leaving after six months. Thousands have gone AWOL. Opinion surveys show young people much less willing to join up, and much fewer parents supporting the idea of their children joining the military. The reason, of course, being Iraq. According to the survey, potential recruits increasingly don't believe in the war, and have seen all the images of Abu Ghraib and so forth, and don't want to be a part of that.
It may be that the American Empire will fail because too many young Americans have too much sense to be willing to kill and die for it.
Ah well, just an hour to go till my coach. Better finish getting ready.
Tags: iraq, palestine, politics, uk politics, us politics, war
|
|
05:22 pm
[Link] |
London thoughts
( The personal... )
( ...and the political )
( At a more domestic political level )
Well, those are my thoughts. But I will end once again with sympathies and prayers for those affected by the attacks. God be with the injured, bereaved and anxious, and may the dead rest in peace.
Tags: iraq, london bombings, politics, uk politics, war
|
|
10:53 pm
[Link] |
Iraq - the debate we're not having
*Deep breath*
OK, I've been meaning to post on this for a few days, but been busy/tired/not feeling well/watching my new DS9 DVDs/some combination of the above. Actually I've been meaning to make a proper post about Iraq since I've been on LJ, but anyway. Somehow it still seems to be in the news, includign right now the UK election news. Funny, that.
( No I'm not going to talk about the Attorney General's legal advice )
Tags: iraq, politics, uk politics, war
|
|
01:41 am
[Link] |
OMG I'm a terrorist!
I heard a rather interesting item on radio 5 Live this evening. They were interviewing an academic from a team in Ireland who had carried out psychological analyses on a large number of terrorists, specifically Al Qaida suspects, mostly from court transcripts, in some cases I think interviews in prison.
( The results whereof are discussed herein )
A good friend of mine at Campaign Against Arms Trade once said to me (during one of our late-night political/philosophical discussions) something like: "If you really want to do good in the world, if you really want to make a difference, then you have to walk on the very cusp of evil." I liked this so much I wrote it into one of my Buffy fics, in relation to Dark Willow, and even Mary-Sue'd my friend into a cameo to say it!
On lighter matters, I acquired Neil Gaiman's two Death Sandman spin-off books today, and have already polished one of them off. (Hmm, lighter matters, books about Death. ;))
Bit of a crazy day tomorrow. Off to London first for CAAT Steering Committee, where I and others will be attempting to turn CAAT from a self-perpetuating oligarchy into a democracy (fun, fun, fun!), then a run to Kings Cross, probably nursing my political wounds, to get the train up to Hitchin for a read-through of Midsummer Night's Dream at ixwin's, then a coach from Hitchin to Stansted at 3.15am to catch an early plane I foolishly booked up to Edinburgh, en route to my mum's in Dundee.
And it's 2.30am, and I've still got to pack this computer.
Current Mood:  contemplative
Tags: activism, peace, politics, war
|
|
01:35 am
[Link] |
Viva L'Espana!
Very pleased to see the Spanish election results, with the people of Spain unexpectedly throwing out the Partido Popular and voting in the Socialists. Quite astonishing, yesterday, the spontaneous demonstrations that blew up as it became increasingly clear that Al Qaida and not Eta had committed the atrocities in Madrid on Wednesday - anger at the government for trying to spin the line that it was Eta for political advantage. It is a moot point whether the government lost because it was Al Qaida (and thus likely linked to Spain's participation in the war against Iraq), or because the Government tried to pretend it was Eta. What is certain is that one of Bush and Blair's main international allies in their imperialist adventures, Jose Maria Aznar, has fallen, and he has fallen because of his support for a war that 90% of the Spanish people opposed. The whole world was impressed with the dignity and defiance of the Spanish when they turned out in their millions to protest against terrorism in all its forms, but now they have also shown that they don't see war as the answer to terrorism. Some commentators seem to be suggesting this is a 'victory for terrorism', but this is ridiculous and insulting. Rather, it is a victory for values of peace and common humanity - the reaction in Spain over the past few days represents a vote against both terrorism and war.
None of this changes the fact that 200 people have been brutally killed, and 1,500 injured, and that the whole world, the whole of Europe included, faces an enemy that is utterly ruthless, without conscience or concern for human life, often without concern for even their own lives, and out to cause as much carnage as possible. They can not be destroyed either by war, as the failure of the Afghan and Iraq wars to make anyone safer shows, or by political process; it is not that they don't have political goals, but that those political goals (an Islamic Caliphate based on the most extreme and unplesant form of Islam, indeed, one that most Muslims regard as abhorrent), cannot be met. It is true that ending the twin occupations of Iraq and Palestine would greatly reduce the impetus for many angry young Muslim men to support this movement, and that these things should be done because they are right anyway, but it would not put an end to them. Most of the Al Qaida people seem to be not poor, desparate victims of oppression, but poor little rich kids. Bush and Blair are not the only warmongering extremists in the world.
Is there a solution? Well, there's probably more that can be done in terms of police and intelligence work, people being more vigilant on trains etc., but we all know that will only reduce attacks rather than stop them. If there is an answer, it is for ordinary people, in both the western and the Islamic world, to stand up for something different to what either Bush or Bin Laden have to offer - to stand up positively for peace, for a world order built on justice and compassion. Not simply against war and terrorism, but for something that is strong enough to defeat both.
This sounds like an impossible dream, and this may well be so. But maybe, just maybe, the people of Spain have made a start.
Which calls to mind a fantastic song by the Mick West Band I have on CD...
( Here )
Current Mood:  hopeful
Current Music: Mick West Freedom Come All Ye
Tags: folk music, politics, war
|
[<< Previous 20 entries] |