Where Now?
3 Jun 2008
The British National Party?s success in the London Assembly elections coupled with its small but continued progress across the country provides an ideal opportunity critically to assess where the campaign against the British National Party is going. For the past few years we have successfully limited the advance of the BNP in local elections, even reversing its fortunes in some of its traditional heartlands such as Sandwell, Oldham and Bradford. Even Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, has publicly admitted that we have developed an election operation that can beat the BNP almost everywhere. But the truth is that as each year goes by our job is getting harder. There is an ever-growing list of wards at risk to the BNP, it?s becoming more difficult to turn out our voters and even when we do prevent the BNP from winning we do so by increasing turnout rather than necessarily reducing the BNP?s support. In today?s political climate we can sometimes feel a sense of relief just by keeping the BNP down to 30% support in key wards. It is perfectly feasible to continue this approach over the next couple of years. We will defeat the BNP in many more wards than they win and perhaps we can hold them at bay long enough for wider external factors to fundamentally undercut the BNP?s support. Or we can perhaps try a radically different approach. This essay will look at possible approaches. It is the opening of a discussion about where we go now. There are no simple or easy solutions of course, no one anti-fascist strategy can defeat the BNP on its own. However, as I shall try to explain, unless we do something radically different the situation will get a lot worse before it gets better. To do that we need to really understand what is going on. We are currently witnessing a tangible change in British politics. The old traditional voting patterns are fragmenting as voters increasingly shop around for a party that best articulates their concerns and even prejudices. The emergence of the BNP is just one consequence of the change under way, and it is a change far more fundamental than many political commentators and politicians appear to register. It is also primarily an issue affecting the Labour Party. Labour?s support among its traditional working-class voters has been shrinking for many years and this goes well beyond the current decline in fortunes for the Brown Government. In many core Labour heartlands the party?s support among social groups C2 and DE was at a lower level in 2005, when it won a general election, than in 1983 at the height of its electoral unpopularity during the Thatcher years. It is a point graphically made in the excellent book by Alexander Lee and Timothy Stanley, The End of Politics: Triangulation, Realignment and the Battle for the Centre Ground. In 1997, 50% of C2 voters and 59% of DE voters supported Labour. By 2005 this had dropped to 40% and 48% respectively. This drop has been even more pronounced in many core Labour areas. In Sheffield Central Labour polled over 60% of the vote in every election between 1983 and 2001, yet in 2005 its vote fell to 49.9%. In Burnley, Labour?s share of the vote dropped 38.5% during the same period. ?In Yorkshire and Humberside, the North and the North West the swing may have not significantly affected the return of Labour MPs to Westminster but majorities have been seriously diminished and the party?s share of the vote dramatically reduced,? say the authors of The End of Politics. Some of these disappearing voters switched to other parties and in local elections this was often the Liberal Democrats, but far greater numbers simply stayed at home. A declining turnout and general lack of interest in mainstream political parties was the key winner. For the Labour leadership this long-term shift has not mattered. In the current political system general elections are not won or lost in the Labour heartlands but in the swing marginals, where a few votes can turn success into defeat. It is these voters towards whom all the main parties increasingly gravitate. Labour has relied on the fact that its traditional support, although declining, has had nowhere else to go. Many of these voters, whose communities were decimated under Thatcher, would never countenance voting Conservative. A few switched to the Liberal Democrats, others stayed at home but the bulk of those who did vote continued to support Labour. But this is now changing. The BNP is emerging as the voice of this forgotten working class. A survey of the wards that produced the 25 best BNP votes in May shows plainly the profile of BNP supporting areas. All but one rank well below average in the Indices of Deprivation and the one exception, Queensbury in Bradford, is roughly average. Nearly all are among the top 10% most deprived areas. In every single one of these wards, including Queensbury, the proportion of the population with no qualifications at all is well below the national average. Likewise, the proportion of people with a level 4/5 qualification (degree or teaching/social work qualification) is a fraction of the national average. The result is that the BNP is now challenging Labour in many of its heartlands and the effect is startling. As we show elsewhere in this magazine, the BNP received more votes than Labour in the redrawn Dagenham and Rainham constituency. And it was not the only one. As table 1 illustrates, the BNP received more votes than both Labour and the Conservatives in the new Morley and Outwood constit-uency, which will be contested by Ed Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. The BNP also beat Labour in one of the two new Havering constituencies and would probably have polled more votes than Labour in Stoke-on-Trent South and Central if it had put forward more candidates. It is also important not to view the BNP in isolation. Its rising support is just the most visible element of this changing political scene. Other areas, such as South and West Yorkshire and South Wales, have seen a rise in local independent groups. Who would have thought that Labour could have lost the heartlands of Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent in South Wales to independents? In Stoke-on-Trent, a city where ten years ago Labour held all 60 seats, the party could only win four seats this year. In Barnsley, where the BNP polled 21%, the Barnsley Independent Group holds one third of the seats on the council. Fundamental shift The breaking with Labour reflects a far more fundamental shift than mid-term blues. For an increasing number of traditional Labour voters the party no longer reflects their interests. Lee and Stanley in The End of Politics blame New Labour?s triangulation policy under which it has moved into the centre ground of politics in order to win the key marginals. This view is echoed by Labour MP Jon Cruddas. ?The politics of middle England become even more dominant in the minds of our political leadership. The danger is that we ignore the reasons for the strength of the BNP, and in so doing reinforce the conditions that have created this situation.? Many of the people now turning their back on the Labour Party have not shared the economic prosperity of recent years. Many in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent and Dagenham now find themselves in a worse economic position than a few years ago. Great swathes of these traditional Labour voters not only feel ignored but are increasingly seeing in the BNP a party that articulates their interests. This degree of alienation with the mainstream parties was clearly demonstrated in the BBC polling that accompanied its White Season. A number of studies, such as those conducted by Vision 21 and more recently by Democratic Audit, show clearly that a reoccurring theme among BNP voters is the sense that no one listens to them any more. Labour is increasingly seen as a middle-class party that prioritises minority groups and the interests of more affluent voters over themselves. This is an international phenomenon. In the United States the phenomenon of Middle American Nationalism has emerged over the past 30 years, which despises the corporate elites above and the ?undeserving? poor below. Across Western Europe we have seen working-class voters turn towards far-right and populist parties. In Denmark working-class voters have shifted from the Labour Party to the Danish People?s Party (DPP). In France the Front National remains dominant in many traditional working-class communities. In Norway, the Progress Party has become the country?s main opposition. ?Workers? support for the socialist parties has fallen away,? say researchers from the Danish Valgprojektet (Election Project). ?There is a class-defined demobilisation ? an almost total loss of support for the worker parties among the younger part of the working class, especially among skilled workers.? Writing in this month?s Red Pepper, the Norwegian writer Magnus Marsdal argues that class politics still exists but these far-right parties are ?in effect the new Labour party?. He points to Denmark where in the 2001 elections 61% of the DPP?s support came from working-class voters, nearly three times as many worker voters as the Social Democrats. In an interesting parallel with England, almost all of these voters were from poorer and less educated sections of society. All this represents a fundamental shift in British politics and the real fear is that we are heading the way of so many other European countries where large segments of the working class have broken with their traditional centre-left parties and moved to the right. The root of BNP support The BNP is a racist party fuelled by a leadership that draws its political roots from fascism. That much is clear. However, its appeal goes far wider than the issue of race. The BNP is tapping into political alienation and economic deprivation. It is providing a voice for those who increasingly feel ignored and cast aside by Labour. The BNP is articulating their concerns, grievances and even prejudices. Race is obviously a key factor but it is not the only issue. Race was a defining factor in the initial rise of the BNP in 2001. Riots, growing racial tensions and international terrorism conspired to build support for the BNP. But this is less so now. A cursory look at where the BNP is gaining support shows that race is not necessarily the dominant issue that it was in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. There are very small non-white communities in Stoke-on-Trent, Barnsley and Nuneaton and Bedworth. These are traditional working-class areas where people feel abandoned and ignored. It is into this alienation that the BNP moves. Yes, race is certainly a central key, but more because it provides a prism through which people can see and understand the world and, more importantly, an easy scapegoat to blame for their own situation. But the BNP provides far more than a racist scapegoat. It gives some voters a sense of belonging, an articulation of their own frustration ? even a new white identity. This point was graphically illustrated in the BBC White Season, particularly the film set in a working men?s club in Wibsey, Bradford. ?I wish I could be happy again,? said Graham Anderson. In an increasingly complicated and disorientated world it is easy to see how the BNP can point the finger of blame while simultaneously offering a new sense of white community. Whatever the merits of the Season as a whole it did reflect the sense of loss, political abandonment and a search for identity and belonging of a minority of people in this country. In an increasingly complex world, in which Britain?s place has changed, Britain itself is fragmenting and the old economic certainties provided by traditional employment are long gone. It is no coincidence that the BNP has emerged in those communities that have experienced most economic decline and change, principally in the former coalfields and car producing areas. Why does all this matter for anti-fascists? Unless we can understand why the BNP is growing we have little chance of defeating it. Anti-fascism has to continue to focus around elections. After all, this is how BNP support is measured and nothing helps the BNP grow more than substantial electoral victories. However, it is clear that our message also has to develop. Yes, we still have to identify and turn out the anti-BNP vote, as we have successfully done in so many areas, but we must also have something to say to potential BNP voters. A simple ?Don?t vote nazi? is an irrelevant slogan that needs to be discarded immediately. That is not to say that we should not highlight the real politics of the BNP and its leadership but we must address people where they currently are. And in terms of that, very few people see the BNP as a nazi party. It is also clear that a simple Hope not Hate message is insufficient. ?You tell us to vote for Hope not hate but there is no hope round here,? one voter told me in Dagenham. Similar reports came in from Stoke-on-Trent and Nuneaton. We need to replace empty slogans with substance, and that means involving ourselves in the community as never before. If the BNP support is driven by racial prejudice, often whipped up by the national media, economic deprivation and a loss of identity, then these are the three issues we need to contest. Nationally, we must challenge and expose the racist lies and myths peddled in the media while also ending the muscular bidding war between the political parties over race and immigration. Not only is this politically damaging (Labour will never appease its opponents on immigration), it is also quite dishonest. The economic boom of recent years has been built on the influx of migrant workers, our public services would collapse without its non-white workforce and the pensions crisis would be even more severe without newcomers replacing those British people moving abroad in record numbers. But it is locally that anti-fascists must focus their energies. Searchlight has long argued for a localised strategy to defeat the BNP and the need for this is even greater now. Each area is different and requires a slightly different solution. Thinking nationally, acting locally In the recent election we found that our general Hope not hate leaflets worked in some places but less well in others. The general trend was that they were more effective where the BNP was standing for the first time. In other places, such as Stoke-on-Trent and Dagenham, where support for the BNP is deeply entrenched, we need a different approach and one that addresses local issues and concerns. Where we produced more localised leaflets, in Burnley, West Yorkshire and Sandwell, our material appears to have gone down a lot better. Of course there is a limit to how much localised material we can physically produce during a short election campaign. Over the past few years we have tried to prioritise the most high risk areas and those where we have the best local contacts. Two ways of overcoming this are to widen the pool of people who can produce leaflets, and to produce more localised material at other times of the year outside election periods. To achieve this we need more local groups ? and building groups with an ability to intervene locally must be our key priority over the next two years. A good functioning local group is likely to achieve far more success. It needs to be community-orientated, broad-based and non-dogmatic. It needs to be able to address local issues and concerns while having roots within the community. It needs to be able to form partnerships with other local groups to address issues and improve the area, while also gaining credibility within the community to break down barriers and promote cohesion. Two good examples of community campaigning are Keighley and Epping. In Keighley the local TUC and Bradford anti-fascists confronted BNP lies over grooming, where others had ignored what was going on, while simultaneously assisting local community groups through good old fashioned community development work. The Redbridge and Epping Forest Together group has adopted a slightly different approach but it too has been successful. It has sought to build a broad coalition of political parties and the non-aligned, and has involved residents? and faith groups. While it has not done the community development work of Keighley, it has helped alter the political climate enough to defeat the BNP in two of the three seats it was defending. Forming local Hope not hate groups would also be an excellent way of involving trade unionists, many of whom refuse to do any direct campaigning for the Labour Party any more. In addition to bringing extra people into activity it strengthens the relationship between unions and the local community. There are other groups that need to be included from the start. Among them are faith groups, residents? associations, community groups and the voluntary sector ? people who care enough about their local community to be active while also having the respect of others. It some places, such as Barking and Dagenham, one of the fundamental problems is the absence of any mainstream alternative to Labour, so the BNP is the sole beneficiary of the anti-Labour vote. For anti-fascists, this is a problem as it is hard to build a political coalition in an area where there is no one other than Labour to work with. In these areas community work is even more important. In addition to the basic anti-BNP material to dispel the party?s lies and highlight the inadequacies of its councillors, we must collaborate with existing community and faith groups to help rebuild civic society and create an alternative pole of attraction to the BNP. It is often the lack of local positive institutions and community organisers that contributes to the feeling of despair and inability to change things for the better. Empowering local communities to improve their local area in a positive fashion through working with and mobilising local people is essential. This includes developing a leadership programme that can provide basic organising skills and give confidence to local people. Searchlight is not opposed to concerts and large city-centre activities but these cannot be the main focus. Large concerts, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds to stage, do not deliver leaflets in the key areas nor do they address the concerns and grievances of the people likely to vote BNP. They certainly have a place in mobilising and organising activists but the important work has got to be done at a more local level. It might not be glamorous and it might not be easy but it is vital. Political solution Of course on a wider level the BNP needs to be defeated politically. While much of this is outside the remit and capability of Searchlight we will strive to argue that the rise of the BNP is the consequence of the shift to the centre of all the mainstream parties. There can be no disguising this fact. There will be some who argue for a solely class-based approach to anti-fascism but a refusal to work with the mainstream parties will only hand dozens of seats to the BNP and quicken its electoral advance. The majority of people are still opposed to the racist message of the BNP and while it is important that we mobilise these voters we must also begin to address, at a local level, the grievances and insecurities that are giving rise to the BNP in the first place. The clock is ticking and time is running out. The economic downturn, the credit crunch, the housing collapse and rising living costs are only going to increase insecurities over the next year or two. The political parties, and in particular Labour, are letting down a large section of the British population. Without radical and immediate change, Britain could experience the political earthquake that is engulfing much of Europe.

Nottingham ?terror arrests?
3 Jun 2008
‘The clampdown is about trying to depoliticise us? The harrowing story of Rizwaan Sabir ? a postgraduate student studying terrorism who was arrested for downloading an Al Qaida training manual ? is testimony to the Islamaphobia that has been whipped up by politicians and the media. Rizwaan, a student at Nottingham university, was held for almost a week without charge. He says his case shows where the steady erosion of academic freedom and civil liberties can lead. It also shows why the government?s plans to further extend anti-terror legislation are dangerous and wrong-headed. Rizwaan spoke to Socialist Worker about what happened and his fears for the future. ?At first when I was arrested I thought it was a joke,? he said. ?I was taken to a cell and kept there all day. I kept asking why I?d been arrested but nobody would tell me. ?Later in the afternoon I was told that my house would be searched. I was photographed, fingerprinted, footprinted and a DNA swab was taken.? The police held Rizwaan in their cells for six days and repeatedly questioned him. ?My family were trying to find out what had happened but the police wouldn?t tell them anything. The police just kept asking me the same questions. They asked me if I?d been to Pakistan, if I?d been to the North West Frontier Province bordering Afghanistan, if I?d been to Iraq. They asked me if I was planning on going camping.? Rizwaan says he thinks that the police knew he was a genuine researcher after his first interview and that they knew they had no reason to hold him. ?They said that they had to go through all the papers they had seized ? this becomes a reason for detaining people for ever longer periods of time,? he said. ?When I was released I was given a statement saying that the university had confirmed that the manual wasn?t relevant to my course. I don?t know where that came from.? Some 500 students and university staff held a protest in support of Rizwaan and his friend and university employee Hicham Yezza, who had helped Rizwaan by printing the manual. ?People read bits of the manual out in front of the media to show solidarity,? said Rizwaan. ?They can do that but if I read the manual again I could be investigated further. Connection ?I think that the clampdown is about trying to depoliticise people, but treating people like this can further radicalise them.? Maria Ryan is a lecturer at the university who was interviewed by the police in connection with Rizwaan. She told Socialist Worker, ?The police told me Rizwaan had been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Initially I just laughed. I told them he had downloaded the manual because he was researching radical Islam. ?I explained that the manual is in the public domain. They responded that if it gets into the ?wrong hands? there could be problems. ?They asked me various questions about Rizwaan ? what he thinks of the US and US foreign policy and what he thinks of Israel and suicide bombing. ?They also asked me some personal questions about him. How many friends does he have? Does he pray? Does he drink alcohol? Does he go to pubs? ?I had another visit from a police officer a few days later. It was clear that they had realised he was a genuine researcher. ?But there is a problem ? what do you do if the law prohibits possession of certain material? ?It?s worrying that the police have such wide-ranging powers to arrest people without charge. They arrest first and investigate after. And when they realise they?ve made a mistake they don?t know what to do.? After being released without charge, Hicham was threatened with deportation to Algeria until a last-minute reprieve last week. He now faces a judicial review.

Yes, we can
3 Jun 2008
At a time when supposed “progress’ is controlled by transnational corporations, the struggle for human emancipation requires perseverance and transnational political organization to be able to control the corporations that seek to control us.

War criminals must fear punishment. That’s why I went for John Bolton
3 Jun 2008
I realise now that I didn?t have a hope. I had almost reached the stage when two of the biggest gorillas I have ever seen swept me up and carried me out of the tent. It was humiliating, but it could have been worse. The guard on the other side of the stage, half hidden in the curtains, had spent the lecture touching something under his left armpit. Perhaps he had bubos. I had no intention of arresting John Bolton, the former under-secretary of state at the US State Department, when I arrived at the Hay Festival. But during a panel discussion about the Iraq war, I remarked that the greatest crime of the 21st century had become so normalised that one of its authors was due to visit the festival to promote his book. I proposed that someone should attempt a citizens? arrest, in the hope of instilling a fear of punishment among those who plan illegal wars. After the session I realised that I couldn?t call on other people to do something I wasn?t prepared to do myself. I knew that I was more likely to be arrested and charged than Mr Bolton. I had no intention of harming him, or of acting in any way that could be interpreted as aggressive, but had I sought only to steer him gently towards the police I might have faced a range of exotic charges, from false imprisonment to aggravated assault. I was prepared to take this risk. It is not enough to demand that other people act, knowing that they will not. If the police, the courts and the state fail to prosecute what the Nuremberg tribunal described as ?the supreme international crime?(1), I believe we have a duty to seek to advance the process(2). The Nuremberg Principles, which arose from the prosecution of the Nazi war criminals, define as an international crime the ?planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances?(3). Bolton appears to have ?participated in a common plan? to prepare for the war (also defined by the principles as a crime) by inserting the false claim that Iraq was seeking to procure uranium from Niger into a State Department fact sheet(4,5). He also organised the sacking of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons(6,7). Bustani had tried to broker a peaceful resolution of the dispute over Iraq?s alleged weapons of mass destruction(8). Some of the most pungent criticisms of my feeble attempt to bring this man to justice have come from other writers for the Guardian. Michael White took a position of extraordinary generosity towards the instigators of the war(9). There are ?arguments on both sides?, he contended. Bustani might have received compensation after his sacking by Bolton, ?but Bolton says that does not mean much. That is sometimes true.? In fact Bustani was not only compensated at his tribunal; he was completely exonerated of Bolton?s charges and his employers were obliged to pay special damages(10). White suggested that Iraq might indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger, on the grounds of a conversation he once had with an MI6 officer. Alongside the British government?s 45-minute claim, this must be the best-documented of all the false justifications for the war with Iraq. In 2002, the US government sent three senior officials to Niger to investigate the claim(11). All reported that it was without foundation. The International Atomic Energy Agency discovered that it was based on crude forgeries(12). This assessment was confirmed by the State Department?s official Greg Thielmann(13), who reported directly to John Bolton(14). No evidence beyond the forged documents has been provided by either the US or the UK governments to support their allegation. White also gives credence to Bolton?s claims that the war in 2003 was justified by two UN resolutions ? 678 and 687 ? which were approved in 1990 and 1991, and that it was permitted by Article 51 of the UN Charter. The attempt to revive resolutions 678 and 687 was the last, desperate throw of the dice by the Blair government when all else had failed. When it became clear that it could not obtain a new UN resolution authorising force against Iraq, the government dusted down the old ones, which had been drafted in response to Saddam Hussein?s invasion of Kuwait. This revival formed the basis of Lord Goldsmith?s published advice on 17th March 2003. It was described as ?risible? and ?scrap[ing] the bottom of the legal barrel? by Lord Alexander, a senior law lord(15). After the first Gulf War, Colin Powell, General Sir Peter de la Billiere and John Major all stated that the UN?s resolutions permitted them only to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait, and not to overthrow the Iraqi government(16). Lord Goldsmith himself, in the summer of 2002, advised Tony Blair that resolutions 678 and 687 could not be used to justify a new war with Iraq(17). Article 51 of the UN Charter is comprehensible to anyone but the lawyers employed by the Bush administration. States have a right to self-defence ?if an armed attack occurs against? them, and then only until the UN Security Council can intervene. On what occasion did Iraq attack the United States? Is there any claim made by the Blair and Bush governments that Michael White is not prepared to believe? Conor Foley, writing on Comment is Free, suggested that my action ?completely trivializes the serious case? against the Iraq war(18) and claimed that I was seeking to ?imprison ? people because of their political opinions?(19), as if Bolton were simply a commentator on the war, and not an agent. Does he really believe that the former under-secretary did not ?participate in a common plan? to initiate the war with Iraq? What other conceivable purpose might the State Department?s misleading fact sheet have served? And what more serious action can someone who is neither a Law Lord nor a legislator take? Bolton himself maintains that my attempt to bring him to justice reflects a ?move towards lawlessness and fascism.?(20) This is an interesting commentary on an attempt to uphold a law which arose from the prosecution of fascists. But there is one charge I do accept: that my chances of success were very slight. Apart from the 300-pound gorillas, the main obstacle I faced was that although the crime of aggression, as defined by the Nuremberg Principles, has been incorporated into the legislation of many countries, it has not been assimilated into the laws of England and Wales(21). This does not lessen the crime but it means that it cannot yet be tried here. This merely highlights another injustice: while the British state is prepared to punish petty misdemeanors with vindictive ferocity, it will not legislate against the greatest crime of all, lest it expose itself to prosecution. But demonstration has two meanings. Non-violent direct action is both a protest and an exposition. It seeks to demonstrate truths which have been overlooked or forgotten. I sought to remind people that the greatest crime of the 21st Century remains unprosecuted, and remains a great crime. If you have read this far, I have succeeded. References: 1. Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 9th November 2004. Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml 2. The charge sheet Nicola Cutcher and I compiled can be read here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton/ 3. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument 4. See letter from Rep. Henry Waxman to Rep. Christopher Shays, 1st March 2005. http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20050301112122-90349.pdf 5. The State Department fact sheet can be read here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/16118.htm 6. Charles J. Hanley, 4th June 2005. Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing. Associated Press. 7. Bolton himself boasts of this role in his book, Surrender is Not an Option, 2008. pp 95-98. Threshold Editions, New York. 8. See http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/04/16/a-war-against-the-peacemaker/ 9. Michael White, 29th May 2008. What I really think about John Bolton. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/05/michael_whites_political_bl… 10. See http://www.ilo.org/public/english/tribunal/fulltext/2232.htm 11. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick and General Carlton Fulford. 12. Mohamed ElBaradei, 7th March 2003. The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: an Update. Statement to the United Nations Security Council. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml 13. Michael Duffy and James Carney, 21st July 2003. A Question Of Trust. Time magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1005234-1,00.html 14. No author given, 1st August 2005. Bush appoints Bolton as his UN ambassador. The Economist. 15. Clare Dyer, 15th October 2003. Goldsmith ?scraped the legal barrel? over Iraq war. The Guardian. 16. Philippe Sands, 2005. Lawless World, p190. Penguin, London. 17. John Kampfner, 2003. Blair?s Wars, p378. Free Press. 18. Conor Foley, 30th May 2008. Monbiot?s silly stunt. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2008/05/monbiots_silly_s… 19. Conor makes this claim in the comment thread. 20. Stephen Adams, 29th May 2008. John Bolton: Citizen?s arrest attempt was comic. The Telegraph. 21. House of Lords, 2006. Judgments – R v. Jones (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly R v. J (Appellant)), Etc. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060329/jone…

Blair/Brown ?pretend society? exposed
2 Jun 2008
35bn debts to avoid being seen to be working class It all seems rather silly now, but it was not so long ago that many on the liberal left fully expected the Gordon Brown coronation to deliver a significant change of political direction rather than a mere, though welcome, change of style. It was always a fantasy, of course, and Brown did not waste much time in disillusioning them. But what was the basis for the wishful thinking in the first place? In part it can be put down to Brown seeking to out-manoeuvre Blair with a series of ?dog-whistles? to the party faithful. These supposed ?values? were in turn given undue credibility as a result of a febrile media constantly delivering bulletins on the teeth-bared battle behind the scenes between the so-called Blairities and Brownities for control of the party, and, as too many allowed themselves to think, for the soul of it. After all, if the intense internecine warfare was not evidence of a deep ideological divide, what was it about? After the wretched dithering over the autumn election, the fting of Thatcher, the delay in nationalising Northern Rock, the 10p debacle and much more, culminating in the tactics leading up to the Crewe & Nantwitch by-election, the mystery may have been resolved. New Labour?s strategy at Crewe is what caused the penny to drop. First of all, here was a party that once grandly announced that it had ?no problem with people getting filthy rich? and had spent a decade and half of bowing at the altar of privilege now attempting to dupe voters by playing the class card. More than anything it is the little details that suggest the gig is up. For example it has been reported that voters had been woken up at 4am by callers pretending to be Tory canvassers. And four-by-four vehicles festooned with blue balloons according to an article in The Independent have been careering through council estates ? more pretend Tory canvassers. Next minute they?re pointing the finger at the Tories for being soft on immigrants. A chorus of ?You don?t know what you?re doing!? would have mocked these clunking inconsistencies in the New Labour message in any football ground in the country. The sheer desperation, panic and by-any-means-necessary approach is not, however, matched by the ruthlessness characteristic of the Blair regime in terms of delivery. Instead, there is an absurdly amateur element that would have had Blair apparatchiks recoiling in horror. Which raises an interesting question. If, as is now almost universally accepted, the Brown v Blair tug of war never was ideologically based, why then were there ?Brownites? at all? What were they for? It is when you check out the Brown Cabinet, jam-packed as it is with sycophantic time-servers who could never have hoped to have made the cut in the Blair era, that it starts to make sense. There never was any genuine Brownite faction devoted either to leader or cause at all. What there was were individuals who, aware of the Blair-Brown pact, hitched themselves to Brown?s bandwagon out of nothing more than grinding personal ambition matched deep down with a cold-eyed estimate of their true abilities. In short, sub-prime ?Blairites? to a man/woman?and they all know it. One senior Labour MP quoted in the London Evening Standard said, on the disastrous Crewe Nantwitch by-election campaign, ?It has been juvenile and counter-productive. And if they think this has played badly in the North of England, that?s nothing to the way it looks to people in the South and London who thought class warfare was a thing of the past. Down here people do not hate those who are better off?they aspire to join them.? Many indeed may well ?aspire? but jumping classes is an altogether different matter, as a recent survey shows. Millions of Britons are getting into debt to finance a lifestyle beyond their means simply because they want to give the appearance of being middle class. An astonishing 15 million people have racked up debts of 35billion despite their income being below the national average, the survey found. Six million wannabe middle class households bring in less than 15,000 a year and many rely on credit cards and bank loans to fund their spending. The average income for working class people is 23,000 and 33,000 for the middle class. But rent and mortgage payments are nearly the same at 366 for a working class household compared with 334 for the middle classes. Those considered to be in the ?upper middle class? were found to earn more, with average earnings of almost 52,000 a year. Richard Mason, director of moneysupermarket.com, which carried out the research, said: ?It?s worrying to see that so many people are spending and borrowing beyond their means to try to keep up with the lifestyles of others.? Rather optimistically, personal finance expert Sue Hayward said that it all showed ?the class divide was shrinking?. Actually what it shows is that together with the ever-expanding wealth divide between rich and poor, the politically more significant class divide between working and middle classes is also keeping pace. More significant because in the real world, contrary to myth, it is the working class, not the middle class, that is really expanding. But if Ms Hayward is confused it is understandable. With his slogan ?we?re all middle class now? Blair seemed to promise a meritocracy. But as repeated surveys show, neo-liberalism did not and indeed could not deliver. Social mobility stalled or went in to reverse. So what we have instead is not a society based on solid achievement but on the appearance of achievement; a facsimile of a true meritocracy. And while ?pretend canvassers? might be risible, a pretend society, with all the attendant psychoses, will in the long run be the real Blair/Brown legacy that will prove altogether more damning.

BAE?s frantic flag-waving
2 Jun 2008
BAE has launched a new advertising campaign, its first for more than five years. The company claims that ?It is not a knee-jerk reaction to the negative press and the SFO inquiry?. The campaign includes adverts in a selection of national and regional newspapers, ?giant mobile poster sites? in regions where it has a ?significant industrial presence? and advertising wraps on taxis in Farnborough and London. The basic campaign image is the Union Jack, which seems a little rich considering two company trends. Firstly, BAE Systems is moving into the US as fast as it can. The number of BAE employees in the UK is steadily decreasing while the number of BAE employees in the US is rapidly increasing, overtaking the number of UK employees in 2006. BAE may happily become a US company if the opportunity arose. Secondly, BAE is increasingly subcontracting work to lower-cost countries. For example, BAE?s signature Hawk aircraft are being built in India for the Indian air force, with talks reported to be taking place about Hawk production there for the global market. There is no indication that the company has any interest in its UK manufacturing base except as a bargaining (blackmailing) chip, primarily to gain new contracts from the Ministry of Defence. Advert 1: ?Our firsts in engineering help the UK stay a world leader in innovation… In the last two years we?re proud to have launched the Type 45 destroyer and Astute submarine? BAE projects are routinely late and over budget with the taxpayer left to pick up the bill. Only two weeks before the launch of the BAE ad campaign, a report from the House of Commons Defence Committee revealed that the budget for BAE?s Astute Submarines had increased by 47 per cent and the budget for BAE?s Type 45 Destroyers by 18 per cent, costing the taxpayer 2.2 billion more than expected. The in-service date for the Type 45 is presently three years later than planned. But a wider question leaps out: what sort of innovation do we want? Nuclear submarines or alternative energy and transport systems? Even civil aviation has been rejected by BAE which sold its stake in Airbus, leaving the 13,000 UK employees subject to the politics surrounding French/German aerospace giant EADS. Advert 2: ?We train more skilled engineers in the UK than any other company… We?ve always hired and trained the very best of UK talent? There is a skills shortage in many areas of UK science and technology. But extensive government support for arms production, not least by means of Research & Development funding, means that arms companies have not been the ones to suffer. In 2005, around 2,600m of government R&D money went to the military sector while a paltry 37m went to renewable energy. If the government were to reduce its arms expenditure and put the money into technologies required for our wider, environmental security, there would be equivalent levels of skilled employment. A recent government report estimated that the number of jobs in the renewable energy sector could, given supportive enough policies, expand from 8,000 in 2004 to as many as 35,000 by 2020. In contrast to arms companies, this work would be a contribution to global welfare and security. Advert 3: ?Last year we spent over 3.2 billion with our UK suppliers… it?s all of us that benefit? Every company has a network of suppliers. The economic activity that would result from workers moving into other sectors would result in alternative supplier networks. And the beneficiaries of BAE?s activities? There is no doubt that the company?s decisions are taken not with the UK public or even its own employees in mind, but in order to generate maximum wealth for its international shareholders.

Actions do not match
2 Jun 2008
Those behind the demand for a third runway and a sixth terminal stress the jobs that would be created, but what really motivates them is the profits that they foresee. That might be bearable but for the severe effects that the development will have on the environment and on the lives of the people living in the region of the airport. Pressing ahead with expansion puts the government in a difficult position, given its frequent verbal commitments to combating climate change. Unfortunately, its actions do not match what it says. The government claims that the planned development meets noise and air quality targets, but it discounts the reality that the entire village of Sipson, with about 700 homes, would be utterly destroyed. Nor will that be the end of the matter. An expanded Heathrow, with a new runway and increased passenger numbers, will put greater strain on the already existing M4 and M25 motorways that serve the airport. It is inevitable that the roads lobby will already be preparing the case to expand these motorways or to create another, leading to the further concreting over of another part of the overcrowded south-east of England. The government ought to reject the short-sighted short-termism of the motorway and airline lobbies. It should expand and modernise the environmentally friendly railways, with exclusive high-speed tracks to obviate the need for short-haul flights and take a conscious decision to drive down rail prices to encourage passengers to switch their means of travel. Tube chaos Tory Mayor Boris Johnson owes an apology to all London Underground staff who suffered physical and verbal assault at the weekend. He should also apologise to all citizens in the capital for the chaos to which their Tube system was reduced by a minority of anti-social elements who took advantage of the mayor’s political stunt. What happened on Saturday night should not have surprised anyone. It was the logical result of too much drink taken in the midst of crowds too big to control by Tube staff and police. Rail union RMT leader Bob Crow had already pointed out the impossible task handed to staff of carrying out the mayor’s unthought-through plan to ban alcohol on public transport. The main problem for staff is not someone who opens up a can of beer or who sips from a hip flask on a Tube. Problems arise when people roll into stations already steaming, after hours spent in pubs or City clubs, and look to have a go at staff carrying out their duties. The mayor’s “Look how tough I am on yobs” gimmick is useless in tackling the anti-social behaviour witnessed on Saturday night and the similar misconduct that public transport staff suffer every other night of the year. Instead of blurting out the first thing that comes into his head, he, like government ministers, would be far better served listening to the people who are at the sharp end of this problem.

Book Review: A People’s History of the World
2 Jun 2008
Flavour of the moment academic philosopher guru Slavoj Zizek recently proclaimed: “One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible.” Bombarded with daily news of international events as we are, it might be understandable that those living in less esoteric circumstances and with memories limited to the result of the last TV football match could well believe that history is simply one damn thing after another, lacking all understandable coherence. But a self-professed Marxist should surely see the world in a longer perspective than decades. On the other hand, you need to have heroic ambitions to tackle history “from the Stone Age to the New Millennium.” Chris Harman fulfils those ambitions magnificently in this new edition of his 1999 world history which demonstrates a breadth of scholarship coupled to a lucid style and a clear understanding of the unfolding patterns of human experience. This last comes from his Marxist analysis, which, along with history itself, we are often told is dead. Without some rational framework, however – and Marx provides the only one that holds water – our world has been and still is a living nightmare. Moving from the hunter-gatherer societies of pre-history – increasingly a misnomer as we learn more about our early forebears, who seemed to have shared none of the exploitative gender and racial values that inform our brave new world – Harman charts a course through the emerging civilisations which increasingly failed to reconcile internal conflicting social forces. Throughout, he points his argument with needle-sharp examples. Slavery, which underpinned empires such as Rome, resulted in a lack of technological progress. With a limitless slave workforce, society has nothing to gain from investing in new methodologies of production, consequently providing easy prey for more dynamic predators. Understandably, the greater part of Harman’s history is devoted to the world that emerged from medieval feudalism and the rise of capitalism. Here, he takes on the labyrinthine complications of world power politics with deceptive ease. In his analyses of the revolutions that have punctuated the modern period, he demonstrates how the leaders of these movements – Cromwell, Robespierre, Lenin – were circumscribed by the social conditions of their times. As Marx knew, “human beings make history, but not under conditions of their own choosing.” Harman believes that there is an essential logic to the apparently bewildering confusion of history. For instance, he answers a question that has always puzzled me. Was it simply a psychopathic Hitler-imposed decision to continue the Holocaust programme even when, facing defeat, German communications and vital war resources would be overtaxed? Harman suggests that, by then, anti-semitism provided the only binding ideological element for the corrupt nazi hierarchy. Acknowledging that “capitalism is a more dynamic form of class society than any before in history,” Harman nevertheless demolishes the parroted post-modernist claim of the end of ideology and class conflict. The industrial workers may have virtually disappeared from the Western imperialist world, but, characteristically using statistics tellingly, Harman points out that, “by the 1980s, South Korea alone contained more industrial workers than the whole world had when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto.” Our own teachers, nurses, local authority and post office workers know that overalls are not an essential qualification for membership of an exploited class. Zizek needs reminding of Marx’s dictum. Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it. And the times, they are a-changing.

Brown commits to banning all cluster bombs
1 Jun 2008
After ten days of intense negotiations campaigners welcome the UK?s commitments to banning all cluster bombs immediately. A major sticking point throughout the Oslo process had been the UK?s insistence on retaining two types of cluster bombs known to cause problems. Simon Conway, Co-chair of the Cluster Munition Coalition and Director of Landmine action said: ?The Treaty is not yet in the bag, but the Prime Minister?s commitment to remove all remaining UK cluster bombs and work towards the strongest possible Treaty, will do much to help in these last critical hours of negotiations?. Up until now the British position has been dominated by their insistence to keep two types of cluster bombs M85 and M73. M85s were used by the British in Iraq in 2003. The M73 has never been deployed by the British, but has been used by the Americans in Iraq. It does not have a self-destruct or deactivation mechanism. Anna Macdonald, Head of Arms Control for Oxfam said: ?The UK is now showing strong humanitarian leadership on this vital treaty which will protect civilians around the world from these indiscriminate and hideous weapons. Australia and Canada now need to follow the UKs lead and show equal humanitarian commitment.? The final hours of the negotiations are dominated by discussions around joint military operations with countries, such as the US, which will not sign up to the treaty. At present Australia and Canada are insisting on language in the treaty which campaigners believe will allow them to assist the US in the use of cluster munitions. Groundbreaking Treaty Banning Cluster Bombs Agreed Cluster bomb suvivors and campaigners are tonight rejoicing over the groundbreaking and comprehensive new treaty to ban cluster bombs that has just been provisionally agreed in Dublin. After ten days of intense negotiation under Irish leadership, 110 countries negotiating at the conference and hundreds of campaigners and survivors within the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) welcomed the treaty. ?Here in Dublin we have consigned cluster bombs to the dustbin of history and stigmatised their use. With this historic agreement cluster bombs can never be used, produced or transferred again and this is a victory for humanity,? said Thomas Nash, coordinator of the Cluster Munition Coalition. The treaty, which will see the majority of the world?s stockpilers, producers and past users of cluster bombs enforce a categorical ban, has exceeded all expectations. Although initially stockpiler nations tried to protect their own stockpiles, no transition period and no exceptions are allowed. ?With this treaty we have outlawed every existing type of cluster munition that has ever been used. Gordon Brown?s last minute intervention will help to internationally stigmatize the weapon and prevent countries that have not signed up from using them? said Simon Conway, Co-Chair of the Cluster Munition Coalition and Director of Landmine Action. This treaty raises the bar for treaties covering conventional weapons, particularly around victim assistance. Humanitarian assistance for victims and affected communities, as well as obligations of affected countries and donors on clearance of contaminated land, go beyond what was agreed in the landmine treaty and build on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. ?I lost my arms and legs because of cluster bombs but this visionary treaty will make a real difference to people like me. Cluster bombs have a deadly legacy but Dublin?s legacy will save lives. I am proud that countries have prioritised people over weapons,? said Branislav Kapetanovic a cluster munition survivor from Serbia. At the start of the negotiations, key areas of concern included: victim assistance, joint military operations, transition period, stockpiling, clearance and definitions. The controversial new provision on joint military operations with states that refuse to join the treaty is disappointing. Campaigners are insisting that the treaty must be interpreted to prohibit foreign stockpiling and intentional assistance with use of the weapons. ?We are disappointed with the new provision on joint military operations. We will be watching very carefully to ensure that the countries that gathered here to ban cluster bombs can never deliberately assist those who have not and that they reject any foreign stockpiling on their soil,? said Steve Goose, CMC Co-Chair and Director of the Arms division at Human Rights Watch. Proposals for transition periods allowing states to use the weapons for anything between seven and twelve years were quashed by affected states. Stockpiles of existing weapons must now be destroyed within eight years. After a lot of work on definitions of cluster munitions ? which weapons are included or not in the ban ? all types of existing cluster munitions are now banned, including M85s, BLU97s and MLRS weapons. Millions of explosive submunitions are now slated for destruction for those states that join the convention ?Millions of weapons are going to be immediately scrapped now, regardless of the dubious technical fixes some countries were promoting. The world is a safer place now thanks to the visionary leadership of Norway and others,? said Grethe Osthern of Norwegian Peoples Aid and CMC?s Co-Chair. Tonight?s provisional text will be formally adopted on Friday and opened for signature in Oslo in December. As of this Friday, when the formal adoption will take place over 100 participating states including many NATO allies, UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Belgium are committed to no longer using these weapons. Once countries sign the treaty in Oslo, the Vienna Convention prohibits them from using these weapons from here on.

UCU’s decision a blow to business-as-usual
1 Jun 2008
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) salutes the British University and College Union (UCU) for its principled support for the cause of justice and peace in Palestine and for adopting, at its annual congress on 28 May 2008, significant steps in the direction of applying effective pressure on Israel and holding it accountable for its colonial and apartheid policies which violate international law and fundamental human rights. The UCU’s condemnation of the “apparent complicity of most of the Israeli academy,” its appeal to its members “to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions,” and its decision to “greylist” — a notch short of boycott — the “colonising” Israeli college in the illegal settlement of Ariel are the strongest indicators to date that the Union has resolutely moved forward in the direction of gradually ending business-as-usual with Israeli universities. The congress resolutions also attest to the Union’s courageous refusal to bow to legal and other forms of bullying and intimidation, waged recently by Israel and Zionist pressure groups in the UK and elsewhere in an attempt to suppress the boycott debate and muzzle views within the UCU that are critical of the Israeli occupation. Besides the boycott-leaning motion cited above, the UCU censured the Israeli trade union federation, the Histadrut, urging it to take a position against the “siege of Gaza” and to call for “an end to the occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory.” Recognizing the “humanitarian catastrophe imposed on Gaza by Israel and the EU,” the UCU decided to send a fact-finding delegation to the occupied territory. This sincere solidarity with Palestine shown by British academic trade unionists is particularly welcome and timely in light of Israel’s recent escalation of its colonial and racist policies against the Palestinian people. Israel has continued with unprecedented impunity its criminal siege of the occupied Gaza Strip, curtailing fuel, medicine and food supplies, thereby causing the death of dozens of innocent civilians, including premature babies, chronically ill senior citizens, among others, and the unspeakable devastation of the livelihood of 1.5 million Palestinians. It has also carried on with its policy of indiscriminate, often willful, killing of Palestinian civilians, at least a third of whom are children; confiscation of Palestinian land and water resources; construction of the apartheid Wall, condemned as illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004; and wanton destruction of Palestinian agricultural lands, infrastructure and entire civilian neighborhoods. Furthermore, for the last six decades, Israel has treated its own Palestinian citizens with institutionalized racism, while denying millions of Palestinian refugees, ethnically cleansed in 1948, their UN-sanctioned rights, including the right to return to their homes. At this time of exceptional Israeli brutality, impunity and war crimes against the indigenous Palestinian people, especially in Gaza and the Naqab desert area, the UCU has risen to its moral responsibility by taking exceptional measures to hold Israel to account. It is also worth noting that the UCU, implementing a decision taken at its congress in 2007, recently hosted representatives from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees on a UK-wide speaking tour. But the UCU is not alone, certainly not in the UK. The largest two trade unions, Unison and TGWU, Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine (APJP), the National Union of Journalists, the Church of England, among others, have all adopted diverse measures supporting boycott, divestment or sanctions against Israel in recent years. Some of Britain’s most prominent cultural figures, including Ken Loach, John Berger and Nigel Kennedy, have expressed publicly their support for the Palestinian call for boycott*. The efforts of our colleagues in the British Committee for Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) also deserve mention. Since its inception, BRICUP has worked in a determined and principled way to defend and spread the message of the academic boycott. We are proud to be associated with such a distinguished group of academics. The UCU has proven beyond doubt that effective solidarity with the oppressed is the most morally and politically sound contribution to the struggle to end oppression and to promote human rights as well as a just and peaceful future for all. —————————————— The Palestinian call for boycott of Israeli academic institutions (http://www.pacbi.org/campaign_statement.htm) is endorsed by the major federations and associations of academics and professionals, including the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE) and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU). It is supported by dozens of civil society institutions in Palestine, like the Palestinian Non-Governmental Organizations’ Network (PNGO).

Cowardice of silence
31 May 2008
When I phoned Aung San Suu Kyi’s home in Rangoon yesterday, I imagined the path to her door that looks down on Inya Lake. Through ragged palms, a trip-wire is visible, a reminder that this is the prison of a woman whose party was elected by a landslide in 1990, a democratic act extinguished by men in ludicrous uniforms. Her phone rang and rang; I doubt if it is connected now. Once, in response to my “How are you?” she laughed about her piano’s need of tuning. She also spoke about lying awake, breathless, listening to the thumping of her heart. Now her silence is complete. This week, the Burmese junta renewed her house arrest, beginning the 13th year. As far as I know, a doctor has not been allowed to visit her since January, and her house was badly damaged in the cyclone. And yet the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, could not bring himself to utter her name on his recent, grovelling tour of Burma. It is as if her fate and that of her courageous supporters, who on Tuesday beckoned torture and worse merely by unfurling the banners of her National League for Democracy, have become an embarrassment for those who claim to represent the “international community”. Why? Where are the voices of those in governments and their related institutions who know how to help Burma? Where are the honest brokers who once eased the oppressed away from their shadows, the true and talented peacemakers who see societies not in terms of their usefulness to “interests” but as victims of it? Where are the Dennis Hallidays and Hans von Sponecks who rose to assistant secretary-general of the UN by the sheer moral force of their international public service? The answer is simple. They are all but extinguished by a virus called the “war on terror”. Where once men and women of good heart and good intellect and good faith stood in parliaments and world bodies in defence of the human rights of others, there is now cowardice. Think of the parliament at Westminster, which cannot even cajole itself into holding an inquiry into the criminal invasion of Iraq, let alone to condemn it and speak up for its victims. Last year, 100 eminent British doctors pleaded with the minister for international development, then Hilary Benn, for emergency medical aid to be sent to Iraqi children’s hospitals: “Babies are dying for want of a 95 pence oxygen mask,” they wrote. The minister turned them down flat. I mention that because medical aid for children is exactly the kind of assistance the British government now insists the Burmese junta should accept without delay. “There are people suffering in Burma,” said an indignant Gordon Brown. “There are children going without food … it is utterly unacceptable that when international aid is offered, the regime will try to prevent that getting in.” David Miliband chimed in with “malign neglect”. Say that to the children of Iraq and Afghanistan and Gaza, where Britain’s role is as neglectful and malign as any. As scores of children in Shia areas of Baghdad are blown to bits by America and what the BBC calls Iraq’s “democratic government”, the British are silent, as ever. “We” say nothing while Israel torments and starves the children of Gaza, ignoring every attempt to bring a ceasefire with Hamas, all in the name of a crusade that dares not say its name. What might have been a new day for humanity in the post-cold war years, even a renewal of the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights, of “never again” from Palestine to Burma, was cancelled by the ambitions of a sole rapacious power that has cowed all. The “war on terror” allows Australia and Israel to train Burma’s internal security thugs. It consumes both most humanitarian aid indirectly and the very internationalism capable of bringing the “clever” pressure on Burma, about which Aung San Suu Kyi once spoke. Dismissing the idiocy of a military intervention in her country, she asked: “What about all those who trade with the generals, who give them many millions of dollars that keep them going?” She was referring to the huge oil and gas companies, Total and Chevron, which effectively hand the regime $2.7bn a year, and the Halliburton company (former chief executive Vice-President Dick Cheney) that backed the construction of the Yadana pipeline, and the British travel companies that send tourists across bridges and roads built with forced labour. Audley Travel promotes its Burma holidays in the Guardian. The BBC, in contravention of its charter, has just bought 75% of Lonely Planet travel guides, a truculent defender of “our” right to be tourists in Burma regardless of slave labour, or cyclones, or the woman beyond the trip-wire. Shame.

Peter Oborne reviews Who Runs Britain? by Robert Peston
31 May 2008
For more than a century writers and politicians on the left have been predicting that the capitalist system would shortly collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Again and again capitalism has proved these prophets of doom wrong. However the start of the 21st century has coincided with a financial crisis every bit as great as any that has gone before. If things go on as they are, Karl Marx may be proved right after all. There is a paradox here. The Labour government which took power in 1997 seemed to mark the final victory of capitalism. The new prime minister Tony Blair and his chancellor Gordon Brown both explicitly repudiated the socialist system which all previous Labour governments had embraced while acknowledging the victory of free market ideas. Indeed they went far further than any previous 20th century administration in forming an alliance with what George Orwell used to label the boss class. As Robert Peston demonstrates in horrifying detail in this extremely important book, a small group of super-rich effectively dictated large tracts of government policy. Corporate buccaneers were allowed access to Blair?s Downing Street and Gordon Brown?s Treasury in a way that was entirely new. Nothing like it had occurred even under Margaret Thatcher. In return for comparatively derisory financial contributions to the Labour Party these businessmen and entrepreneurs received what amounted to a general exemption from the obligation to pay taxation. The effect of this decision was the creation of private wealth on a scale that has not been seen since before World War One and probably not even then. New Labour?s decision to cultivate the super-rich ? a class which is now lavishly repaying Tony Blair in kind as he jets first class round the world from boardroom to corporate jamboree ? has not been without terrible cost. The thesis of Robert Peston?s book is that the losers have been the ordinary, middling people who benefited from the restrained shareholder capitalism which flourished in Britain from the end of World War Two. This capitalism was based around large, accountable public companies ? Marks and Spencer, ICI and so forth. By the late twentieth century these were no longer owned by private individuals but overwhelmingly by large and seemingly impregnable pension funds. The senior management in these companies were paid generously (perhaps quarter of a million a year) but not lavishly. The real beneficiaries from the profits made by these large public companies were not private individuals but members of the large final salary schemes which guaranteed security in retirement to millions upon millions of ordinary employees. These large corporations were socially responsible and financially conservative. Above all they were strongly biased towards financing investment through equity rather than borrowing ? a prudent approach which helped guarantee long term survival at the expense of short term profit. Robert Peston quite brilliantly shows how the fiscal changes introduced by Gordon Brown in his early budgets destroyed this relatively benign system of shareholder capitalism. Acting on the self ?interested advice of a small group of corporate marauders from the private equity industry, Brown systematically put in place the conditions for the emergence of a novel and highly destructive kind of finance. This structure was based on debt rather than equity. It was designed to create giant private fortunes rather than the even distribution of wealth. Brown?s changes actively disadvantaged the prudent and careful public companies that preferred equity to debt finance. Within a short space of time it completely destroyed the British pension funds that were until very recently the envy of the world. One of the great merits of Robert Peston?s book is that he knows the hedge fund managers, private equity moguls and politicians involved intimately. He has talked to them, and understands their point of view. Some of them are certainly friends of his. But he has something very rare in any kind of journalism: the ability to write with the insight and understanding of a genuine insider ? and the dispassionate clarity of an highly intelligent observer. This is why I do not believe that anybody else apart from Peston would have been able to write this unique guide to our contemporary predicament. It shows how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown?s New Labour government have hollowed our public domain, unthinkingly destroyed and created a barbarous economic and social structure. New Labour?s structure is not merely unethical, however. It is also desperately unstable. The shameful surrender by the state to an untrammelled capitalist class has destroyed large parts of the public domain and created genuine conditions for a crisis in capitalism in the months and years ahead. The most important of these is an explosion of public and private debt. Numerous public assets ? ranging from hospitals and schools to great businesses ? can only survive through huge debt repayments. This kind of financing works in boom times but is destined to fail when an economy turns sour, as ours is starting to do. The second has been the destruction of large parts of the public domain and the creation of a tiny class of super-rich at the direct expense of a broad mass of ordinary people. As a result many of the institutional protections against social and political instability have vanished. There are too many lazy mistakes in this book. A volume as significant as this ought to be footnoted. Above all it is poorly designed, occasionally giving the impression that it is a collection of essays rather than a coherent and rigorously argued document. The chapter on Marks and Spencer, for example, while well-informed, has little thematic connection with the remainder of the text. Peston never seriously tries to answer the question ? Who Runs Britain? ? posed in the title. It is hard to tell whether his editor at Hodder & Stoughton has done a wretched job or the whole thing was produced in a tremendous hurry. This is a pity because Peston has produced a truthful guide to our times. It deserves to become essential reading as we slide deeper and deeper into an economic, political and moral morass.

Al-Qaida?s afterlife
31 May 2008
A number of current trends in Afghanistan are of far more than local significance. The pattern of violence is the most visible: for example, a series of attacks on 26-27 May 2008 killed [1] thirty seven people (among them police officers, soldiers, and bus passengers) in the provinces of Kandahar, Farah, Khost and Nimroz. But armed action and the bloodshed it causes are also the surface manifestation of a strategic reordering that is inserting the Afghan conflict into regional and even global realities in new ways. These incidents reflect the fact that many of the paramilitary groups in the country [2] (and not just the Taliban) have become cautious about frontal assaults on western forces and are instead laying roadside- and suicide-bombs (see “Afghanistan’s Vietnam portent [2]”, 17 April 2008). The tactic is routinely directed against Afghan police and army units, as well as government officials and NGO workers (mostly local, since a majority of international agencies have withdrawn). This incremental rise [3] in the level of violence may continue after the opium-poppy harvest, though so too in all probability will the current minimal level of western media coverage (diminishing to near-invisibility in the United States). But if the media and publics are less than engaged in this, the first theatre [4] of the “war of terror” after the assaults of 11 September 2001, the Pentagon is treating events in Afghanistan [5] with utmost seriousness – and ever greater ambition. A military-political purpose A 2,400-strong force of US marines is now deployed in Helmand province, reportedly with as much air support as the British ground forces in the same province (which number 7,300). There are indications that further US contingents amounting to 7,000 extra troops will be deployed; inaddition, the operations in Afghanistan’s embattled [6] southern region will be transferred from Nato to direct US control (see “A war of money as well as bullets [7]”, Economist, 24 May 2008). British, Dutch and Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan have, notwithstanding differences of approach with the US, won a certain professional respect from US military commanders. But deep divisions among these distinct Nato forces remain, and they are not helped by continuing resource constraints (US demands at the Nato conference [8] in Bucharest in April 2008 for its allies to contribute more have had little effect, apart from a few hundred additional French troops). The result is an American plan (born partly out of frustration) to substantially increase the firepower within the country. But this is only one part of a programme that places as much emphasis on events on the other side of the border with Pakistan. Two aspects of the Afghan dimension of this agenda are central. The first is to intensify pressure [11] on the Pakistani government over its attitude to Pakistani Taliban leaders – in favour of a tougher approach, rather than continue with the present policy of local negotiations (see Bill Roggio, “Pakistan strikes deal with the Taliban in Mohmand [12]”, Long War Journal, 28 May 2008). From Islamabad’s perspective, the advantage of the latest phase of its deal-making policy (highlighted in September 2006 when a formal agreement [13] was made with Taliban fighters in the region of North Waziristan) is that this will help ease tensions in the frontier districts. Washington takes a different view: that it creates entire zones free of any government authority where Taliban militias can operate (reminiscent of the territories held by the Farc guerrillas in Colombia [13]). The US military wants to expand its ability to operate in these districts – as does the CIA. Both have already stepped up their activities in the region, such as aerial surveillance and ground-based intelligence (the latter from new posts just inside Afghanistan). The current state of Pakistani politics complicates this project. The elections [13] of 18 February 2008 have opened a new phase of instability, characterised by divisions among the leading parties and personalities (see Irfan Husain, “Pakistan’s rivalrous coalition [13]”, 19 May 2008); but the formation of a new government has also constrained further the ability of the president, Pervez Musharraf, to ensure that Pakistan accedes to American demands. Musharraf was already isolated in his pro-US stance before he was forced to allow a return to (albeit flawed) electoral democracy; now the political leaders are more able to represent the broadly anti-American mood of the country (see Jonathan Manthorpe, “Democracy in Pakistan makes it tougher for its allies [14]’, Vancouver Sun, 28 May 2008). The power of Pakistan’s military and the rooted influence of the US in the region mean that these US efforts to increase operations in western Pakistan – to, for example, interrupt the Taliban’s delivery of supplies and personnel across the border into Afghanistan – will not be halted altogether. But the Americans now have to tread more carefully with their Pakistani “ally”. The second Afghan aspect of the US’s plan in Pakistan is equally significant: a new-found determination to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. A meeting seems to have taken place at a US base in Qatar to plan an operation to this effect, attended by General David Petraeus (the incoming heads of US Central Command), and Anne Petersen (the American ambassador to Pakistan (see Syed Saleem Shahzad, “In the Footsteps of Osama [15]”, Asia Times, 28 May 2008). The focus was on the areas where bin Laden is assumed [16] to operate: western Pakistani areas such as Bajaur Agency [17] and neighbouring districts of Nuristan province. The US’s triple aim, then, is: to pressure Pakistan to limit [18] negotiations with militia-controlled areas of its own country to increase its force-level in Afghanistan to enable it to take full control of military operations in the most violent parts of the country to intensify the operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. All three aspects, if reflected in actual achievement, would have an important public-relations component. The first and second would be portrayed in terms of effective counterinsurgency policy and action that parallel the advances championed in Iraq (even if the latter are less impressive on close inspection; see “The Iraqi whirlwind [18]”, 3 April 2008). The third objective would be especially welcomed by a George W Bush administration desperate for signs of tangible proof that the “war on terror” is bring won; it would also burnish a discreditable presidential record and may help secure a continuation of Republican control of the White House, while reducing the scale of any electoral reversals in Congress. A life in death Such outcomes represent very much the optimal scenario for the United States over the next four months. But even if this arrived by the time the votes are cast, it could not possibly end the serious problems posed by the current he has embodied. True, the death or detention of Osama bin Laden would undoubtedly have an impact on the al-Qaida movement, not least in curtailing some of the funding coming from Saudi Arabia, where the aura of bin Laden’s leadership still carries a cachet (see Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens: The Story of a Family and its Fortune [19] [Penguin, 2008]). At the same time, al-Qaida is a far looser entity than in 2001: a new generation of leaders is coming to the fore, and bin Laden himself is increasingly a figurehead rather than a formative influence on this dispersed and often pervasive transnational entity. Moreover, his death (and to a degree that of al-Qaida’s chief ideologue, Ayman al-Zawahiri) would make him a “martyr” to more than his followers; while his detention (assuming the Americans would be able or prepared to take him alive – and that the “surprise” is not in the other [20] direction) would have the effect of creating a worryingly unpredictable and uncontrollable media cycle and legal process (see “A world beyond control [20]”, 22 May 2008). In strict military terms too, the precedent of Saddam Hussein’s capture [20] in December 2003 – which the Americans confidently predicted would lead to the collapse of the Iraq insurgency, and did no such thing – does not augur well here. But the Iraqi insurgency has been confined to Iraq. The wider point is that in the years since the “war on terror” was launched, a largely unrecognised process has transformed the Taliban and its partner militias from an Afghan-centred movement with ethnic and nationalist elements to a much more globally-orientated jihadist one (see Malise Ruthven, “The Rise of the Muslim Terrorists [21]”, 29 May 2008). In this light, even “success” for American forces in their current endeavours may well be the seed of further failure. For if US forces deploy to greater effect in the region – and especially if they capture or kill theirtwo main human targets [22] – the domestic political effect would be more likely to favour the continuation of a hardline military policy by Washington in 2009. That, though, would be just what bin Laden’s successors – who, like their “martyr”, measure in decades the conflict they are involved in – want. Another four years of sustained US military involvement in the middle east and southwest Asia will be sweet indeed for the jihadist camp. In that case, Osama bin Laden’s sacrifice will not have been in vain: indeed, it would symbolise and reinforce the trends that are making the conflict in Afghanistan part of a still-evolving global confrontation. Links: [1] http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0529/p99s01-duts.html [2] http://geology.com/world/afghanistan-satellite-image.shtml [3] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-afghan-pakistan_barkermay24,0,521… [4] http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/Operat… [5] http://www.operations.mod.uk/mapping/Afghanistan.jpg [6] http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/maps/images/maps/afghan_violence [7] http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11402695 [8] http://blogs.sipri.org/Afghanistan/my-first-blog-entry [9] http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/paulrogers.htm [10] http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745641966 [11] http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jk2aVRuVhP0HgNAsCVkEplizhCrA [12] http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/05/pakistan_strikes_dea.php [13] http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/p01s04-wosc.html [14] http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/ story.html?id=d390ebe1-47c4-42b9-b767-71aab0b33f47 [15] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JE28Df01.html [16] http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10… [17] http://bp1.blogger.com/_h5L0bq0pIhY/R3tSY1ixILI/AAAAAAAAAbg/I_59rNcK0fU/... [18] http://www.cfr.org/publication/16317/ [19] http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781846141249,00.html [20] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,544921,00.html [21] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21438 [22] http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080528/FOREIGN/546311031/1103/ART&Pr…

Prescott admits Iraq a ‘mark’ on Labour
29 May 2008
Peace campaigners reiterated demands for US and British leaders to face justice for their war crimes on Tuesday after former deputy leader of the Labour Party John Prescott admitted that the Iraq war would be a “mark against” the record of new Labour. Mr Prescott, who was also deputy prime minister, shamelessly reconfirmed his support for the 2003 invasion, although he refused to disclose what his advice to Tony Blair during the run-up had been. “I didn’t disagree with it going as it was,” Mr Prescott told BBC radio, adding that Iraq was one of the “things that come in government that you wish don’t happen, but do.” British-based Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation spokesman Sabah Jawad called for Mr Prescott, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the rest of the warmongering Cabinet on both sides of the Atlantic to stand trial for war crimes. The Iraqi-born campaigner expressed fury that, “even after killing one million innocent people, destroying the fabric of society and installing a corrupt and sectarian puppet government, still they have no regrets.” “All they offer is a shy acknowledgement that it might reflect bad on new Labour. What Iraqi people want is for them to face justice in the international court of law for their war crimes. “We want the occupation forces to leave our country immediately,” Mr Jawad demanded, adding that Britain and the US should also pay compensation towards the reconstruction of Iraq. A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition said: “To say that Iraq is a ‘mark against’ the government is a wild understatement. Labour lost the trust of the people when it took us to war on a series of lies. “Many political and public figures try to indicate now that they were against the war at the time. It’s a shame that they did not have the courage of their convictions to speak out publicly.” He added that, rather than vague acknowledgements by former ministers, “we need an open admission that the war was a terrible mistake and for all troops to be withdrawn immediately.”

An interview with the manager of Hicham Yezza?s defence campaign
29 May 2008
Hicham was arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 a couple weeks ago for getting a copy of the Al Queda training manual sent to him by a friend, Rizawaan Sabir, who was doing research on terrorism. He was forwarded a copy and it was suggested to him that he print it out. The training manual is available on the Internet and can be bought on Amazon and is on government web sites. He just had the document on his computer. He never actually printed it. Somebody saw it on his computer and alerted the University of Nottingham. The university didn?t think of looking on Google and seeing that it was a document that was widely available. He was detained for six days and released without charge. Then Hicham was rearrested on immigration grounds and he was kept in detention centres and moved every day or so. He was talking to his solicitor and thought he had a really good case to stay here. The immigration charges were quite limited, but then suddenly the Home Office issued a removal notice. He had a trial date scheduled, but they said on condition of removal we will drop all the charges. We just want to get rid of you essentially. That?s when the whole campaign started, because Hicham has been here for 13 years; he?s been on the student?s union executive, editor of a political magazine, etc. He is very well known here and has done undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. Now suddenly the Home Office are saying they want to deport him. He has been in contact with the Home Office about his visa application before the arrest and it was all being sorted out. The Home Office hadn?t had any problems. After he was arrested under the Terrorism Act they suddenly decided they had a problem with his immigration status and wanted to remove him. So most people think this is related to the initial arrest and that the Home Office want to pin him down on something. The Home Office has an interest in getting convictions for terrorism charges. So that is the situation so far. An appeal has been lodged against his removal. Now we are seeing what happens with the legal process and are campaigning hard with the Home Office and other influential people who can try to help. Our local Member of Parliament, Alan Simpson, has taken a really keen interest in the case and has been writing letters to Ian Byrne and talking to Hicham?s solicitor. Another MP, Nick Palmer, has also taken an interest in the case. We have had loads of support from organisations such as the University and College Union, who recently passed a motion supporting Hicham. Most student unions we have contacted have given their support. Bettina Renz is Rizwaan?s personal tutor. In the school of politics we do a lot of research related to international security and terrorism. Right from the start the tutors knew what this was about. They talked to the police and said this is for legitimate research purposes, freely available and in the public domain. They were concerned about the implications of these arrests. Obviously once the university starts vetting that, this is very concerning to the academics in those fields. One of the police officers told one of the academics that this would never have happened if they had been blond-haired Swedish PhD students. It is a very dangerous situation where a university calls the police on a very flimsy suspicion. And there was clearly no reason for the police to take so long and to hold them in detention for so long. Six days in police custody is punishment in itself. The Home Office?s actions are indicative of a dangerous attitude. It is that it picks on certain people and decides to remove them. The Home Office acts like a faceless machine. It just treats him like a common criminal, which is not the case. We are very concerned that the university bureaucracy has decided to take a position where they fully cooperated with the police action and implicitly assumed the guilt of their own students. When Sabir and Yezza were released without charge they didn?t apologise and said this was necessary for the safety of the community. At first when the arrests took place they were saying there is no threat to the community. We thought that already there was Orwellian language involved here. Then when Hicham was rearrested they made no attempt to support him. This is the university bureaucracy, not the academics and staff. All I have encountered from them is 100 percent support. The bureaucracy has decided to distance themselves from him. They have refused to admit that he was a student here for so long. They have tried to paint him as a clerical assistant, which is not really the case. They also said he was an illegal immigrant and while the case is ongoing it is not really their place to say. When we demonstrated at the university, we got a call from Hicham. He relayed a message of thanks and goodwill to everyone and expressed his gratitude. He thanked everyone for their solidarity. We want the Home Office to reconsider what they are doing and we are hopeful about his case. We are hopeful that he will be able to stay.

The Future of the World – as seen from an airport
29 May 2008
Airports are salty wounds, full of tight air and crimson stale tears and often, when sitting rigidly on an Africa-to- Europe flight, I can feel the passengers are wounds inside wounds: bundles of dry nerves in a bath of dry uncertainty. Later on, from up in the sky, Heathrow airport will seem an obstinate lump of concrete and steel, a formidable excrescence: unwelcoming and even irritated at the arrival of yet another wave of ?them?. Inside the austere hall of immigration control of Terminal 2, arriving passengers are separated into two groups, a fluid small queue at the far end for the citizens of the free world and another much bigger section for the rest: the people at the edge. And so they quietly join the human snake locked in a lengthy slow-moving march towards the gates of deliverance. You want to learn about social science? About global politics in the twenty-first century? About the ?human predicament?? About the ?end of history?? Well: forget your Ivy league PhDs and your LSE Masters. Skip over your Foreign Affairs subscription and your well-meaning punctual attendance at literary festivals and come spend a day at the arrival gates of Heathrow airport. Try it, sit there and watch humanity in all its countless dimensions. Watch the sweaty frowns, the hopeful sighs, the expectant silences, the occasional glances towards the other world at the far end, that of the lucky ones hurrying past impatiently, showing their passports fleetingly to the smiling official like they were glorified bus passes. And who can blame them? Isn?t that what passports are meant to be? As clichs go ?The World is a Global Village? has at least the merit of being nearly true. Indeed, if you chose carefully where your world started and where it ended. If you picked a world that contained the good half of the Northern Hemisphere as well as some appropriate outposts, Australia and the Falklands for example. Then that world would, indeed, be one of breathlessly instant communication, dizzyingly cheap frictionless travel and where you would find an increasingly eclectic yet homogenous cultural diet of MTV-speak and industrialscale spiritual angst. That world would be a global village ?. I?m reminded of a moment last summer, as I sat on the terrace of my family home in a sun-drenched Algiers suburb, fifty pages into another half-hearted attempt to complete War and Peace. I wondered about how things would have turned out had two hundred thousand or so qualified engineers, researchers, professors and professionals not fled my country over the past twenty years. Would a North African Silicon Valley have emerged? Perhaps on the site of a dormant coastal village? A place buzzing with that most potent of mixes: blazing talent and raw ambition? Would that have helped make the planet a teeny bit fairer? Or at least less farcical than it is now? This thought-experiment is set to remain just that: an exercise in outlandish speculation. Half a century after the last wave of liberation movements, the Third World is still haemorrhaging crucial brain-power and the First World is still hungrily (yet not that gratefully) sucking it out. No one seems able or willing to stop this demonic one-way phenomena and the political bankruptcy of the elites in most African, Asian and Latin American countries, crippled by incompetence, mismanagement and good old fashioned greed, has certainly not helped. At the airport, so many different faces have the same quiet fierceness about them: The Egyptian petroleum engineer with his beautiful daughter beside him singing to herself, oblivious to the life-changing episode she is partaking in, the Sri-Lankan computer scientist, with his neat short hair and his serious gaze, absentmindedly inspecting his knuckles, the Malaysian physicist, with his short-sleeved shirt and worried brows. All of them stand in line waiting, locked between the twin poles of the local oppression back home (whether political, social or economical) and the siren calls of overseas prosperity. The simple truth is that most of the time, job migration is not about choosing a different life: It?s about choosing life. Very often nowadays, photogenic experts line up at TV shows to proclaim the end of borders, the abolition of the nation-state and the brand new age of the international continuum. This humanist fantasy, to which even cynics subscribe tearfully now and then (when watching the football world cup final, for instance) is touching and commendable but a fantasy nonetheless. It may be passably comprehensible to a group of bohemian backpackers indulging in cheerful banter (in Esperanto?) in a Jazz-caf on the French-Belgian border but has very little resonance for a destitute family in a Palestinian village for whom leaving their very house is too forbiddingly risky an enterprise. Is a continuous unidirectional migration flow sustainable forever? Of course not. In fact, several patterns are already emerging: the service sector?s drive towards overseas outsourcing will initially increase, but eventually slow down as the gap in labour costs between the west and the rest closes up. Geography will continue its path towards irrelevance as the location of businesses, once mainly dictated by their physical proximity to suppliers and customers, is now based more on rental cost considerations. Time for a prediction: Over the next hundred years, things are set to proceed along one of two distinct tracks, and it?s all depending on our actions globally as a species. The first avenue, unfortunately appearing to be the most likely, is for the increased worldwide competitiveness over scarcer resources to lead to an ever shrinking island of the prosperous few in the midst of the ever widening circle of the forgotten many. The world would become a global-scale version of a medieval kingdom. The second option, achievable but requiring altruism of which we haven?t shown ourselves capable yet, is for the economic system to move from its currently lop-sided shape to a stable and efficient set of mechanisms covering the entirety of the globe, rather than the current inconsistent pattern of halfmeasures and selectively-adhered-to international trade laws that we have now. As to what this implies for worker migration, it simply means that we should strive for a world where workers are able to move freely around the globe according to their own preferences and skills but – and this is the part that most miss or choose to ignore – that workers are not under undue pressure (whether internal or external) to adopt a particular choice. In other words, a doctor emigrating from Ethiopia to the US is not a glorious symbol of an idealised free movement of people if her choice to emigrate was the result of an absence of choice. The freedom and ability to stay are as important as the freedom and ability to move and to go away. Democratic reform towards freer societies (but without the ugly interventionist connotations the word has been cloaked in by the media) is hence a crucial step towards genuine freedom of movement for people in the third world. So. What are we to do? Well, for a start, the third world economic and intellectual apparatus should be given a chance to grow organically. The brain drain has to stop and the sooner the better. Of course this is not going to be painless for the Euro-American (and other developed) economies but it would be wise and it would be fair. Indeed, a decreased migration of skilled workers would lead to more vibrant home economies and eventually to a significant increase in living standards in their countries. The closing gap in average employee remunerations between the west and the rest will itself slow down the migration cycle even further and cement a stable international job markets equilibrium. Those in the developed West who are supporting actions towards a fairer world should understand very clearly that change will come at a price: principally, a reduced level of their own affluence and material wealth – a price too many in the west have decided they can?t afford to pay. But considering the long term consequences of our current global levels of production and consumption, they will have to face the realisation that it?s a price they certainly cannot afford not to. At the Heathrow Immigration desk a friend of mine was once asked by a benign-looking immigration official what her intentions were after finishing her Politics degree in Britain. ?I will possibly do a postgraduate course? she replied neutrally and then, feebly ?possibly look for a job here?. The immigration officer looked up for a few very heavy milliseconds and then stoically resumed his scribbling. He has seen her before, a trillion times, with a different name, colour and nationality but with that same weary stare and that same fire at the back of the eyes. She was allowed through. The world will grow as a whole or it won?t grow at all. Hicham Yezza is editor of Ceasefire, and is currently residing in Colnbrook Immigration Centre having been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000. For information on the campaign to free him, see Stop the Deportation of Hicham Yezza

On Trial for Protesting a Weapons Maker
29 May 2008
Eamonn McCann is a founder of the1960s civil rights movement in Northern Ireland, a veteran socialist and trade unionist, and one of Ireland’s most widely read journalists. He is the author of War and an Irish Town, Bloody Sunday in Derry: What Really Happened and other books. In 2006, as a response to Israel’s savage war on Lebanon, Eamonn and other members of the Derry Antiwar Coalition organized an occupation of a local facility of Raytheon, the U.S.-based weapons maker and world’s largest producer of guided missiles. Nine activists were arrested and charged with vandalizing the building. They are on trial now, and could face time in prison if convicted. In July 2006, members of the Derry Antiwar Coalition organized a protest, occupation and decommissioning of the local Raytheon facility there. Why did you decide to take action? Our motivation was to prevent war crimes. Israel’s bombardment was causing carnage and destruction in Lebanon, and we knew they were using Raytheon manufactured bombs. We were particularly outraged by the bombing of the town of Qana. Israel dropped a bomb on one complex there, killing 28 people, the majority of them women and children, crushed and suffocated beneath the rubble. We believed this required an immediate response. We decided to take action to disrupt, delay and hamper Raytheon’s ability, in whatever way possible, to deliver weapons of mass destruction to Israel and participate in war crimes. As the number of dead and maimed in the Middle East mounts, Raytheon recently announced a further growth of revenues and profits. How do you view Raytheon’s relationship to war crimes? Raytheon, like all arms companies, profits from bloodshed. And after all, if there were no wars, governments would not feel the need to buy the high-tech munitions that Raytheon manufactures. Raytheon is one of the many companies that fuels war for profit. But the Raytheon company also has a political agenda. Adam Cherill, the business manager of Raytheon, if my memory is correct, has said that the Palestinian people have no connection to the land of Palestine—that they have no culture, no society and no historical ties to the land. Now, that is not a commercial statement. That is a political statement. The Raytheon company is closely tied to the top brass of the Pentagon. So they are complicit in everything that happens in the Middle East. In particular, they are complicit in war crimes committed through the use of Raytheon munitions. We know that towards the end of the Israeli-Lebanon conflict in the summer of 2006, Raytheon rushed so-called bunker-buster bombs. They delivered a rush-order, of these bombs just a short time before the war ended so that Israel could continue bombing. Israel had dropped so many bombs over southern Lebanon, south Beirut and elsewhere that they were actually running out of supplies. Raytheon rushed two Airbus transport planes from the United States to Israel in order to replenish supplies, even though, at that point, it was known that their munitions were being used to bomb civilians, to target ambulances and civilian infrastructure. So this is a company which is knowingly involved in war crimes. The trial of the Raytheon 9 began last week in Belfast. The trial was moved from Derry, and the presiding judge imposed a media gag on all discussion of the case. Why? The trial was moved to Belfast because the judge reckoned that there would be sympathy for the Raytheon 9 in Derry, because the defendants were well known to a wide range of people in Derry. Now, there also could have been hostility to the defendants in Derry. I wouldn’t rule this out, because all the main parties in Derry and in the local area were all sharply condemnatory of the Raytheon 9. But anyway, the judge transferred it to Belfast and imposed a media gag because, he said, the coverage of the case would in itself have the potential to prejudice the jury’s decisions. This was complete nonsense. Cases trialed in Northern Ireland are regularly covered in advance of the actual trial. It was completely out of order. So it was an absolutely meaningless reason for imposing the media gag. What it did was take the issue of the Raytheon 9 and anything controversial for the Raytheon company itself out of the public arena. And it meant that the media didn’t even report on developments at the Raytheon plant, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. The Raytheon 9 has received tremendous support in Ireland and around the world. Among the many who have spoken out in your defense are Noam Chomsky, George Galloway, Tony Benn, Christy Moore and George Monbiot. Yet none of the local political parties or their representatives have come to your defense. This is no surprise from the right-wing parties, but Sinn Fein, especially during the 1980s, prided itself on support for national liberation struggles in Central America and the Middle East, viewing itself in solidarity with all anti-imperialist struggles. None of the mainstream parties—none of the four parties which form the new executive of Northern Ireland—has supported the Raytheon 9. And this is despite the fact that Sinn Fein, in particular, has always presented itself as a socialist organization, as an anti-imperialist organization. But the truth is that the closer Sinn Fein got to power, the more they ditched their supposed socialist principles that would involve any anti-American activity. Sinn Fein is determined to maintain the friendship of the Bush administration. Indeed, Martin McGuiness, the vice president of Sinn Fein, personally invited George Bush to visit Northern Ireland in June this year, in a couple weeks’ time. And he has publicly described George Bush as a “friend of Ireland” and “a man of peace.” So the Sinn Fein party is not just compromised on its supposed anti-imperialist, socialist credentials, but it seems to have moved to the other side. Not really an uncommon thing for a nationalist organization once achieving office. In 1968, you helped spark the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland and resistance to the British-supported sectarian state. Today, you are still fighting against injustice. There’s a straight line from 40 years ago to what is happening today. In 1968, we were outraged by the U.S. war in Vietnam and inspired by the Black struggle for civil rights. We were moved by this. In Ireland, we were fighting against local injustices, but we viewed ourselves and our struggles as part of an international struggle. Today, we continue to fight against local injustices in Ireland, but we also see it as connected to a global struggle. There’s never been a contradiction between fighting local injustices and fighting injustice in the world. The U.S. is attempting to violently dominate the Middle East and control the oil there. Iraq and Lebanon, as well as Palestine, are at the frontline of this struggle. The location of struggle may have changed, but the struggle for liberation and justice continues. For information on how to support the Raytheon 9 and for daily updates on the trial, visit the Support the Raytheon 9 Web site. Eamonn McCann’s article “Qana, Derry: The dead lie in familiar shapes” describes the activists’ trip to Lebanon and the action against Raytheon the visit motivated. He also talked about the case in a You Tube video.

Interview with George Monbiot
29 May 2008
Listen to the interview: As real audio stream Download MP3 file AMY GOODMAN: John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, escaped a citizen?s arrest Wednesday night as he addressed an audience gathered at the Hay Festival in Wales. Security guards blocked the path of columnist and activist George Monbiot, who tried to make the arrest as Bolton left the stage. Monbiot planned the action, because he says Bolton is a war criminal for his role in helping to initiate the invasion of Iraq in 2003 while he served as US undersecretary of state for arms control. George Monbiot joins us now on the phone from England. He is a widely read columnist for the Guardian of London and the author of numerous books. His latest is Bring On the Apocalypse: Collected Writing. Actually, he joins us now from Wales. Welcome to Democracy Now!, George Monbiot. GEORGE MONBIOT: Thanks very much, Amy. Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Tell us exactly what happened. GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, I made my intention clear to perform a citizen?s arrest of John Bolton. I wrote a charge sheet detailing exactly the role that he had played in launching a war of aggression in violation of international treaties, which is a clear violation of the Nuremberg Principles. And I took a dossier of evidence down to the local police station. I asked them to act on it. But when they failed to arrest Mr. Bolton, I tried to arrest him myself, and I tried to get up onto the stage as he was leaving it. And I called out, ?John Robert Bolton, I am arresting you for the charge of aggression, the crime of aggression, as defined by the Nuremberg Principles.? But I was caught by two very large security guards and pulled out of the venue very quickly. AMY GOODMAN: How does a citizen?s arrest work? GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, under an act of Parliament here, the Serious Organised [Crime and Police] Act, a citizen has the right to arrest anyone that they suspect to be guilty of a crime who would otherwise get away from the scene or escape without being arrested, and to hand that person over to the police. Now, there is a proviso which says that if?you can only act in this way if the police are unable to act to arrest this person. In this particular case, the police were able to act and had chosen not to do so. So, had I succeeded in arresting Mr. Bolton, I would have put myself on the wrong side of the law. AMY GOODMAN: John Bolton has also been criticized for calling for US strikes on Iran. Earlier this month, the New York Times published an article, based solely on unnamed sources, suggesting the Lebanese group Hezbollah is training Iraqi militants inside Iran. Hours after the article was published, this is what John Bolton had to say on Fox News. JOHN BOLTON: I think this is a case where the use of military force against a training camp or to show the Iranians we?re simply not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do, and then the ball would be in Iran?s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops. JAIME COLBY: Ambassador John Bolton, a good message to end on. Thank you very much. JOHN BOLTON: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: Your response, George Monbiot? GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes. Well, John Bolton has the position that any and every country of which he disapproves should be attacked, and then we work out the justification for that attack later. He was one of the signatories of the letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to Bill Clinton in 1998, saying that we should attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. And he had one justification then, he had a different justification in 2003, he has a different justification today. It?s very clear that with Bolton, as with Bush, as with Cheney, as with Rumsfeld, the urge to go to war came first, and the justification came second. Now, when you look at the main instruments of international law, you see very clearly that waging a preemptive war where you are not in an immediate crisis of self-defense is a crime against international law. In fact, the Nuremberg tribunals described it as the supreme international crime. And it was for that crime that most of the Nazi war criminals were convicted. And that is exactly the crime that Bolton has conspired in committing. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what happened to Jose Bustani? GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, Jose Bustani is a Brazilian diplomat who was head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And in 2002, Bustani offered a way out of the impasse between Iraq in the United States. He said, OK, Saddam Hussein won?t allow the UNMOVIC inspectors in, primarily because UNSCOM turned out to have been infiltrated by the CIA, and so the successor organization UNMOVIC was viewed with intense suspicion in Iraq. Bustani said, ?I can solve this problem for you by bringing Saddam Hussein into the Chemical Weapons Convention and then launching inspections of my own in Iraq, and therefore we could have a peaceful resolution to this crisis.? Immediately, the United States swung into action against him?the delegation led by John Bolton?and demanded his dismissal as director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, failed at first and then threatened to withhold all its dues and to destroy the organization altogether, whereupon the other nations, led by the United Kingdom, went along with the US delegation and agreed to sack Bustani. Bustani later took his case to an international labor organization tribunal and was completely exonerated of all the complaints which the US had leveled against him. And the only one which seemed to remain was that he had tried to prevent war from being waged with Iraq. And so, far from seeking a negotiated settlement to the issue of the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, John Bolton ensured that anyone?Bustani?s attempt to ensure there was a negotiated settlement was, in Bolton?s word, ?tanked.? AMY GOODMAN: So, George Monbiot, where you go from here? You didn?t?were not able to arrest John Bolton in Wales. Did he know what you were attempting to do? GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, he does. And he?s actually made a public statement concerning it. I would urge anyone who is in a position to do so to try to exercise a citizen?s arrest of any of the primary authors of the Iraq War. And I?m talking about Bush?that makes it very, very difficult, but it?s?there?s a higher chance obviously when he ceases to be president?Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, and over here in the United Kingdom, Tony Blair and some of his cabinet ministers. And I certainly intend to try to carry out a citizen?s arrest of either Blair or one of the other senior architects of the war here in the United Kingdom. And what I found from this instance was that even if you don?t succeed in carrying out the citizen?s arrest, you are able to focus a great deal of attention on the issue and to ensure that people do not forget. This is not an ordinary political mistake which was committed in Iraq. This was the supreme international crime, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Those people were not killed in the ordinary sense; they were murdered. And they were murdered by the authors of that war, who are the greatest mass murderers of the twenty-first century so far. AMY GOODMAN: George Monbiot, I want to thank you very much for being with us, a columnist for the Guardian of London. His latest book is called Bring On the Apocalypse: Collected Writing.

An Arresting Encounter
29 May 2008
Things were getting so unremittingly damp and miserable yesterday that something dramatic was desperately needed to raise the spirits, and it duly arrived: an appearance by the sometime American UN ambassador and neocon poster-boy John Bolton – and an attempt by George Monbiot of this parish to try a citizen’s arrest on him for war crimes. This being Hay, the scenario turned out to be equal parts polite and pantomimic – and as it turned out, Bolton’s interview was sufficiently compelling to mark this session down as one of the week’s real highlights, well before Monbiot made his move. If you watch a moderate amount of TV news, you will know Bolton: lush-haired, moustachioed, largely unrepentant about the Bush administration’s serial misdemeanours, and quiet happy to pop up on any number of television networks – but mostly Fox – to make his case. Prior to his shortlived UN appointment, he served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs in Colin Powell’s State Department. His memoir, published last year, is subtly titled Surrender Is Not An Option; the blurb describes him as “one of America’s outstanding statesmen”, and makes mention of his self-professed fight to “preserve American sovereignty and strength” – not least at the UN, which is allegedly guilty of “bias against Israel and the United States”. And so to business. In the absence of the BBC’s Nik Gowing, the event was chaired by Hay festival boss Peter Florence, who played something of a blinder, first leading Bolton through his lack of repentance about the invasion and occupation of Iraq (“a fascist dictator is dead, and his regime is just as dead”), and on through the tangle of questions surrounding the absence of WMD. The latter prompted answers that blithely bypassed the distortion of intelligence, and ended with the somewhat disappointing conclusion, “What’s the story? I don’t know the story.” From there, after a brief exchange about Bolton’s role in the sacking of Jose Bustani (more here), the conversation was pushed towards one of the most remarkable episodes in Bolton’s personal history – the decision of this supposedly stout conservative patriot to try to avoid service in Vietnam by registering to serve in the Maryland National Guard, a move he attempted to explain in an essay written for his 25th anniversary college reunion (he went to Yale). “By 1969 or 1970,” he explained to the crowd, “it was apparent to me that there was no chance of victory in Vietnam … My feeling was that many, many people were going to Vietnam and having their sacrifice taken away by people in Congress who wanted to end the war … I felt in those circumstances the best thing was to join the National Guard, so I signed my name on a waiting list and that’s how I got on.” There may be an implicit logic in that argument that a reservist called to serve in Iraq might want to think about, but that’s probably another story. The main event – before the Monbiot incident, at least – came when he was asked his opinion on the use by American interrogators of the technique known as waterboarding, placed on the Hay agenda last weekend by Jimmy Carter. He began with the claim that the unit responsible for the grim goings-on in Abu Ghraib had been “out of control”, before Florence pushed the point: is there any justification for what anyone of sound mind would consider to be torture? “It depends on the circumstances,” said Bolton. Was that a yes, then? “No. It depends on the circumstances … I don’t opine on things I haven’t studied. This is a complex and difficult subject … I have not studied it to my satisfaction.” This was also his line on extraordinary rendition, which rather beggars belief, but there it is: a Bush administration high-up who went on to make a second career defending the neocon position in the world’s media claims to have chosen not to work through his thoughts on two of the most controversial US policy stories of the last five years. They were, he said, “not my responsibility”. Twenty or so minutes later, after questions from the floor had tumbled through the UN, Britain’s relationship with the EU (too close, Bolton seems to think), and another exchange on extraordinary rendition, time was called, and Monbiot made his move. Clutching a charge sheet accusing Bolton of “the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremburg Principles VI and VII”, he sprinted for the stage. Bouncers intercepted him and he was led away, while a gaggle of protesters chanted, “Arrest John Bolton!” Not even the ubiquitous Marcus Brigstocke could help. The obligatory book signing had obviously been a non-starter, but I spent my 18.99, and am currently making my way through 486 pages, which thus far prompt one thought more than most: notwithstanding the fact that John McCain’s foreign policy rhetoric prompts all kinds of worries, it’s a profound relief to be reading it as a work of history.

Nottingham University demonstration in defence of academic freedom
28 May 2008
Today at the University of Nottingham, academic staff gave a public reading from an Al-Qaeda training manual, outside the Hallward Library, University Park Campus. The demonstration expressed the outrage amongst staff and students after two innocent members of the academic community were arrested under ?terror? legislation in connection with this document, downloaded from an official US government website. Strong concerns were voiced over academic freedom at the university, in addition to a focus of support and solidarity with one of the arrested, Hicham Yezza (1). Hicham is an employee (2) within the School of Modern Languages, who is now facing imminent deportation on Sunday 1st June (3). Around 500 staff and students gathered in front of the library to hear the readings of the alleged ?radical material?. Banners with messages such as ?protect academic freedom?, ?Right to research?, and ?Free Hich? were on display. Snacks, ?Free Hich? T-shirts and copies of Ceasefire (the peace movement journal of which Hicham is editor), were on sale to help raise money to cover Hichams? legal costs. Alan Simpson, MP for Nottingham South attended to show his support for the demonstration. He described the arrests as a “dreadful cock-up”. Addressing the university authorities he said, “how ashamed you should be of yourselves. How ashamed that you cannot come to the defence of one of your staff.” Speaking on the terror legislation Simpson said, “we would live in a society where we fear each other and that is what the treatment of Hicham and Rizwaan actually demonstrates.” The protestors then marched across campus to Trent Building, the administrative centre of the university. A silent protest was held in the building courtyard, with protestors standing still and silent, symbolically gagged in the pouring rain. Hicham was called and addressed the protestors from detention. Hicham said, “I am humbled and buoyed by all the support I have received, and my spirits are high. Thank you everyone, you are a credit to Nottingham.” The demonstrators are demanding that the university offers full support to their employee, Hicham, who has made immense contributions to Nottingham life. The event successfully highlighted the outrage felt by large portions of Nottingham over the Home Offices? rushed and unjust attempt to deport such a valued member of the academic community, without a fair haring in a court of law. Notes (1) Hicham?s arrest took place on Wednesday 14th May. Rizwaan Sabir, an MA Politics research student was also arrested. Both were released without charge six days later. It has subsequently become clear that these arrests, which related to so-called ?radical materials? involved an Al Qaeda manual downloaded by Sabir from an official US Government website, as part of his dissertation research into political Islam, and emailed to Yezza for printing. (2) Hicham is employed as PA to the Head of the School of Modern Languages and Cultures, Professor Lesley Milne. (3) Hicham was re-arrested on immigration grounds. Hicham was re-arrested under immigration legislation and charged with offences relating to his immigration status. On Friday 23rd May, the Home Office informed his solicitor that he was being removed on Sunday 1st June and Hicham was moved to an immigration detention centre. He now faces imminent deportation to Algeria without due process.