Eamonn McCann on the Raytheon Victory
UKWatch.net - 18 Jun 2008
On 9 August 2006, nine Northern Irish anti-war activists occupied the Derry offices of Raytheon, one of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world, and destroyed its computers. Their action was sparked by anger at Raytheon?s complicity in Israel?s bombing campaign against Lebanon. The Raytheon 9 won a massive victory when they were acquitted of charges of criminal damage earlier this month. Campaigning journalist Eamonn McCann was one of the nine protesters. He spoke to Socialist Worker about the case There has been considerable controversy about Raytheon ever since the company announced that its factory was coming to Derry in 1999. Raytheon specialises in producing hi-tech bombs, missiles and battlefield control systems. It sells arms mainly to the US government. But it is also one of the largest suppliers of the Israeli army. The immediate cause of our occupation of the Raytheon factory was the bombing of Qana in southern Lebanon on 30 July 2006. This came at a time when the United Nations secretary general and even the archbishop of Canterbury were calling upon George Bush and Tony Blair to at least pose the idea of a ceasefire. But they adamantly refused. They wanted Israel to finish crushing Hizbollah and the Lebanese resistance forces. In the midst of this, a bomb was used to destroy an apartment building in Qana leading to the deaths of 28 people. We were almost certain that this was a Raytheon bomb. In campaigning against Raytheon we?d acquired a great deal of knowledge about what it was producing and where it was selling it. We held a meeting of the Derry anti-war coalition and decided to occupy the building. Our intention was not just to protest about what was happening in Lebanon ? it was much more practical than that. We believed that we could in effect decommission the factory, disrupt production and delay the ability of Israel to rain down further death on southern Lebanon. We were aware that Israel was running short of some of the weapons that Raytheon was delivering and that encouraged us in our belief that we could have some effect on Israel?s ability to wage war. We smashed Raytheon?s computers and used a fire extinguisher and other equipment to take out their communications hub. The charges levelled against us were affray and criminal damage. The charge of affray was thrown out because key to the charge is that you severely frighten people by your behaviour. We demonstrated in court that there was no evidence that we had frightened anybody. Then we fought the criminal damage charge. Of course, we didn?t deny doing any of the things we were accused of. In fact we said on the first day that we did all of the things we were accused of and that we would have done more if we could. I stood up in the witness box and said that we regretted that we couldn?t have done more. Our defence was not a moral defence ? it was a political defence. We didn?t say that this was a protest because we were angry at Israel?s actions. We said that this was a genuine, serious effort to disrupt the supply of arms to Israel. Our argument was that Israel was committing war crimes and that our action was intended to prevent this larger crime. If you hear the sound of a child being brutalised in the house next door and you rush in to smash the door down and save the child, should you be charged with breaking and entering? Obviously not. In the same way we were trying to save people in Lebanon who were being criminally attacked by Israel. We presented lots of evidence. This included documents from the Norwegian government about why it had withdrawn investment from Raytheon, journalism by Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn, and lots more to back up our argument. We explained what Raytheon?s weapons were and what they were used for. We were not required to establish as a certainty that these things were happening. We were required to show our belief that these things were happening. And we showed that we had a genuine belief based on reasonable evidence. The jury accepted that we believed that Israel was guilty of war crimes and that our action was intended to hamper this. We were vindicated. I hope the case will lead to a wider campaign over Raytheon. In light of the court?s decision, there is now a case for Raytheon to be investigated to determine whether it is a criminal enterprise.? For more information on the case go to www.raytheon9.org

Need for a new social alliance
UKWatch.net - 18 Jun 2008
Interview with Susan George FLORENCE, Jun 3 (IPS) – A global alliance of human rights activists, environmentalists and ethically run small enterprises is needed to save the planet from self-destruction, says Susan George, chair of the Board of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. The institute works “to contribute to social justice.” Susan George, author of several books on development, now focuses on neo-liberal globalisation mirrored in the World Trade Organisation talks, international financial institutions and in North-South relations. “Even if committed to the social and environmental challenges, none of these groups individually will be able to save our future, which is dominated by powerful economic forces that have a short-term view and, if allowed, will continue exploiting and destroying the planet,” George says. We must recognise, she says, that change does not happen at an individual level. “Yes, I can change my light bulbs or reduce my carbon footprint, but we need a radical revolution that cannot be achieved individually.” IPS Italy correspondent Sabina Zaccaro spoke with Susan George at Terra Futura, an exhibition of ‘good practices’ in social, economic and environmental sustainability held yearly in Florence. In its fifth year, Terra Futura was dedicated to strengthening social alliances — and trying some audacious ones such as alliances among private citizens and financial institutions. IPS: Will the political-economic system really allow these alliances to happen? Susan George: The market ideology works to separate people, it is a model that separates people on a competition basis. Social contact is the only response to economy that works all the time to prevent this. People do not have to abandon their own field and commitment, but become used to working together. We are free agents, and if we understand that there’s an interest, that the vast majority of people can often no longer see where their interests lie — and that is part of the political fight that we have — then it is possible. If you show to people that they have an interest in alliances, and this is true for farmers, trade unionists, small medium enterprises…then yes, I think it possible to make those alliances. IPS: And who sets the rules? SG: It is hard to get binding rules, it could be easier at the level of the regions. In many places this is not possible because of corruption, or because the will of the government is to prevent this kind of thing and allow transnational corporations to do whatever they like. I would say that that’s what the European Commission is there for — to allow finance capitals and transnational capitals to operate as freely as possible. IPS: Can the ethical argument alone convince business? SG: No, not at all. They say how green they are, how caring they are, but it’s rubbish to believe it…Corporations and transnational organisations preach self-green regulation; ‘we will bring the proper solution’, they say, but it is totally illusive. IPS: So, what can be a convincing argument? SG: The right arguments are the arguments of force you cannot argue with, you don’t discuss; you don’t say ‘please’. When you are in a position where you are able to dictate. IPS: How? SG: Well, through alliances! At a much larger scale, at a big scale…the problem is scale. Alliances must be as broad as possible. Economic power is way ahead of us, so to me the problem is, can we go fast enough, become important enough in order to put a stop to that, to escape the current impasse. IPS: Does politics have a role in that? SG: If it would be just politics, I would not be that worried, since things due over centuries sort themselves out; but with the environment we don’t have that kind of time. I don’t say it often in public, because I don’t want people be in despair, but I am often in despair. IPS: Are you totally pessimistic? SG: I am hopeful; the only thing you can work on is hope. Generally, politicians are the last to move, but we need to make alliance with them. When politicians have an interest in something, they show that they are able to listen. Look at what happens with prices…and scarcity. Politicians and business do listen to that, they listen to the price of oil — they bring the wrong solutions, but they listen to price signals. IPS: Can oil be replaced with agro-fuels? SG: It’s criminal. There’s a lot of talk about using plants that are bio — but any plant is bio. I’ve just read that some of the species they’re intending to use are invasive species, they take over, and then will spread all over and take all the water out of the ground, and so on. So, it’s always the same thing — you cannot have just a techno solution because there’s the entire environment that you have to consider. I am not an agronomist, but I would refuse any introduction, any crop until the impact of that crop on the rest of the environment has been studied. You cannot just say ‘Ok, this is good, we will harvest it, and we will do ethanol out of it’, because you don’t know. That’s also what’s wrong with GMO (genetically modified organisms) seeds. They only look at the plant and what that plant is supposed to do, to repulse insects or whatever, but they don’t look at the whole of the environment, it’s not their task. Scientists are perfectly able to make a plant that can repulse insects, but they have no knowledge at all of how the birds, the butterflies, the worms, the bacteria, will react. (END/2008) Susan George is a Fellow and Chair of the Board of the Transnational Institute. Her latest books are La Pense enchane: Comment les droites laque et religieuse se sont empares de l’Amrique [Fayard, 2007], to be published in English as: Hijacking America: How the Religious and Secular Right Changed What Americans Think [Forthcoming, Polity Press 2008], and We the peoples of Europe [Pluto Press, 2008].