Year: 2004

I started this article over a year, under the original title of ‘A Final Blind Eye’. Out of frustration, my contention was that the world should just turn a blind eye to the extermination of the Palestinians since it is so complacent in helping resolve the middle east crisis and stands idly by as Israel deploys almost every weapon in its state-military arsenal against what are are clearly resistance freedom fighters.

My frustration persists till today.

Since 1948, when Palestine was carved up to draw out a state for the European Jews – themselves victims of xenophobic extermination by Nazi Germany, no single Israeli government has had the political will to make peace with the Palestinians, let alone propose an equitable solution to the crisis.

The modern history of Israel’s paranoid militarisation is extremely well documented and experts on all sides of the crisis abound. The suffering of Palestinians – most of whom are refugees in their own land, is also well documented and acknowledged both by state departments as well as independent agencies like the UNCHR, Amnesty International and others. I have no intention of spewing statistics of the number of innocent civilians killed in the conflict since records began nor of the numbers of refugees in camps within Israel who are effectively stateless and have been refugees for going on four generations now. These are people born into captivity.

This has gone on for long enough, support for Israel by the US and most of Europe is not in any danger of waning and the small hushed voice of the rest of the world, already cowering under US bully boy tyranny, can hardly raise objections that matter. The UN is powerless to act, it must rely on the agreement of the various councils – chiefly the Security Council, to do anything that could remotely be considered as effective rebuke of Israel. With the US and its pantomime horse backside, the UK, it is extremely unlikely that any resolution will ever be adopted calling for military action against Israel nor even trade sanctions against it. Ain’t gonna happen.

So, why not cut the crap and quit mouthing the words. Give Israel clear go-ahead to annihilate the Palestinians – so we can all go home and watch something else. The world has had 50 years to help the Palestinians and has done nothing. Resolutions from the ’60s still sit gathering dust in the UN, unenforced and forgotten by all but the most naive activists. We have let the Palestinians down at every turn, the political will to stand up for them is not present in the courts that matter, so why not just do the decent thing and let Israel kill them all. Seems to me what they want after all.

We are getting close to the acceptable annihilation of the entire Palestinian civilisation. Thousands of innocents dead since the troubles began in 1948. With every new incursion into Occupied Territories and even into the so called Palestinian Authority zone, the world gets harder of hearing. Israel does not even need to come up with any more excuses. The War on Terror saw to that. So why delay the inevitable? Why take up valuable air time with the daily reports of dead Palestinians – innocent civilians killed by a military apparatus? Why pretend to care when it is clear that Palestinian suffering does not even register with most of the world. Even Arab governments have stopped their muffled cries of ‘Justice for Palestinians’.

Let Israel kill all the Palestinians, wipe them out. Who would care? Sure, the handful of activists who are the collective conscience of this miserable peace of dirt would shout and scream – they have been ignored so far, so what. Just think of the advantages – terrorism would be defeated once and for all in the Middle East, investment into Israel would skyrocket and fundamentalist Jewish sentiment would reign supreme. They are, after all the chosen people, so no it isn’t genocide or a modern Holocaust. It is simply their God vanquishing the enemies of his chosen people.

All the pieces are moving into place to allow the final solution to the Palestinian problem. We have the Christian fundamentalist pliable US President, guided by neo conservatives, funded by Zionist money. It is already supporting Israel militarily by billions of dollars in military aid annually. Europe is as ever, too fragmented to ever raise more than the hint of objection. The UK is subject to a smaller, more silent , yet equally potent Zionist lobby. In any case the special relationship it enjoys with the US means that it will broadly echo US sentiments and will not act to avert the destruction of the Palestinians. China, India and Pakistan (all nuclear players and possess massive armies) are too economically dependent on US trade to stand in the way. So any time now would be fine. Go for it. Kill them all. Maybe then Israel will have satisfied its bloodlust. Maybe then it would feel safe and secure in its stolen lands.

The pictures have been published – some of them anyway. The shock , horror and revulsion that professional soldiers could have debased and humiliated prisoners in Iraq with such inhuman callousness and perversion has been acknowledged and condemned. Public statements that this is not what soldiers do, certainly not what American soldiers should do, have been made by the political big shots (Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld!). Well, clearly American soldiers did do this abuse against innocent Iraqis (yes, they are prisoners , but they are not charged with any crime. In any case they are innocent till proven guilty).

What is striking, across the entire US political spectrum, is the distinction that ‘American soldiers’ do not commit war crimes. As though they are somehow incapable of the worst of human behavior. Of course, greater expectations are made of them – as representatives of the self appointed bastion of democratic principles. But great expectations are rarely satisfied. Once we start to distinguish between expected levels of human behavior, we go down a very dangerous course. A road I fear we, as a civilisation, lack the maturity to steer effectively.

A far simpler view would be to say that human beings should not abuse other human beings in this way. Its not just a crime according to military law, its a crime against basic human law (no such thing exists, the closest we have is the Geneva Conventions!).

Like an embarrassed father having to come to school to scold his child, Donald Rumsfeld makes a ‘surprise’ visit to Iraq (of course, under the tightest security). With his military commander in tow, they have come ‘…to ensure that detainees were being treated properly and US soldiers were behaving right’. He insists that he was not in Iraq to cover up the scandal. He couldn’t if he tried. The cynic in me knows that they would have tried to cover this up. Given the fact that they (the US and the UK command structures) knew internally (from allegations made by other soldiers) and externally (from reports submitted by independent agencies) for a while and only now is the truth about the extent and depth of depravity coming out. After all, this is the same government that had to be forced by the US supreme court to release pictures of coffins containing the remains of US casualties in Iraq.

In the lead up to the Iraqi invasion, Mr Rumsfeld was one of the most eager supporters of the action. His vociferous support for ‘getting Saddam’ was notable even amongst his peers within the neo-conservative think tank that is the Project of a New American Century.

Presumably whilst in Iraq he will scold commanders in his ‘tell it like it is’ manner. But at the end, he will deliver a message praising the efforts of the vast majority of decent soldiers helping to restructure Iraq under very difficult conditions. He will insist that the US will stay the course. Nothing will be said of compensation to the victims; nor of a changing of the mass detention policy in Iraq that has seen tens of thousands detained unlawfully.

Along with his government, Mr Rumsfeld has opposed the International Criminal Court, principally on the grounds that it could be used as a political tool to prosecute US military personnel such, the US does not recognise the jurisdiction of the court. In effect saying, we will roam the earth as we please, do what we like under the guise of humanitarianism and in the name of good, but we will not be held accountable for atrocities we commit.

Well, he may disapprove all he likes. But the responsiblity for the Iraqi war and all actions subsequently, lies squarely at the doors of his government. His war mongering plays no small part in all of this.

Sorry does not seem to be the hardest word in Washington these days.

First we had Mr Bush apologise, then Gen. Kimmet. Next in line Donald Rumsfeld sat before a Senate Committee and apologised too. Over here, the line was full too. Mr Straw – the Foreign Secretary said he was sorry as did Mr Blair.

Geoff Hoon – UK Defence Secretary – rather than come out humbly and apologise, did it with characteristic arrogance and had to be summoned before Parliament to give an account, he ultimately apologised – – although he added a caveat – ‘…if the allegations prove to be true’.

This festival of apologising is all because of the publication of some very disturbing pictures of abuse by US forces in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Abu Ghraib is used to detain suspected insurgents but who are the insurgents? It would appear from reports that every male (and some females) of fighting age and health is an insurgent. Independent reports estimate that ninety percent of detainees are wrongly detained.

Are they apologising because they are deeply sorry for the perpetration of these horrible acts by ‘professional’ soldiers, representatives of their nations; OR are they apologetic because the revelations came to light?

The cynic in me favours the latter – some reports from independent sources (Amnesty International and the Red Cross) suggest that the UK and US governments had been formally notified of concerns about abuse by the nations’ forces against Iraqis in both areas they control. In some cases the notification was months ago. If they knew so long ago, why did they not go public with it? The people MUST know this. Why did they not launch an investigation immediately?

The sadness that we should all feel about this abuse cannot be overstated. The anger unquantifiable. Fellow human beings violated and humiliated for the perverse pleasure of these soldiers. Whether they were ‘simply following orders’ is irrelevant. There are no circumstances I can think of that make this abuse of innocents acceptable. Simply saying ‘its war, bad things happen in war’ just won’t cut it. The fact that we are cognisant of the wrongness of the abuse means that we can prevent it, that we can correct it – those who do not feel are lost.

Upon analysis, it seems to me that this abuse is beyond simple personal perversion, it seemed designed to humiliate not just the individual; but also their deeply held religious beliefs. If this is the case, it must have taken organisation and thought, intent and purpose. It must have taken authority.

Saying ‘Sorry’ simply will not do. There are 8,000 prisoners in Abu Ghraib, thousands more in other holding facilities in Iraq. The detention of these individuals may be unlawful – if law was anything remotely respected by the Occupation Forces.

Whilst every individual connected with directly inflicting this abuse must be brought to justice – under International Human Rights Law; those indirectly implicated must also be brought to account. None of this abuse would now be occurring if these disturbed personnel were never sent to Iraq in the first instance.

Perhaps this is the ‘liberty’ that America feels divinely appointed to deliver to the world. Is this the ‘freedom’ they want to be the keystone of the New American Century – unquestioned dominance, unchecked power?

I must confess that with the dizzying number of causes, campaigns and events in the world to be active about – enough to keep a brigade of activists busy for a lifetime, the story of Mordechai Vanunu did not get the personal attention it deserved. Even within the relatively limited scope of Israel/Palestine and the Middle East, Vanunu may have been briefly mentioned, his actions drawing passing remarks. The strength of his courage, the integrity of his conscience all unrecognised.

All this changed with the obligatory fifteen minutes of fame that he has been accorded today and over the coming weeks. For those that do not know what the all this is about a short primer:

Mordechai Vanunu is a jewish moroccan imigrant to Israel (although he has since converted to Christianity), he worked as an engineer within the Israeli defence machinery from 1976 to 1985 during which time he was exposed to the extent of Israel’s covert nuclear programme. Rumours abounded at the time about whether Israel was acquiring nuclear weapons, if so what was their capability – to further compound this, the Israeli government refused to sign up to the Nuclear Prolifiration Treaty, that obligates signatories to inspections and some level of accountability.

Vanunu went public with his inside information, exposing the extent of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and program. He did it for neither profit nor fame. He said at the time he acted on his conscience – making a stand for the global eradication of nuclear arms. A position he still maintains today.

This percieved treachery resulted in his kidnap by Israeli agents in Rome, abduction to Israel, a secret trial and a prison sentence of 18 years – 10 years of which he spent in solitary confinement. His treatment within confinement was draconian and brutal, attested by various campaigns that took up his cause.

After 18 years in prison he was finally released today, his head unbowed despite the efforts of government to break his spirit.

His release sees a convergence of varying public (domestic and international) opinion. Broadly, there are those who recognise him as a hero for peace whilst others see him as a traitor. On the supportive side, there are representives of the various anti-nuclear groups that campaigned for his release because the object of his revelations were nuclear weapons. There are those that supported him personally because he is seen as a prisoner of conscience – acting on his beliefs (some might add, his civic duty) regardless of what the object of his revelations were. There were also those who desperately believe him to be a traitor, jeopardising the security of his adopted country by reckless publication of information given in trust. A small minority extend this feeling further by labelling him ungrateful towards the country that gave him safe sanctuary and access to opportunity. I also found those that cared little for any fact other than he broke the law of the land ( a quite serious thing – if life was only about law!), they feel that he should have been punished to the full extent of the law – no questions asked. They generally feel his crime was poorly punished – perhaps they wished he had been summarily executed for treason – the issue of truth and accountability goes right out

Unapologetic and as determined as ever, Mordechai Vanunu is now a free man, or is he?. Not exactly – the current Israeli administration – built from the same core of paranoid and idealogical off shoots of the militaristic elite of zionists – have applied a number of restrictions on him. He cannot travel abroad, his movements are restricted to certain areas of Israel, he cannot give interviews without permission nor indeed speak to any foreigners (without permission from the authorities). How is society best served by this?. All this despite his statement that he has no further information to divulge- what good would it do? The Israeli hawks would have moved to cover their tracks to neutralise any sensitive information that he publicised at the time.

In any case, the story of Mordechai Vanunu deserved my attention and so I looked into it. Primarily to understand the background to why his revelations were so damning and controversial, in addition, I wanted to profile the integrity of the person and in doing so, improve my view of how the world could be.

Since its formation in 1948 through a much documented partition of Palestine (under the control of the British – by consent of the League of Nations), the State of Israel has been fanatical about its security. Seeing itself as an oasis of democracy and civilisation in an ocean of brutality, repression and Arabness (a word here that implies the zenophobia held by many of the European jews who later went on to form the leadership of the new state – scions of which still control the power in Israel today). It undertook a massive militarisation programme, still persisting today. Compulsory national service and a religious basis that puts victimisation of the jewish people at the core of their collective psyche (and by definition the defence by jewish people against victimisation).

The paranoia that the majority of Israelis – already one of the most politicised populations in the world, feel towards their Arab neighbours guarantees support for the fundamentalist policies of the main political parties. It appears that if a party cannot deliver lasting peace, it should deliver security at any cost. If this cost includes the oppression and subjugation of an entire people , so be it.

It is against this backdrop that Mordechai Vanunu made his very significant revelations. Effectively telling the world that Israel – generally believed to have a powerful army, had secret nuclear weapons. The danger posed by this fact is awesome. Acquiring nuclear weapons used to be a defensive strategy. You did not actually have to have nuclear weapons – the knowledge that you were acquiring them (or possibly had some) would act as a deterrent from aggression from your enemies. That was the basis of the Cold war. Acquire them so you did not have to use them. Because,of course, no one in their right mind would ever call your bluff and risk nuclear attack and its hellish consequence. But without publicising the fact that you are acquiring such weapons, the objective of deterrence is lost. There then appears to be only one possible motive for such secret acquisition of these Weapons of Mass Destruction – the sudden, strategic and decisive use of these weapons under attack.

It would seem to me that an attack by an aggressor whom you know to be armed is preferable to one by an attacker who you did not know to be armed – let alone armed with such a devastating weapon. Given the fact that Israel’s immediate neighbours and those that it deemed to pose the most serious threat to its security are all non nuclear states, it is undoubtable that Israel is prepared to respond with a nuclear strike even though it was not attacked with a nuclear weapon. This presents the question of what level of attack would justify a nuclear response. Given the volatility of the Middle East political mixture and the explosive addition of religious fundamentalism in mainstream Israeli politics – the trigger for using its nuclear capability cannot be reliably gauged.

At the end of this , the situation remains little changed. Israel is still in defiance of a multitude of UN resolutions regarding its occupation, its militarisation (even in the face of economic downturns) continues unabated (financed principally by US military aid – in excess of $3 billion a year). It still has a nuclear programme, which is still unmonitored. There is still little transparency or accountability. In fact with the new War on Terror, there is significantly less transparency or accountability than in 1986 when Vanunu was imprisoned!

A storm is blowing this week after a Swedish business magazine claimed that Bill Gates was no longer the world’s richest person. Not only has Mr Gates been apparently been dislodged from the number one spot, a Swede – the ‘de-facto’ head of flatpack empire Ikea – Ingvar Kamprad, was ‘announced’ as the new richest person in the world.

The insignificance of this is breathtaking. The shallowness of its utterance and the thinking behind it is so incredibly offensive to those with a view beyond the plastic, that it has broken through the otherwise impervious membrane I have developed over the years to the media muck that is dispersed to distract intelligent analysis of events the world should really be informed of.

Undoubtedly many people are gainfully employed to painstakingly research and tote up the figures (perhaps round the results up to the nearest million). Many others are also richly rewarded to care about the result, perhaps discussing the whole ‘race’ at length over coffee. A greater waste of human endeavor by those who are employed to produce it or indeed a more defunct waste of time by those who consume it ,is hard to fathom.

It is not as though there is a shortage of worthy news. Thanks to Messrs Bush , Blair and the Bully boys – there is so much that is worthy of all the space in all the papers of the world and that is in Iraq alone; then there is Afghanistan, Israel, Venezuela….

If that was not enough to occupy their time, perhaps a tiny mention of the devastation of our natural environment by big business’ insatiable appetite for greater profit; or the smallest of newsbytes on the continuing exploitation of women,the abuse of children and man’s continued inhumanity to man, all of this in a world in which all have been declared equal. There is much much more, but you get the point.

Whilst I do not know enough about the two individuals (Mr Gates and Mr Kamprad) to speculate whether they have any personal interest in where they rank in this silly insignificant little list, I do know that Mr Gates’ foundation is the single largest charitable organisation in the world. Almost singlehandedly funding a malaria vaccination and countless aid projects around the world.Whatever his motivation in doing this (at last count his foundation had a $7 billion fund) the results on the ground are what matter. The salvation it brings to the impoverished, the diseased and the hopeless is incalculable.

I am unaware of Mr Kamprad’s charitable work, however Ikea has extensive projects benefiting the environment, UNICEF and the Save the Children fund. So the individuals themselves are not so far removed from the world to be blind to the inescapable suffering that surrounds us all, yet those who strive to shimmer in their brilliance seem unable to see.

I think that within those circles that see the world the way it should be, the way it could be rather than the way it is, we recognise that the compilers of the original rich list (how original is a list that says who has the most? Its been around since the Jones’) and those who further dispute who should be where, are simple mindless sycophants, peddling to the insecurities of other simple mindless sycophants. They are blissfully preoccupied with propping up an illusion of a world awash with money, privilege and affluence. The simple realisation that you cannot eat money or drink diamonds is so simple it is bewildering that they have not picked up on it. Perhaps if/when they do, they will commandeer their media streams to flow with news that uplifts the human condition rather than this insignificant flim flam they currently spew.

With a few master strokes – principally paying off the billions in compensation to the families of the victims of the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie and renouncing its ‘advanced’ Weapons of Mass Destruction program, Libya has wormed its way right back into western favour.

So now the rewards will flow in earnest. Libyan oil will again fill American engines and McDonald’s will open a halal outlet in downtown Tripoli. Colonel Gaddafi will continue to dispense tyranny to his people, only this time the vilification will be a little muted. Who criticises when ‘we’ all profit?.

Having failed to achieve the regional supremacy that he quietly sought whilst a pariah by the west – his murky paws have been found in the unrests in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Chad and a host of other African nations that have experienced internal instability. He has tried the respectable statesman route, and done the Pan Africanist tango. He has walked the walk of African Solidarity and toasted to communist ideals. It now seems that the contingency is to pally with the west and surge forward as a feted junior partner rather than as a dastardly mastermind. It must be so satisfying in the White House that they finally got him in a way worse than death! (ponder Mr Reagan’s attempt to assassinate the head of sovereign nation).

The timing of all of this seems of some relevance, why now? After so many years of isolation, what has Libya to gain by this positive posturing? At a time when the west can be justifiably rallied against for the debacle of Afghanistan, the injustice of Iraq and what is perceived as a new crusade against Islam.

Never mind the questions that need answers amongst Libya’s peers in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – from a religious standpoint; and from the African Union from a political standpoint; perhaps the most important questions would come from the Libyan people themselves, if they were permitted to. Unfortunately with such tight control on what , when and how one can question the Colonel it is unlikely these questions will ever be asked nor indeed answered.

Questions about the suffering caused to millions of Libyans, the denial of their right to freely associate with the global family. The abuses that have been committed against them by their state, given carte blanche without the regulation of international observation. Why they were taken into a confrontation with the west that resulted in all this and for the final betrayal of their sacrifices by this apparent kowtowing.

The world is not safer because Libya gave up its WMD program. The dangers that face us as a world are worse now because of the complacency that pronouncements by leaders have lulled us into, whilst they know full well that their actions and those of their predecessors have condemned us all to a terrifying future.

One particularly nasty legacy of colonialism was that it left a cadre of young charismatic officers, trained and armed by the departing colonial masters. These young, ambitious (not particularly socially responsible though) officers understood that they could hijack their nations with their newly acquired skills and weaponry to realise their ‘destiny’ as the new lords. With the now proven goals of plunder and pillage, most of Africa has suffered immeasurably. This can also be seen across most of the colonised world. Of course, as history as shown, the greater the spoils the bloodier the battles. So perhaps the depth of carnage and cruelty seen in Biafra, Mozambique, Angola, Zaire, Sierra Leone and Liberia pay bloody testimony to the wealth (human and otherwise) that exists in these countries.

All now seems forgotten about what Libya did or did not do. Forgotten or forgiven is largely academic, the result is the same. It is an ’emerging’ market, left to fallow and now its time for the western capitalist cow to come and graze it bare. Of course, the people of Libya will become tempted into lusting after western goods, developing the taste that will condemn them to an eternity of consumption and peonage to fund it. Across boardrooms in the UK and the US, there must be such elation that the red lining of the last few years indeed looks like history now that a new host has been fostered.

Libya is back in the fold and it is (big) business as usual. With the re-entry into the fold, undoubtedly Libyans will have to pay more for their own oil, endure privatised healthcare, pensions and the destruction of whatever social system they have. They will find that Libyan grain no longer graces their tables (US and EU subsidy will ensure that). More of what they consume will be coming in than their produce goes out. Their army will be stronger, better trained and fantastically armed – by British and American corporations (who knows perhaps the Uzi Corporation of Israel might get in on the action!).