Category: WorldAffairs

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!).

‘… we appeal for calm and restraint…’ – part of US statement on Israel’s assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Just as it seems things could not get any worse, events conspire to ensure they do.

Usually these events, especially in the murky world of international diplomacy and paranoid national interests, are masterminded to have exactly that effect.

Ariel Sharon – a suspected war criminal and current Israeli prime minister, personally orchestrated the state assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin – the spiritual leader of Hamas – the leading Palestinian resistance group.

‘Spiritual leader’ – presumably means the source of religious justification for the cause of liberating Palestine from oppressive occupation by Israel. Every cause needs one, and indeed has one. The crusades and the Spanish inquisition had the Pope, ridding South Africa of apartheid had Mandela, Sisulu and others. The Russian revolution had Lenin. Cuba had Castro and Guevara – every major resistance (just or otherwise) has its inspirational leadership. Whilst not trying to equate the stature or indeed the objectives of any of these characters, the point is clear – every cause needs its visionary.

To condemn the assassination of Sheikh Yassin because he was an old man, a wheelchair bound paraplegic is to shame his cause. To condemn it because it does nothing to advance peace talks (which have been silent for a long time), or because it stokes the fires of ‘terrorism’ and continues the cycle of reprisals – whilst all valid reasons, do not speak to the heart of the matter. It must be condemned because it is illegal, unlawful and plain wrong for so-called democratic nations to go about assassinating private citizens in violation of established national and international laws.

Sheikh Yassin was under no illusion of what the risks of resistance were. In the eyes of Palestinians and the wider Islamic world that sympathises with the Palestinian cause, he is a martyr. A further testament to why Israel must be fought by any means necessary. Whilst he may not have sought martyrdom (like many of the suicide bombers that he allegedly organised) neither did he shirk from it.

The US – Israel’s major political, military and financial backer has not condemned the assassination , rather it has appealed for ‘calm and restraint’. Perhaps what it has in mind is the kind of restraint it showed in Afghanistan where it carpet bombed indiscriminately; or in Iraq where it applied such force as to describe it (itself) as ‘shock and awe’. Or perhaps its a calm akin to the unlawful removal and detention of hundreds of people from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay for over two years; and the interment of thousands of Iraqis.

In situations like this, not condemning such illegal actions is to lend tacit support to them and their perpetrators. For those that recognise the pattern of US support for Israel and are familiar with the dynamics of that relationship, none of this is surprising. It is in fact expected. From bankrolling Israel’s relentless militarisation to become the world’s fourth most powerful army; to standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel in defiance of long standing UN resolutions to end the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank; the message to the world is clear – the US will stand with Israel regardless of what laws it breaks and how heinous its actions are. This applies not just to the Palestinians, but to its regional neighbours.

A nation’s right to self defence is intended to cover protecting itself from unjustified attacks upon it by an aggressor. It does not cover, under any stretch of the definition, the aggression of the nation against others. So pre-emptive strikes are not self defence (US take note). Simply put, you cannot claim self defence for subsequent blows if you struck the first blow.

Whether one agrees with the route of violent resistance or not, one must understand the dynamics that make it the only option.

The cause of Hamas is the full withdrawal by Israel from ALL of Palestine – not pre 1967 borders but from 1948 partitioning. This original cause, noble as it is, seems to me unrealistic and unattainable , but it has been further compounded by the increased brutality of successive Israeli administrations. Israel does not have the political will to concede the vital resources of water (of which it controls over 80% of this crucial resource), arable land or trade routes (ports etc). All the arguments of resource allocation and security aside, the Zionist cause of resettling the Judaic holy land – the land promised by God himself to the Jews, appears to be at the root of this lack of will.

The Jewish state of Israel does genuinely feel that it has divine right to this disputed land. How does one even begin to compromise with this unshakeable belief? How does one reason with such ideology that dismisses all resistance to its oppressive insistence as tests from God on his chosen people? Where does that leave the rest of us – seemingly unchosen folk?

History is littered with the devastation of entire civilisations and societies. Even if one excused all but the last hundred years because of ignorance and social backwardness, modern history is only marginally better. Not in the prevention of such acts but in the increased criticism (read lip service) they court. There has been genocide in Armenia by the Turks; the Holocaust; the rape of China and Korea by Japan; Rwanda; Serbian ethnic cleansing; the wasting and suppression of Chechnya by Russia and a myriad of others including of course, Israeli occupation of Palestine and its attendant attempts to destroy their identity.

All along there have been those, with power and influence, who have appealed for ‘calm and restraint’ whilst letting the injustice continue.

No matter how hard they try, it would seem the specter of launching an unjust war, invasion and the sustaining of an occupation refuses to be shifted. But it is interesting to note the uses of this lingering historical footnote by an American administration with no clear progressive domestic agenda AND facing re-election (or not); and by a British government NOT facing impending elections but with a far more comprehensive set of domestic reforms they wish to push in to the public domain.

Mr Bush recognises he has not done anything for the ordinary American on the street, sure he tried to bribe the country with his tax return (every tax payer got a cheque of at least $500 in 2001 – as a return on excess taxes), but how long does that money last especially as its taken right back off you in sales tax (who saves ‘free’ money?!). Of course he knows has done nothing worth remembering for the ordinary American – he never intended to. His ticket to the White House was booked and paid for by an unholy alliance of neo-conservative king makers funded by Big Business – in this case, oil and defence industries. The remit was to ensure that the neo-conservative agenda of clear global dominance through the undisputed projection of force, thereby ensuring that defence spending became effectively uncapped, along the way fattening the treasure chest of an American empire by exploiting global markets through pliant regimes.

But none of this is of any consequence to his re-election campaign, he is betting on the American way of patriotism. With his campaigned TV adverts of the September 11 attacks movingly presented the message is clear – ‘War is the way to avenge this attack. War is the way to prevent other attacks. War is the way, George W Bush Jr is the man to lead the war. Re-elect him.’. There is no masking his position – he has said he is a ‘war president’ overseeing a war economy. (FYI – a country at war is not bound to exert normal limits on budgets nor uphold full respect for neither law nor human rights. Sound familiar?).

Results of Mr Bush’s domestic policies (or lack of) are well documented. From healthcare to education, environment to social services, his policies have done nothing to enhance American society and in most cases have actually set them back years. In short, they are failures. This is no surprise, they were not meant to be successful simply because his administration did not have them on its agenda. An agenda to reduce corporate and ‘rich folk’ taxes, reduce government scrutiny on big business, allow the plunder of resources from endangered ecosystems regardless of the global environment consequences. This actual agenda is being actively pursued. The ‘other’ agenda of social responsibility, justice and provision which all good politicians sell themselves on are simply vapourware.

So for Mr Bush, the War on Terrorism is the hot ticket to the stay in the White House – so long as the casualties (that is Americans killed or wounded) are kept well out of the compliant media’s view. Never mind how expensive its costing American tax payers to maintain such a staggering military occupation force in the middle east – this will all be repaid with interest when Iraqi oil starts flowing. Besides, Iraqi reconstruction contracts are awarded to US companies (mainly Bechtel and Halliburton) so all this money will ultimately flow back into the US economy.

It would be interesting to see if the contracts are are awarded to companies from the coalition partners in proportion to the cooperation offered.

As for Mr Blair, he has a problem on his hands. How to quieten the noise of opposition to the war in Iraq – the UK’s role in executing it and in maintaining the subsequent occupation – long enough to get his other policies due attention? But the questions won’t go away simply because the answers hitherto provided are completely unsatisfactory. On the case for war – we are told the government’s legal counsel said it was legal, but no evidence is presented to substantiate his crucial endorsement of action that clearly violates international law. Then we learn that perhaps he only did this under duress. What the government knew and when it knew it are still unanswered.

It would appear that for Mr Blair the War of Terrorism is a pain in the behind. Sure it keeps the special relationship smouldering and it clears the way for increased spending on defence. But it won’t win Mr Blair a third term in office. He knows this, he knows that he cannot even use it in his re-election campaign. It simply won’t fly.

Indeed it is interesting to see the main proponents of war reacting so different to the overall preoccupation with the war. One embraces it entirely – wanting to keep it in the public view for his own ends and to fill in where he has no viable policy (which is pretty much anywhere else, it has gone from ‘…its the economy , stupid’ to ‘its the war, stupid!’). The other cannot seem to get far enough away from this issue or try and get his other policies the necessary ‘airtime’. If only he could somehow combine the war with healthcare or the war with education….

Yet with all this preoccupation with the War (rightly so), Mr Blair’s government is unfolding some unprecedented reform of the legal system, sweeping reform of healthcare, education and a raft of other social programs. This is not to say they are good or bad reforms – just that they are proposed. Yet all the focus is on the War, the media that was so well behaved (by and large) and supported wholeheartedly the invasion of Iraq now seems unable to focus on anything else BUT the war and the claims and counter-claim from government to anti-war opposition.

Perhaps this preoccupation with war will benefit democracy. By keeping the war, its causes and its consequences in the public eye perhaps we might succeed in making those who take up the mantle of leadership more accountable to the led.

More blood in Baghdad, more suicide bombers and more raids against the occupying forces.

It is billed as Shia on Sunni violence (or Sunni on Shia). But these two groups have never conflicted. Not before Saddam nor indeed during his regime. Iraqis are not civil war enthusiasts, their history has not shown this. Even under the tyranny of Saddam when the Shia were terribly repressed, there was no civil war. Not the Shia, the Sunnis or the Kurds (who across the border in Turkey have maintained a freedom fight).

This makes the current talk (principally from the US) of civil unrest and ethnic tensions all the more questionable. What has been proven though, are the attacks against people deemed to be collaborating with the occupation forces – clerical staff, informers, translators etc. This is not an Iraqi phenomenon , it happened in France under Nazi occupation, it happens in Palestine under Israeli occupation and I suspect it would happen in New York City if it were under occupation. It is just the nature of distrust among people under occupation.

As a reaction to this escalation in violence (or freedom fighting?) and as part of its separate War on Terror, the US occupation force (A.K.A the coalition) headed by Mr Paul Bremer has reportedly detained over 10,000 Iraqis – men and boys, peasants and professionals – without charge in detention centers in their own country. This same tactic of detaining so many has been employed in Afghanistan where thousands are held without charge. What could the possible aims of this be? Well there are many. It may be the continuation of the pre-emptive strike strategy on a smaller scale – detain them before they get a chance to attack us. It may be valid intelligence exists that those detained present a risk to US national security (I doubt this though). Or one aim of this that I feel is far more credible, given the announcements by the Bush administration , is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are election winners, they make budgeting easier (there are no limits in a war economy, as the rubber stamping of the war bill by US congress as shown). Mr Bush has said he is ‘a war president’ after all. His re-election campaign is using imagery of the burning twin towers of the World Trade Centre, almost saying ‘…I’m getting them for this, re-elect me’.

In fairness, the troubles of the middle east cannot be pinned solely on the US, any regional or imperial superpowers. There are well researched and much documented histories of the issues that have mixed and mingled to lead up to the current troubles.

These are not traditionally democratic societies.

Nomadic tribes and desert fiefdoms evolved into kingdom states, which under pressure from western trading partners, mutated into some parody of democracy – by having elected representatives, appointed cronies and ultimate veto held by a dynastic monarchy. Well it looked good on paper and eased the requirements of the west to allow trade to proceed at the cost of human rights and social progress.

The abuse of Islam by fundamentalist mullahs and so called guardians of the word has further fermented the frustration of the suffering masses. Who this frustration and its attendant anger and resentment is aimed at depends who you speak to. How it is manifested is anyone’s guess. Who can predict the trajectory of an explosion of such pressure? Terrorism is only one very visible manifestation of this force.

Anger and resentment runs deep in the psyche of the middle east. Not just against the west – seen ,dually, as encouragers of state oppression and strategically unwilling to apply its considerable pressure to require Arab states to respect democratic principles and human rights. There is also considerable anger at the governments of the countries of the middle east, partly because of the lack of accountability and their complicity with the west in pillaging the national resources (principally oil!) without equitably sharing the wealth. So long as these injustices persist domestically within Arab states, regionally and internationally against Arabs and in a wider sense, Moslems; there will be anger and hatred. Those who manifest this anger through terror will be continually fuelled.

With particular regard to Israel-Palestine, the political will to resolve the underlying political issues that feed the cause of the liberation groups (Hamas, al Aqsa and the rest) has never been there. Not with the Camp David accords nor for Oslo and certainly not for this new roadmap (the over optimistic timescale and the simplistic approach to the whole thing is evidence enough of this). If a fair (not necessarily equal) agenda was adopted and the realisation that failure to resolve this mammoth issue was not an option then a solution would be found. Instead all we are left with are failed circus performances imitating peace, dashed hopes , more death and greater oppression.

There is a stirring of a hornets’ nest of the frustration of millions of oppressed. It is not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but in every continent of the world. From Israel to Sudan, from Colombia to Mexico, there are those who have legitimate grievances that have been ignored, repressed and manipulated for generations by those who have done so for their own ends but at the risk of the world.

The hornets are maddened and the stinging is underway. A hornet sting generates an alarm that invites other hornets to join in the attack. Its a venomous sting , born of the frustration of generations and delivered with a rabid fury and determination only possible by those who feel there is no alternative.

It is impossible not to feel revulsion at the bombing of the rush hour trains in Madrid. Ten simultaneous explosions ripped through trains and stations killing hundreds of people, injuring thousands and plunging a nation into stunned mourning. The legacy that this leaves the families of the dead and injured is deplorable and wrong.

It seems to me rather academic all the furor about which terrorist group is involved. Of course a criminal investigation is required to capture the perpetrators and bring them to justice. But how relevant is it that we know ETA did it or indeed one of Al Qaida’s affiliations?

Spain has enemies, as indeed the US , the UK and other countries which have a legacy of perpetrating injustices against others. ETA sprang up as a result of the persecution and occupation of the Basque people by General Franco. The inability of the Spanish to oppose Franco and his occupation, either by lack of motivation or a failure of sympathy for the Basque suffering essentially condemned the Spanish to guilt by association. Despite deals made to give the Basque region more autonomy than anywhere else in Spain, ETA still insisted on full independence (which is what they had before Franco occupied – seems a reasonable request).

When Tony Blair says that ‘terrorism is the greatest threat to democracy…’ , he may just be saying the required soundbyte because the democracy he espouses is that of exploitation, caballing and a mutation of capitalism into a political ideology with some socialist make up. If terrorism is indeed such a clear and present danger to democracy, then the causes of terrorism – that which fuels the fundamentalist mindsets that perpetrate terrorism must be a greater threat than the acts of the terrorists themselves. It would also follow that those who exercebate such situations that feed terrorism are themselves implicated in it.

When the US and its and their coalition partners hold an entire nation hostage within its own borders under the guise of liberation ; bomb a sovereign country back into the middle ages; impose deplorable sanctions on medicines and food against hundreds of thousands of innocents ; covertly work to destabilise socially responsible democratic governments to install pliant elitist regimes that do the master’s bidding; when ‘peace plans’ and ‘roadmaps’ are drawn up to perpetuate the injustices of occupation and its attendant social genocide. When all these are done with such far reaching effects, the fires that heat the fundamentalist fury are stoked immeasurably.

By signing up to the Iraq coalition, Spain’s outgoing administration turned deaf to the overwhelming opposition to the war in Iraq by the Spanish people. Millions of people demonstrated across Spain in opposition to the war and their country’s governmental support for it. As they did in the UK and many other European countries. But with the mandate handed to the elected by the electorate, the Spanish government of Mr Aznar took his country to war. Perhaps the potential of getting in good with the only superpower, the new empire; was too much to pass up. Perhaps the lure of the spoils of Iraq – with reputedly more oil than Saudi Arabia was just too enticing.

This attack in Spain marks a continuation of the insecurity in the world – an insecurity that is made worse by imperial ambitions of the US and its junior partner in reshaping the world. All these countries (of the coalition) are by and large democratic (with the exception of some unnamed Arab countries), yet they all committed their people to war by the mandate of their electorate. A mandate that now exposes all to such vengeful attacks as seen in Madrid. If nothing else, this new turn of events may actually be good for democracy. It may almost instantly wipe out the apathy that so much money (advertising!) has failed to do. Maybe voters will sit bolt up and recognise the responsibility they have to holding their elected governments to account. Not accountability at the ballot box, but every day – questioning and demanding transparency, an end to this horse trading that is international diplomacy and statesmanship and for which the pain and suffering of the poor and vulnerable are too often sacrificed for the gains of the elite.

Whatever the reason why the Spanish actually joined the coalition, the crimes of the elected are now the sins of the electorate, and for those who feel vengeance is theirs it would appear judgment day just passed.

The Guantanamo Five – five British men held in Guantanamo Cuba (formerly Camp X-Ray) have now been released to British authorities and returned home after two long years of being interned in a military prison without charge nor access to legal support.

These men were captured in Afghanistan during the War on Terror response for the 9/11 attacks. Held for two years in Guantanamo under conditions considered both harsh and inhumane, they faced regular interrogation and psychological abuse that may well constitute torture. Their status as ‘unlawful combatants’ and thus seemingly ineligible for protection under the Geneva Convention (one must question if they were obviously eligible would they actually have been accorded the prescribed rights?) was ill conceived and illegal.

With their detention by the US Army, one would expect that every reasonable effort would have been made by the British government to ensure their welfare and fair treatment – especially as they had not been charged with any crime. In essence they were unlawfully held and the British government failed in its duty to its nationals.

The Geneva Convention clearly proposes that ALL combatants captured in conflict must be accorded the protection of the convention. If their status is in question (which it is), they must be accorded protection until the appropriate status was decided by a recognised legal body (military or otherwise).

It seems that the fate of these men (innocent or not) was sacrificed at the expense of the so-called ‘special relationship’ between the US and the UK. This relationship is a myth. A capitalist imperial power like the US and indeed as the UK once was, has no special relationships. It has preferred economic partners – friends whilst economic interests converge, adversaries when they do not. As the saying goes ‘ there are no common enemies, just common interests’.

Sacrificing Britons in the name of the ‘special relationship’ is nothing new for successive British governments – the British government has consistently failed its nationals held in the US prison system, particularly those facing the death penalty. This is not about saving clearly guilty criminals from deserved punishment (the abolition of the death penalty is a separate debate) , its about those judgments that have been independently assessed as miscarriages of justice. By not enforcing international human rights law in the name of its nationals against the US ; and being an accessory to the denial of rights to the nationals of other countries, the UK government stands in the dock as a human rights abuser.

In any case, these detainees have been released to the British authorities, without charge or compensation. None has been sought on their behalf by the British government. Instead , upon their arrival they have been held by UK authorities – again without charge and again subject to ‘questioning’. When will it be over for these individuals is anyone’s guess, no doubt they will be subject to surveillance for a long time to come and perhaps inexplicable travel restrictions. I expect the deal that saw them released from Guantanamo was based on the promise of prosecution by UK authorities. But it seems ridiculous to think that after two years of harsh treatment and constant interrogation by the US military could not uncover incriminating evidence (scant as its requirement is under secret military tribunals), the British authorities would somehow be able to uncover sufficient evidence to charge or prosecute them under British law. Clearly a face saving, teflon shoulder move by the US to mitigate its responsibility in this violation of international law.

It is time to say ‘enough is enough’ in the denial of the human rights of these individuals, the suffering of their families and the irreplaceable time they have lost under unlawful detention. Whatever their reasons for being in Afghanistan, until their motives and actions have been deemed illegal under recognised law they must be accorded the rights of the innocent, regardless of the seeming goal of scapegoating someone, anyone for the 9/11 attacks.