The most aggressive posturing and accusations against Iran yet issued by Washington signal the rapid closure of the window of opportunity for peace which opened up following the release of the US's National Intelligence Estimate in December 07 which concluded that there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran. This revelation, which was concordant with the IAEA’s own repeated assessment over five years of intrusive inspections, and which had been witheld from publication by the Vice President Cheney for over a year with the aim of altering its key findings, put a spanner in the frightfully accelerating wheel to another war and a potential inferno in the Middle East and beyond.
However, it seems that the war camp led by Cheney have regained the lost ground and are furtively peddling for war before Bush leaves office next January. Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset on 15th May evoked, once again, the spectre of the world war, likening Iran to 1938 pre-war Nazi Germany, and rebuking Obama’s willingness for dialogue with Iran on par with “appeasement of Hitler”, followed by the reporting of the Israeli army radio of behind the doors expressions of intent by the US to attack Iran before the end of his term.
According to Colonel Sam Gardiner, a specialist on military strategies, the raising of the “message volume” of anti-Iran rhetoric points to the administration’s policy direction of ratcheting up towards war on Iran. This view accords with the New York Times’s revelation in April of the Pentagon’s illegally shaping of political climate through the use of contracted or bribed military analysts, who “under the guise of objectivity”, act as a “Trojan Horse” for Bush administration’s agenda via media outlets.
The volume and breadth of accusations against Iran have risen steadily since the resignation in March of Admiral Fallon, the ex-Head of the US Central Command, and a major bulwark against attacking Iran, and have sharply intensified in the 2 weeks prior to Bush’s visit to Israel, providing the background and the pitch to his warring address to the Knesset. “Iran is a regional threat” (Rice, 30th April) killing American servicemen and women inside Iraq (Gate 29th April), as the policy … approved to highest level of that government (Hayden, CIA chief, 30th April), hell bent on developing nuclear weapons (Gate 29th April) whose pursuit of nuclear weapons and pursuit of terrorism is the perfect nightmare that is a threat to Israel and the rest of the region". (Mullen 1st May)
Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, described the massive military build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea as a “reminder” to Iran that Pentagon was preparing for “potential military Course of action” whilst simultaneously (1st May) acknowledging, in response to questioning, that in relation to the allegations of the Iranian government role in the instability in Iraq, there was “no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership is involved”. However, threats to bomb the Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases near the populated capital, Tehran, have intensified. The legislative groundwork for such attacks were laid in Kyle-Lieberman’s Amendment to the Defence Authorisation Bill last September.
Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt from the Washington Institute of Near East Studies, an APAC’s offshoot, are persuading the western public that an attack on Iran could be “a whole lot more successful than most experts currently think”.
Amidst the mainstream media’s accompanying chorus to the drum beats of war, Andrew Cockburn reports (Counterpunch, 2 May) that several weeks ago Bush secretly authorised “a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, is “unprecedented in its scope”. This revelation has been totally unreported by the mainstream media. The media also paid scant attention to the most important news of the silent ‘confession’ by the US military, reported in the LA Times on 10th May, that the alleged Iranian weapons found in Karbala and which were due to be exhibited to the press as the long-awaited evidence of Iranian supplying arms to Iraqi militia, were not Iranian! That press conference was quietly cancelled and in the same week, the US army spokesman, Major General Bergner, for the first time, did not mention Iran in his reporting on violence in Iraq. General Petraeus, who on his May 22nd appearance in front of the Senate Arms Services Committee was due to provide evidence of Iran’s destabilising role in Iraq, chose not to elaborate.
It is now evident that not only has the US not produced a shred of evidence for its accusations of Iranian involvement in Iraq, but that the allegations have been based on lies. However, the mainstream media has a job to do and is not interested! With the aid of this powerful propaganda machine and regardless of the findings of the NIE and the IAEA, the labelling of Iran’s nuclear energy programme as a weapons programme, has continued by Israel, by the US and by its western allies, including the UK. The IAEA-Iran workplan which was concluded in February, clarified all the outstanding issues in relation to Iran’s nuclear programme which were claimed to be the basis of the reporting of Iran’s file to the Security Council and the subsequent resolutions. The demand for suspension of enrichment has been a temporary one contingent upon the clarification of these same issues. The continued demand for the suspension of uranium enrichment is therefore unjustified. Dr El-Baradei, the IAEA Chief, confirmed on 7th May that the investigations concerning the US alleged weaponisation studies – introduced a week before IAEA’s concluding report in February - are “making good progress” and reiterated in the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Egypt on 8th May that the international community has no evidence of the military nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Significantly Iran, in its “Package for Constructive Negotiations” with the 5+1 (Security Council+Germany) presented to the Security Council on 13th May, proposes the formation of international partnerships to enrich uranium in different countries including Iran. This comprehensive package, as well as involving cooperation and collaboration in nuclear security and peaceful nuclear technology, includes areas of international and energy security, nuclear disarmament, anti-terrorism, anti-narcotics, economy and trade, environmental protection and sustainability, democracy, and social justice. The Iranian package stresses on the need to proceed on the basis of partnership and mutual respect and rejects the US-European “two-track” approach of incentives and threats as non-constructive. This package, as well as offering an opportunity for peace and addressing issues of global concern, is a litmus test of the global will for peaceful and just resolution of genuine issues of concern or intent for colonial aggression and plunder. Sir John Thomson, the former senior British diplomat, has welcomed this option, reminding the Brown government of the failure of the current western policy towards Iran. (The Guardian 23rd May).
Meanwhile, the Israeli Prime Minister, Olmert, illegally, immorally and with total impunity, calls for an international air and sea blockade of Iran. The current accusations and threats against Iran are in clear violation of the United Nations Charter. The tragic death of over a million Iraqis and thousands of coalition soldiers must be a dire warning to politicians and journalists alike that the consequences of a possible war on Iran would be even more catastrophic, not only for the people of Iran, but globally. In the case of a military attack on Iran, not only the perpetrators but also the various collaborators of this crime would be punishable as war criminals.
The Brown Government’s increasing unpopularity in polls and its recent local election failures reflect, in no small measure, the extent to which disaffected Labour voters who have turned away from a Neo Conservative stooge Labour government. The Brown Government would do well to take heed of the advice of the Church of Scotland, which in a resolution on 15th May “strongly urge[s] the British government to do everything in its power to discourage the American government from undertaking any form of military strike against Iran … And if the Americans ignore that advice, then Britain must make clear its strong opposition for such a move, either by the USA as a strike or by Israel as a pre-emptive move against Iran”.
Mehrnaz Shahabi is a peace activist and independent journalist. She is on the editorial board of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. www.campaigniran.org
The RMT is balloting more than 17,000 workers in a dispute with Network Rail. The Union has been negotiating for months for the harmonisation of terms and conditions for maintenance staff.
The talks have broken down because Network Rail have failed to come up with a serious offer to address the needs of 12,000 infrastructure workers, many of whom were transferred to Network Rail from the private sector. The RMT demands for infrastructure workers are for:
1) Working week: a 35 hour week with no loss of pay, moving toward a 34 hour week with where possible a maximum 4 day rostered week over a 13 week cycle.
2) Annual leave: 28 days annual leave on entry plus bank holidays. 30 days after ten years service plus bank holidays. No compulsory working on Christmas, Boxing and New Year’s Days and agreed enhancements for working those days.
3) 39 weeks full sick pay.
4) Pay issues: one grading system, one set of job descriptions, highest basic rates of pay with allowances, recognition that allowances can be reduced to increase basic pay and 100% pensionable pay.
The company have been trying to use the negotiations to drive down conditions instead of answering the Union’s requests.
It became inevitable that a ballot would have to take place and the workers threw out the companies’ offer by more than one hundred to one against.
The balloting of the 5,000 signal grades and other operational staff follows the rejection of a pay and conditions offer that would in real terms mean cuts in living standards.
The offer of 4.8 percent this year and RPI plus 0.5 per for next year cent was rejected as it would not protect staff against rising costs of fuel and other commodities that are rising rapidly above inflation levels.
This offer was rejected by a margin of two to one.
The company then insultingly offered another tenth of one percent on condition that we did not go to ballot.
With no sign of serious negotiations from the company, a strike that could close down the entire network rail seems inevitable.
This would be one of the biggest actions that the country has seen since the late 1980s. The Union must get the message out to the general public and bring them on board. The media are going to go into overdrive to run down the union's leadership and portray railworkers as lazy and overpaid. We must do all that we can to counter these lies and put the truth out on a consistent basis.
The left should rally around this dispute and, putting aside their differences, give as much support as possible.
This article first appeared on Socialist Appeal.
After its routing in Crewe, New Labour and its decade of lost opportunities is now over. Its core supporters feel abandoned and betrayed. What comes next for the left? The answer lies in our ability to challenge the New Conservatism, understand its strengths and expose its weaknesses.
The failure of New Labour was to ignore society. Traditional ways of life are disappearing. Communities dissolve into individualism. Social life has been driven back by the forces of money, markets and commerce. The traditional working class has lost its economic function and faces cultural destruction. The prosperity of the middle classes is disappearing beneath unprecedented levels of personal debt. The fear of impoverishment in old age, and the burdens of caring for aged relatives, extend across the population. A recession lies ahead and there is the epochal threat of global warming. For the great majority of people, there are no individual, market solutions to these problems.
Cameron's Conservatives know this. They say they have the answers. They are creating a compelling narrative - trust people again, let society live. As Cameron has said, ‘the greatest challenge of the 1970s and 1980s was economic revival. The great challenge in this decade and the next is social revival'. Their rhetoric is laced with the promise of hope, fraternity and social justice. They represent a major challenge to the left.
But look deeper and like New Labour they too cannot escape the discredited politics of neo-liberalism. Their answer to the social recession and ecological sustainability is the market, the very force driving social dislocation and environmental degradation. What's more they propose to dismantle the state which is the only instrument society has to safeguard it from the destructive power of economic forces. They say they will disperse its social and welfare functions to the civil organisations of society. Who then will ensure the fair and democratic distribution of resources so that all may flourish and social justice prevail? Oxfam? The local food co-op?
Their answer is what Michael Edwards calls Philanthrocapitalism. Business thinking and market methods will save the world. The profit motive not government, is the best tool for solving social problems. This was Boris Johnson's big idea in his mayoral campaign. The Mayor's Fund, he says, is a streamlined vehicle for the wealth creators to give to communities facing deprivation. Here then is a first step in David Cameron's plan to make poverty in Britain history. So who will be our new Guardians of the Poor?
The chair is Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Capital who last year earned £22million. He's joined by Sir Trevor Chinn, knighted by the Tories in 1990, then he bcecame a big donor to Tony Blair. Richard Sharp is a retired Goldman Sachs banker, and Jonathan Marland is a former Tory Treasurer, and a man who enjoys his Wiltshire life in the role of a ‘hearty dog loving squire'.
This is a modern version of Victorian paternalism and should not belong to our future. We have lost faith in ourselves and in our democracy. Many of us feel ill equipped to deal with the new uncertainties. The future is difficult to imagine and some have lost a sense of hopefulness. The Tory nostalgia for a society of security in which each knows his and her place can sound attractive in insecure times.
But this sense of decline is only part of the story. People are forging new ways of life and searching for a set of values to live by. There is extraordinary cultural vitality and a widespread interest in the ethics of living a good life. A great mass of social movements, single issue campaigns and community actions have grown up outside the established order. They reflect a growing level of political activity that is often global in its dimension.
Despite Cameron's pro-social politics, he will be hardpressed to sustain a connection to these new cultures, because he will not be able to deliver social justice. Nor will he retain the support of those who feel left behind because he will lack the economic levers to deliver social security. The future after New Labour will belong to the left, but we will have to take a cultural leap out of labourism. We will need to develop a new kind of ethical socialism, take ecological politics seriously, and give shape to a democratic social state, quite different to the one created by New Labour.
This article first appeared on Compass.
On Wednesday 28th May 2008, I will attempt a citizen’s arrest of John Robert Bolton, former Under-Secretary of State, US State Department, for the crime of aggression, as established by customary international law and described by Nuremberg Principles VI and VII.
These state the following:
“Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
…
“Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”
The evidence against him is as follows:
1. John Bolton orchestrated the sacking of the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Jose Bustani. Bustani had offered to resolve the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, and therefore to avert armed conflict. He had offered to seek to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which would mean that Iraq was then subject to weapons inspections by the OPCW. As the OPCW was not tainted by the CIA’s infiltration of UNSCOM, Bustani’s initiative had the potential to defuse the crisis over Saddam Hussein’s obstruction of UNMOVIC inspections.
Apparently in order to prevent the negotiated settlement that Bustani proposed, and as part of a common plan with other administration officials to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties, Mr Bolton acted as follows:
In March 2002 his office produced a ‘White Paper’ claiming that the OPCW was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq.
On 20th March 2002 he met Bustani at the Hague to seek his resignation. Bustani refused to resign.
On 21st March 2002 he orchestrated a No-Confidence Motion calling for Bustani to resign as Director General which was introduced by the United States delegation. The motion failed.
On 22nd April 2002 the US called a special session of the conference of the States Parties and the Conference adopted the decision to terminate the appointment of the Director General effective immediately. Bolton had suggested that the US would withhold its dues from OPCW. The motion to sack Bustani was carried. Bustani asserts that this ‘special session’ was illegal, in breach of his contract and gave illegitimate grounds for his dismissal, stating a ‘lack of confidence’ in his leadership, without specific examples, and ignoring the failed No-Confidence vote.
In his book Surrender is Not an Option Mr Bolton describes his role in Bustani’s sacking (pages 95-98) and states the following:
“I directed that we begin explaining to others that the US contribution to the OPCW might well be cut if Bustani remained”.
“I met with Bustani to tell him he should resign … If he left now, we would do our best to give him ‘a gracious and dignified exit’. Otherwise we intended to have him fired”.
“I stepped in to tank the protocol, and then to tank Bustani”.
Bolton appears, in other words, to accept primary responsibility for Bustani’s dismissal.
Bustani appealed against the decision through the International Labour Organisation Tribunal. He was vindicated in his appeal and awarded his full salary and moral damages.
2. Mr Bolton helped to promote the false claim, through a State Department Fact Sheet, that Saddam Hussein had been seeking to procure uranium from Niger, as part of a common plan to prepare and initiate a war of aggression, in violation of international treaties.
The State Department Fact Sheet was released on the 19th December 2002 and was entitled ‘Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United States Security Council’ . Under the heading ‘Nuclear Weapons’ the fact sheet stated –
“The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.
Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?”
In a US Department of State press briefing on July 14th 2003 the spokesman Richard Boucher said “The accusation that turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence is that Niger sold uranium to Iraq” .
Bolton’s involvement in the use of fraudulent evidence is documented in Rep. Henry Waxman’s letter to Christopher Shays on the 1st March 2005. Waxman says “In April 2004, the State Department used the designation ‘sensitive but unclassified’ to conceal unclassified information about the role of John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, in the creation of a fact sheet distributed to the United Nations that falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Niger”.
“Both State Department intelligence officials and CIA officials reported that they had rejected the claims as unreliable. As a result, it was unclear who within the State Department was involved in preparing the fact sheet”.
Waxman requested a chronology of how the Fact Sheet was developed. His letter states –
“This chronology described a meeting on December 18,2002, between Secretary Powell, Mr. Bolton, and Richard Boucher, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Public Affairs. According to this chronology, Mr. Boucher specifically asked Mr. Bolton ‘for help developing a response to Iraq’s Dec 7 Declaration to the United Nations Security Council that could be used with the press.’ According to the chronology, which is phrased in the present tense, Mr. Bolton ‘agrees and tasks the Bureau of Nonproliferation,’ a subordinate office that reports directly to Mr. Bolton, to conduct the work.
“This unclassified chronology also stated that on the next day, December 19, 2003, the Bureau of Nonproliferation “sends email with the fact sheet, ‘Fact Sheet Iraq Declaration.doc,’” to Mr. Bolton’s office (emphasis in original). A second e-mail was sent a few minutes later, and a third e-mail was sent about an hour after that. According to the chronology, each version ‘still includes Niger reference.’ Although Mr. Bolton may not have personally drafted the document, the chronology appears to indicate that he ordered its creation and received updates on its development.”
Both these actions were designed to assist in the planning of a war of aggression. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that “to initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”.
Since publishing these comments on his blog, [Monbiot.com], George Monbiot carried out his attempt to effect a citizen's arrest of Mr Bolton, but was denied by security staff. Mr Monbiot told the press: "I'm disappointed I couldn't reach him, but I made what I believe to be the first attempt ever to arrest one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war, and I would like to see that followed up."
Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) is a coalition of groups and individuals working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade. Every year, groups around the country hold events at the beginning of June as part of the “Stop the Arms Trade Week”. This year, the week falls between 1st and 8th June and London CAAT is marking it with two events. The first is on Sunday 1st June in and around the N1 Centre near Angel Tube. As part of our “Islington Divestment” campaign, members of the group will be manning a stall and asking for signatures on our petition.
The Islington Council Pension Fund holds well over three million pounds in investments in arms companies. The largest of these holdings is the £1.88 million of BAe shares that they own. Given that Islington boasts a proud history of celebrating diversity, we are asking how it can defend these investments, which support companies whose business fuels conflict in areas that some Islington residents have fled. We are calling on the council to set standards that the rest of London can follow by divesting from this murderous trade and put the money into ethical investments.
Those who would like to can sign the petition online at http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/19612.html or could email Andrew Cornell, the councillor who is Chair of the Pension sub-committee at andrew.cornwell@islington.gov.uk . Islington is just one of the councils that holds such investments, and it is not the council with the biggest. You can get details of your own council’s holdings from the CAAT website.
On Wednesday 4th June from 11am to 2pm, members of the group will be leading a guided tour of “The Merchants of Death”. Meeting at the clock tower on Victoria Street outside Victoria Station, we will walk between the offices of thirteen companies in Central London. Obviously, we will take in major military producers and arms dealers such as BAe Systems, Boeing UK, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. Among these “Merchants of Death” there is a long history of corruption, sometimes involving countries with serious records of human rights abuse, which underlines how indiscriminate the trade is.
In addition, the guides will inform those present of the details of some of the numerous corporate mercenaries who have their offices in Central London. These include Spear Communications, Aegis Defence Services, Erinys International and ArmorGroup. These Private Military and Security Companies are making a killing out of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a trade worth more than $100 billion. PMSCs outnumber British soldiers in Iraq by a ratio of more than 6:1.
London CAAT encourages everybody to become involved in the Stop the Arms Trade Week. Whether that means joining us for one of the events, signing a petition, emailing your councillor or even talking to friends or colleagues about the trade, you can do your bit.
Robin Yu is a co-ordinator for the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. They can be contacted at londoncaat@riseup.net
Alfonso Cano (pictured, on the left), has taken over command of the FARC guerrilla group from Manuel Marulanda (pictured, on the right), who has died aged 78. In the background, far right, can be seen FARC cheif miliary strategist, Commander Jorge Briceno. Alfonso Cano, left, has taken over command of the FARC guerrilla group from Manuel Marulanda, right, who has died aged 78. In the background, far right, can be seen FARC cheif miliary strategist, Commander Jorge Briceno.
The commander of the leftwing FARC guerrilla group in Colombia, Manuel Marulanda, has died of a heart attack aged 78. Marulanda, a peasant farmer who founded the FARC in 1964, was considered the oldest guerrilla leader in the world. According to a FARC communiqué he died in his camp in the mountainous region of La Uribe in Meta department, central Colombia, surrounded by close companions and members of his personal security unit.
To date the only world leader to comment on the death has been Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega who described Marulanda as "our brother" in the fight against injustice and called him an "extraordinary fighter" who struggled for decades to reverse "profound inequalities".
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has not yet commented on the death.
The guerrillas have announced that Commander Alfonso Cano, the head of the FARC's political wing, the 'Bolivarian Movement', has taken over as leader of the rebel group. Cano, a former student leader now aged 58, has been a member of the FARC's ruling Secretariat since the early 1980s. Marulanda's place on the Secretariat has been filled by Commander Pablo Catatumbo, another veteran guerrilla leader who currently commands several FARC fronts in the southwest of Colombia.
This article first appeared on Justice for Colombia.