.
.
Blog Archives
Learn the lessons of Afghanistan
This week the fall of Kabul has thrown into relief the disastrous consequences of the “war on terror.” As Ben Chacko (below left) concludes: “It vindicates the peace movement’s contention that armed intervention is not capable of delivering the outcomes claimed for it”. He writes:
“The failure of ‘humanitarian intervention’ to spread anything but chaos and bloodshed, demonstrated already in the catastrophes of Iraq and Libya, is clearer than ever in the ruins of the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan”.
After observing that the total collapse of the Afghan government within a few weeks of US withdrawal makes it clear that the ousted regime rested on nothing but Western military might, he adds: “The catastrophe in Kabul passes a damning verdict on the foreign policy consensus of the last two decades.”
Citing the bombed weddings to the blood money and the evidence of war crimes like the murder of an unarmed Afghan farmer by an Australian SAS trooper, captured on video released last November, for once he understates: “The occupying powers had no moral superiority”.
The writer is not hardy enough to watch the video showing the Australian SAS soldier shooting and killing unarmed man at close range in Afghanistan last year– Australia’s ABC News
Ben continues: “US President Joe Biden now admits that democracy and nation-building was never the reason for the war . . . and the emptiness of the war propaganda spouted by MPs, newspaper columnists and TV anchors every time a new conflict is in the offing has been exposed”.
Channel 4 News selected Jeremy Corbyn (opposite, speaking at latest rally) to appear with Defence Select Committee chair Tobias Ellwood and the interviews – a series of questions posed by Matt Frei – may be seen, heard and read by following the link. Corbyn’s conclusion:
Britain must reassess the role of our foreign policy and aim to supprt human rights without occupation and invasion.
At present, Ben notes, Labour is trying to rehabilitate Blair and military interventionism, while vying with the Tories in ratcheting up the new cold war against China. He believes that the independent foreign policy that Corbyn sketched out in 2017 – in which we do not follow Washington to war but promote peace and co-operation – looks more pressing than ever. He ends: “Nobody who supports sending warships to the Chinese coasts or playing chicken with Russia in the Black Sea has learned the lessons of Afghanistan.
“The political space, opened up by the Corbyn leadership in which Labour made the case for peace, must be held and extended”.
*
Comment: Diana Schumacher
I totally agree. Historically no-one has ever really won a war against Afghanistan, although 9/11 provided such horror that it engendered the feeling that” something must be done, and be seen to be done”.
The Afghans are a very proud tribal people and it is quite clear that bombs are not going to solve the problem of the terrorist factions.
I agree with Corbyn in that we should decouple our foreign policy from that of the U.S., but it is somewhat difficult when we have their bases and missiles stationed here.
Unfortunately the U.K has not yet accepted that it is no longer a great colonial power responsible for policing the world. Part of this is, of course, the job of the U.N. which is ,alas, no longer NOT United.]
–
Stop Press:
Just received: the analysis made by MAW President Prof Paul Rogers of this and the other failed wars pursued by the US and its allies since 2001 in his Guardian article here.
o
o
Human Rights Day- pamphlet launch
Human Rights Day, commemorates the United Nations’ adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10 1948.
In his latest editorial. Ben Chacko points out that that Human Rights Day could have been marked by the Labour Party campaigning on UDHR Article 25, which sets out the human right to healthcare: “denied in countries like the United States and threatened here by corporate profiteers”. However, the party’s attention on that day was focussed on Labour’s foreign policy.
Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy attended the 10th December launch of a new pamphlet for Open Labour and the Labour Campaign for International Development and Dr Harry Pitts and Professor Paul Thompson (left) wrote about their pamphlet ‘Progressive Foreign Policy for New Times’, under the title A special relationship for the centre-left? Labour’s foreign policy reset.
Chacko describes relaunching the doctrine of humanitarian intervention as reheated imperialism.
He believes that “Exposure of the terrible reality of war is the most powerful of all anti-war arguments” and holding accountable those responsible for war crimes delivers justice for the victims and motivates the armed forces to abide by international law:
“War is not, and cannot be, a “civilised” business. War means war crimes. Indeed, as the Nuremberg trials established, starting a war is itself the worst war crime of all. It was an understanding of this that made Corbyn so terrifying an adversary to the British Establishment, especially after his speech following the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017 showed that the public were receptive to arguments drawing the connection between funding and waging war and international terrorism”.
Is Labour’s foreign-policy relaunch ‘nothing but an attempt to rehabilitate war’?
Chacko points out that Thompson and Pitts (right) dismiss cases in which Corbyn has been vindicated – such as over Iraq – as “serendipitous”, the result of “unbending principles that … occasionally [place] adherents on the right side of events like Iraq.”
The unprovoked destruction of an entire country is not a crime in this narrative – it is an “event” – and anti-war campaigners deserve no credit for having fought to prevent it. Indeed, the left is accused of “condemning the West and condoning ‘the rest’.
Chacko adds that Corbyn has an honourable record of calling out human-rights abuses wherever they occur, including incidentally in Russia and Iran. It is the pro-war Establishment that ascribes human-rights abuses only to “the enemy camp” and presents the United States and its allies as the global “good guys.”
He says that the inauguration of a less offensive US president is seen by Labour’s leaders as a chance to reject the peace movement and slap a new coat of paint on a “special relationship” that consists of Britain placing its military at the disposal of the United States.
Finally, Chacko states that the carnage inflicted on Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is reason enough to resist this trend and that the anti-war movement should be at the heart of all left politics. Better still: all politicians should be ‘anti-war’.
Vested interest?
(Ed) Given their area of studies, one is driven to wonder if the employment opportunities offered by war and preparations for war, let alone the funding opportunities offered by arms manufacturers: Paul Thompson is professor of employment studies at the University of Stirling and Frederick Pitts is a lecturer in work, employment, organisation and public policy at University of Bristol School of Management.
o
The 2020 PSC AGM 20/20: A LANDMARK
Noel Hamel’s report*, summarised
I attended the 2020 AGM of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign this landmark year to report back to Jewish Network for Palestine (JNP). The PSC executive was astute and professional; Kamel Hawwash a competent chair, a role formerly Jeremy Corbyn’s.
The mood of the AGM reflected the icy climate for Palestinian campaigning. Trump bulldozed accepted wisdom and common sense by defying international law condemning illegal occupations in Jerusalem, the Occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.
The Annual Report is full of laudable aims about membership, campaigning and funding. There is commendable effort to engage with many campaign and faith groups and a vital need to redress false perceptions. Prejudicial treatment has been unfairly discriminating against PSC activity in a viciously hostile climate in the UK and USA, partly generated by ‘straw-man’s’ unfounded antisemitism (AS) accusations.
On the brighter side: should revulsion become the norm in response to current prejudice and negative propaganda, it may energize popular support for Palestinians. If court hearings and parliamentary debate attract national and international interest then attempts to muzzle Palestinian rights campaigns could be frustrated. Let’s hope so. Much also depends upon branch and activist dissemination of information through stalls and demonstrations, appealing for public support for a just cause.
PSC has pledged to campaign:
- against settlements,
- against arming Israel,
- against anti-ethical-choice ‘Johnson’ laws,
- against child imprisonment,
- for the end of Gaza’s siege,
- against Puma’s support for Israel,
- for the removal of the Jewish National Fund’s charitable status,
- and for support for BDS and the cultural boycott.
PSC membership has grown despite the hostile climate, almost doubling to 6500 since 2015. The ambition is more growth, trade union involvement and a coalition of support from across faiths, NGOs and charities.
–
*Noel’s report may be read in full here, with added reflections.
.
‘Special relationship’ led to cycle of revenge and counter-revenge
.
Documents newly released and placed in the National Archives in Kew, show the prime minister was deeply troubled by UC President Reagan’s request to allow the US to use RAF bases to launch a raid on Libya.
The Times reports that the US president wanted to respond to an attack on a nightclub used by US servicemen, writing: “Because the evidence we have on direct Libyan involvement in the Berlin bombing is so convincing, and our information on their future plans is so threatening, I have reluctantly taken the decision to use US forces to exact a response.”
Margaret Thatcher outlined her concerns in a series of letters:
“Dear Ron . . . as you know my instinct is always to stand beside the United States, but what you say in your message causes me very considerable anxiety. My worry is that this risks getting us into a cycle of revenge and counter-revenge in which many more innocent lives will be lost . . . “.
“Given all we know of Gaddafi’s nature, a military attack on Libya seems all too likely to lead him to step up terrorist attacks against civilian targets, resulting in the death of more innocent victims — some of them yours and some of them mine . . .”
Referring to the conflict in Northern Ireland, she wrote: “I have to live with the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic across which terrorists come daily. We have lost 2,500 of our people in the last ten years, but we have never crossed that border to exact revenge.”
Reagan wrote:
“You should not underestimate the profound effect on the American people if our actions to put a halt to these crimes continue to receive only lukewarm support, or no support at all, from our closest allies whom we have committed ourselves to defend.”
She responded: “You can count on our unqualified support for action directed against specific Libyan targets demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activities.”
Tragically, the so-called ‘Iron Lady’ gave way
Days before ordering airstrikes against Libya, which led to the deaths of more than 70 people in April 1986, she decided to allow the US to use RAF bases to launch a raid on Colonel Gaddafi’s regime. US F-111 jets launched raids on Tripoli and Benghazi from RAF bases in Suffolk and Oxfordshire.
*Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in 1988 and a Libyan national, was convicted of the atrocity in 2001.
FT journalist Jim Pickard, though a persistent critic of Jeremy Corbyn, has pointed out that Corbyn has linked terror attacks to foreign wars and, since becoming Labour leader has apologised for the joint US-UK action on behalf of his party. He has opposed most western military interventions of modern times, including action in Afghanistan and Syria.
*This sentence corrected in April thanks to a vigilant Wimbledon reader.
o
Ministry for Peace initiative – recruiting
.
“We must wage peace with sophistication and commitment just as we now wage war.” Marianne Williamson, US Department of Peace Initiative
In 2003 a bill was presented to Parliament to pave the way for the formation of a Ministry for Peace. Introducing his bill, Labour MP John McDonnell called for a new Government Department whose sole purpose would be to focus the resources of government on the promotion of peace and the eventual abolition of war. Diana Basterfield was active in organising meetings and a support network
In 2011 he set up and chaired the all-party group on conflict prevention and conflict resolution whose secretariat was provided by Engi. The group went into ‘abeyance’ seeking another way forward in 2016.
Jeremy Corbyn has revealed that he will appoint a minister for peace and disarmament if he becomes Prime Minister. The Labour leader outlined his plan in an hour-long documentary, directed by award-winning filmmaker Ken Loach, detailing his interactions with party supporters. A brief video on the subject may be seen here.
In November, Conscience met the Shadow Minister for Peace & Disarmament, Mr Fabian Hamilton, MP for Leeds North East at a meeting where many gathered to hear what a Minister for Peace & Disarmament would really do, what their role would consist of, and suggest their own thoughts on what the Minister’s remit should be.
A member of Scientists for Global Responsibility has forwarded information from Conscience, which campaigns for a progressive increase in the amount of UK tax spent on peacebuilding, and a corresponding decrease in the amount spent on war and preparation for war.
Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War is looking for someone to write an evidence-based academic paper on the pros and cons of having a Minister for Peace/Ministry for Peace in the UK based on experiences elsewhere and anticipated benefits here. The post will be fully funded by Conscience.
Details are here:
http://www.conscienceonline.org.uk/2018/01/conscience-is-hiring/
o
The cruel farce of ‘humanitarian intervention’
Simon Jenkins: “It is a war crime to disable, maim or poison a victim by chemical or biological means, yet it is permissible to blow them to bits. Dropping chlorine evokes howls of horror. Dropping bunker busters does not. Cluster munitions, the most horrible of delayed action weapons, remain in the arsenals of NATO armies”.
Many of us are now applauding this ‘aid to Syria’
Jenkins reflects that not a week passes without some new horror emanating from the vortex of the Middle East: “So called ‘wars among the peoples’ are, like all civil wars, distinctively terrible. Cities deaden the impact of an infantry advance. Reckless bombing takes over and accidents happen. Saudi Arabia bombs a funeral party in Sanaa. Russia bombs an aid convoy and a hospital in Aleppo. Western planes bomb friendly troops outside Mosul. There is no appetite for British troops on the ground. All talk is of bombing, intervention lite”.
Britain has already contributed too much to Syria’s hell:
- It helped America create a power vacuum in neighbouring Iraq where Isis could form and flourish.
- It then encouraged and gave material support to the rebels against Assad in 2012, ensuring that he would need support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
- American and RAF aircraft killed 80 Syrian soldiers protecting the town of Deir Ezzor from Isis.
- British ‘intelligence’ has given America information, enabling them to kill many civilians alongside their stated targets.
Syria and the cruel farce of ‘humanitarian intervention: “Affecting to save people by bombing them from a great height is not just ineffective but immoral”
Walking through Aleppo now
Jenkins gave many examples of this immorality and ineffectiveness – just four follow: ”Some 12,000 coalition bombing sorties have been directed at Isis in northern Iraq in the past two years. Tens of thousands of civilians have died in the ‘collateral’ carnage. In Syria, the human rights network estimates that Russian bombs have killed more Syrian civilians than Isis. Last year the Americans bombed an MSF hospital in Afghanistan. Bombs are unreliable. Stuff happens”.
He explains the appeal of airborne weapons to politicians down the ages
“For rich aggressors against poorly armed foes, they have glamour and immunity to counterattack, and have found new life in so called precision targeting and unmanned drones. In reality they have proved almost useless against fanatical soldiers with mortars and AK 47s. But they look good on television back home. They are ‘something being done’ “.
Jenkins describes the disintegration of the Middle East as a tragedy for Islam, but not the West’s business. Here we disagree, seeing it as a result of Anglo-Saxon West intervention, using soft and hard power.
The Scotsman reports that Alex Salmond, the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman, joined Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who is calling for greater effort to achieve a negotiated end to the conflict: “The British government should urge restraint on the Trump administration and throw its weight behind peace negotiations and a comprehensive political settlement.”
Corbyn: “Reconvene the Geneva peace talks and exert unrelenting international pressure for a negotiated settlement”
The Labour leader said: “Tuesday’s horrific chemical attack was a war crime which requires urgent independent UN investigation and those responsible must be held to account. But unilateral military action without legal authorisation or independent verification risks intensifying a multi-sided conflict that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people.
“What is needed instead is to urgently reconvene the Geneva peace talks and exert unrelenting international pressure for a negotiated settlement of the conflict.”
Jenkins: Nations and peoples do have a humanitarian obligation to aid those afflicted by war, to relieve suffering, not add to it, to aid those trying to comfort war’s victims and offer sanctuary to its refugees, not to take sides, guns blazing, in other people’s civil wars:
“British politicians would do better to spend their time organising relief than shouting adjectives, banging drums and dropping bombs”.
The British government attempts to mitigate the effects of yet another disastrous military adventure
In September 2004, Col Muammar Gaddafi was finally considered to be “on side”. Oil and infrastructure deals were struck with Britain & other countries. Excited by the Arab Spring, in 2011, the UK and France (aka ‘NATO-backed forces’) led efforts to back rebels fighting to overthrow Gaddafi. The country has since descended into chaos, with two rival governments and the formation of hundreds of militias, some allied to the so-called Islamic State (IS).
One step forward
Foreign secretary Philip Hammond has visited a Libya exhausted by five years of fighting. Speculation about UK involvement in a possible international military force is rife; the stated intention is to provide £10m for training support to the Libyan administration’s armed forces.
But a Moseley reader alerts us to another step backwards
In 2006, when he was opposition leader, David Cameron said trust in politics could only be restored if MPs had the final say on committing British troops to war – instead of the prime minister making the decision using royal prerogative powers.
Ministers have abandoned plans to introduce a war powers act that would institute a legal commitment to seek parliamentary approval before deploying British troops in combat.
Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, told MPs that such a measure would ”constrain the operational flexibility of the armed forces and prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of those forces” and that there could be accusations of acting in bad faith if unexpected developments were to require a different course of action.
However he later told MPs that ministers would “keep parliament informed and we will of course seek its approval before deploying British forces in combat roles into a conflict situation . . . This convention would not apply to British military personnel embedded in the armed forces of other nations”.
David Cameron said trust in (defence?) politics could only be restored if MPs had the final say.
We add to this the need to close the revolving door between oil and armaments corporations.
Total trust would require many more reforms – Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn could do it.
–
Civilisation 3000 