As the clock struck thirteen: Ben Norman

On June 4th we should all stand together against the BNP

2009-05-18T09:12:00.000-07:00

Fascist. This is a word with sinister connotations. To mention it musters images which represent the darkest side of humanity. It brings to mind the jackboot, the goosestep and the gas chamber. Fascism is an ideology of hate which reached its peak in the 1930’s and, through a war which cost over fifty million lives, faced its destruction in 1945. At its height fascist flags flew over Hitler’s Berlin, over Franco’s Madrid and over Mussolini’s Rome. It is popularly believed that fascism was a European phenomenon, with Britain’s only involvement being in its destruction. However, on Sunday October 4th 1936 over 300,000 people of London’s East end rose up, stood fast and defeated the British Union of Fascists in what became known as the Battle of Cable street.

On that Sunday afternoon, seventy three years ago, the east end working class locked arms and stood in solidarity with the local Jewish community and with Anti-facist protesters to stop Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Facists from marching through the poorest areas London. Together they built barricades, formed a human wall and stood fast against the marching black shirts. The battle that followed marked the beginning of the end for main stream fasism in Britain. Simultaneously thousands of British volunteers had joined the international brigade to fight in the Spanish civil war against General Franco’s fascist forces. In solidarity to those freedom fighters battling the anti-fascists of Cable Street carried placards emblazoned with the slogan ¡No Pasarán!, “they shall not pass”. This was only three years before Britain stood together with other free nations to wage war against Hitler’s Nazi war machine. The British people, and indeed the British left, have a proud history of standing against fascism and now the time has come when we must all stand together to fight fascism once again.

Today the British National Party are the face of modern British fascism and of modern British Nazism. The BNP attempts to present itself as being a party of the working class, a party of the people but in reality its stands on a manifesto of pure hatred and racism. Their current leader is Nick Griffin, a man whose fascist credentials are beyond doubt, due to his connection to the National front and other far right organisations. For the first time since Mosley’s blackshirts attempted to march down cable street fascism is on the rise.

On June 4th the BNP will be standing candidates in the elections to the European Parliament. In Nick Griffin’s own constituancy he needs just 9 percent of the vote to be elected as the BNP’s first European Member of Parliament. That is only 1 percent more then he recived in the last election. Here in the South East the picture is not much better. There will be several BNP candidates on the ballot in this area and due to the absurdly low turn out rates and a complex system of proportional representation the chances of the BNP winning a seat in this area is high. That is unless we stop them. The fact that Griffin’s blackshirts are even standing in European elections shows that the rules of the game have changed significantly since the dark age of the 1930’s. Whilst fascism has not changed as an ideology, the method of presenting it has changed dramatically. True the BNP do not openly publicise their Nazi roots and similarly the BNP is not as straight forward to identify as the National front of the 80’s and 90’s. Whilst their fascist beliefs remain the same, it is the method of presentation which has evolved. The BNP leaders of today are, publicly at least, not knuckle dragging and brick throwing skin heads, although these types exist sure enough and they continue to make up the rank and file of combat 18 and other neo-nazi groups including the BNP. Today’s BNP leaders are graduates of Cambridge and Oxford and so attempt to present a suited, smiling and electoraly acceptable face of fascism. Their style is more subtle and their messages are more complex but their hate and their lies remain the same. It may be intellectually lazy to constantly compare the BNP to Hitler’s Nazi party, however as Griffin claims that the roots of the BNP can be found in the fascism of the 1930’s it is worth pondering on the parallels. On Mein Kampf, Hitler’s own autobiography, Griffin states that “the chapter I most enjoyed was the one on propaganda and organisation - there were some really useful ideas there.” So whilst to the cameras Griffin attempts to distance the BNP from its nazi legacy, privately he looks back to the dark days of European fascism with nostalgia. Indeed Griffin admitted in an interview in 2006 that the Nazi era has given “fascism a bad name” yet still works tirelessly to defend dictatorships of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini. One example of this would be the fact that Griffin infamously denies the Holocaust. In an interview Griffin once stated that “it's well known that the chimneys from the gas chambers at Auschwitz are fake, built after the war ended.” This distortion of history, this attempt to forget the deaths of six million innocent people is reflected in the BNP’s core beliefs arguing, as they do in their manifesto, that denying the holocaust should be a priority of the British education system.

In December 2006 I travelled to the London borough of Barking and Dagenham to take part in an anti-fascist protest. Barking and Dagenham has become the centre of the BNP’s recent election success, having recently elected twelve BNP councillors. At this protest, which coincided with the first public BNP rally in London for years, I was able to see the true face of BNP voters and I began to understand why someone would vote for a fascist party. Barking and Dagenham is an area which has suffered from the post-industrial decline of Britain. There is unemployment, there is poverty and there is crime. This despair is coupled with a growing sense that the main political parties offer nothing to the real man on the street. Indeed the big three parties are now narrow reflections of each other, their polices differ marginally and it is true that they are now the parties of business rather then parties of the people. On to this scene of disillusionment and apathy enters the BNP, very much from stage right. They claim to be a party of the working class and they offer straight forward reasons and solutions based purely on lies and hatred. They target immigration, they demonise Islam, and they exploit base ideals of nationalism and race to rally around.

The average BNP voter is not a Nazi, the average BNP voter is a person who feels let down by the main political parties and has been duped by despair into believing the lies and the hatred.

The propaganda of the BNP is not a simplistic as it was in the 1980's today their leaflets and their website look 'respectable'. They have photos of average people who we are told could be you or me voicing the views we're all thinking but apparently are too afraid to say. They claim they wish to 'preserve our heritage' or 'protect the indigenous peoples of this island', which is merely a cleaned up version of the 'Paki's go home' slogans they used to spray paint on walls and shout at protests. The message is the same - only the presentation differs. Alongside their neo-fascist views you will find naked opportunism with shouts of "make the pigs pay" - a reference to MP's expenses and the bailed out bankers, because they aren't just trying to recruit their stable diet of racists and bigots, they also wish to dupe right thinking people into accepting their filth by simultaneously shouting slogans about actual issues. If this doesn't work they attempt to appeal to our base sense of nationalism or patriotism by linking their cause in with the narrative of British history.

Their propagada is littered with Spitfires, quotes from Churchill and mentions of 'dunkirk', 'the blitz', 'D-day' in a sicking attempt to connect British history with their hatefull policies. By having the audacity to even mention the Second World War the BNP are striving for the ultimate propaganda goal, to hide fascism in plain view. They are playing on the memory of the fallen to promote the very ideology they died fighting against. The sheer audacity is galling. Once we understand how and any why people are turning to the BNP we must also understandd how we can work to win people back, away from the hatred spewed by the BNP and towards a real alternative.

Whilst it is crucial that we all come together, as those Londoners did seventy one years ago, to fight fascism in all its forms, it is simply not enough to stand up and shout about what you are against. Shouting “Auswitz no” or chanting “Nazis off our streets”, as we did at the protest at Barking and Oxford, will only get us so far. In order to successfully destroy fascist ideology we must make it known what we are standing for, we must shout it from the rooftops and then we must stand face to face, toe to toe with every last racist, and with every last fascist so they know what they are fighting. We must stand up for multi-culturalism, for peace, for cooperation, for collectivism, and for a better world for all.

So, on May the 4th I will be voting in the European Elections to continue a proud tradition of standing up against the evil of fascism. When I cast my vote it will be for the RMT trade unionist who is standing on the No-2-EU-Yes-To-Democracy slate for behind that candidate stands the heroes of the British anti-fascist movement, the ghosts of Cable Street, the memories of the international brigade, and all those who fought and died to defend us against Fascism. Regardless of the election results when it comes to tackling fascism we must not be silent and we must simply to shout in vain. We must make a stand, we must fight for the rights that Nick Griffin would deny and to show that an alternative is needed in this world, that alternative is not going to be found in the darkness of fascism.

To register for the election go herewww.aboutmyvote.co.uk

To vote for a real alternative vote for this candidate:

No-2-EU-Yes to Democracy: South East – Ten candidates

Professor Dave Hill – Former East Sussex Labour Group leaderGarry Hassell – RMT executive committeeKevin Hayes – Ford worker Owen Morris –Construction worker and supporter of Lindsey and Olympic site protestsGawain Little – Teacher and CND National Council memberRobert Wilkinson – NUT Wokingham and District Secretary Jacqui Berry – Medway trades council presidentNick Wright – Graphic designer and teacher Nick Chaffey – Youth workerSarah Wrack – Student Sussex Universitywww.no2eu.com

Beating the inglorious retreat: As British Forces Leave Iraq we should all feel shame.

2009-05-18T09:11:00.000-07:00

Beating the inglorious retreat: As British Forces Leave Iraq we should all feel shame.

So now it has happened. The Union Jack has been lowered over Basra airport, the dead – our dead that is – have been mourned and lionised as the last remaining British troops began to withdrawn from Iraq. Combat missions are now officially over. No doubt the public relations/propaganda war will rage on but for the majority of British troops the shooting is over. Of course, this isn’t entirely true either. While the 4,000 troops barracked at Basra airport will depart, 400 ‘special forces’ will remain as ‘advisers’ or to ‘secure our assets.’ The last combat regiment to lower its flag was the 20th Armoured Brigade, commanded by Brigadier Tom Beckett who said: "Today marks the end of the UK's combat mission in support of the Government of Iraq, but it does not mark the end of the UK's relationship with Iraq.Quite so Brigadier. For as the flags were lowed and the tanks began to roll out Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki was in London meeting with Gordon Brown discussing exactly what we will be leaving behind. Perhaps the Al-Maliki was offering some personal thanks to the Prime Minister. No doubt he remembered how British troops so readily turned their guns onto the streets of Basra once again to quell the Shia militia of Muqtada al-Sadar – a group which presented the Prime Minister with a serious election inconvenience and whose defeat secured his position of power once again. This six year war has been paid for in blood. 178 members of the British Armed Forces were killed throughout the uninspiringly named Operation TELIC and that is before we even consider the uncounted iraqi dead. A figure which must run into the hundreds of thousands.To see the best picture of what we are leaving behind we need only consider the actual reason Prime Minister Al-Maliki is in town. He is attending the “Invest Iraq conference” which is, the department for international development proclaims: “a high profile event involving 200 of the world's largest companies. It is the culmination of UK efforts to promote investment in Iraq which have resulted in proposals worth up to $10bn. Improving trade and investment is a key to consolidating the security gains that have been made in Iraq.”Now that the British soldier has left, enter stage right the British Businessman. The United Kingdom may no longer hold the country down through the barrel of a gun, but we will certainly still be rifling through its pockets. The contracts the British companies – including of course arms companies – have been awarded since 2003, first to destroy Iraq and then to re-build it, have stretched into the billions. Billions of pounds which could have gone to Iraqis but is finding its way to the London stock exchange.I’ll let Gordon Brown explain:"Today the Prime Minister and I have signed a declaration of friendship, of partnership and co-operation between our two countries which sets out a new basis for the relations between Britain and Iraq. It is founded on our shared political, cultural, and economic interests.”"To support this, Lord Mandelson and the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister signed, a short while ago, an agreement of economic and technical co-operation for the future”"I urge British companies who have already won contracts worth £600m in Iraq this year to continue to look for the business opportunities that are available in Iraq. The oil sector, remember that Iraq's reserves are the third largest in the world, (thank you for reminding us Mr Brown) is an area we will work on together, specifically through a new UK-Iraq steering group focusing on sharing expertise and skills.”So, Iraq sign another treaty of ‘economic cooperation’ and British business is free to exploit Iraq as it sees fit. This was always going to be the outcome of the war. A short and brutal invasion, a difficult occupation and now economic enslavement. The question is, if Brown and the rest of the ‘international community’ are set to integrate Iraq as another market for global capitalism to exploit who is going to defend the Iraqi people and the Iraqi workers?If you are of a left-wing or progressive persuasion I’d hope you would naturally shout “the trade unions.” Sadly we on the left have long betrayed them and now we are going to see the results of that betrayal. The majority of trade union leaders have been killed – not by the British or American forces- but in the sectarian fighting, by the militias, by the al-queda sympathises and by ex-baathits. They were killed while the international left – especially, although with notable exception, groups in the UK- glorified their killers as ‘resistance fighters.’ During the past six years some major left wing groups lost their way and now we are going to witness what happens when solidarity fails. So as the British troops retreat ingloriously we on the left have no moral high ground to stand on. We must not be smug – rather we must be ashamed for we have betrayed our Iraqi friends when they needed us most. We traded international solidarity for cheap, opportunistic, 2-d sloganeering and as we chanted – they were murdered. Shame on us all

Is it fashionable to be a Socialist again? :G20, Obama and Republican Spin

2009-04-03T16:26:00.000-07:00

This week the G20, the leaders of the twenty most powerful, industrialised nations on earth will meet in London. They have been met with hundreds of thousands of protesters who have travelled to Europe’s financial capital to vent their fury at the injustices of the global recession.

Many have gone to protest for the first time in their lives and much like the Anti-war march in 2003, the protests of April 2009 may kick start the politicisation of a generation.

At the same time financial feature writers and opinion piece columnists in papers across the globe are starting to dust off their copies of John Maynard-Keyes and even Karl Marx to pen articles such as “Was Marx right?”, “Is we witnessing the end of capitalism?”
It seems that for the first time since 1989, Socialist ideas are finding their way back into mainstream debate.

At the same time the progressive euphoria unleashed with the election of Barack Obama has added an extra dimension to use of socialism in mainstream debate. Not because he is a socialist, but because his opponents are attempting to portray him as one. Immediately after his election victory bumper stickers started to appear across the United States proclaiming “Welcome to the USSA” or “Comrade Obama.” At the last Republican conference the chairman described Obama as “The most dangerous supporter of Socialism.” What we are beginning to witness is a battle for word socialist, as various parties, with various motivations attempt to re-frame to term.

As with all political phraseology ‘socialism’ exists in a frame. In order to understand the idea of a ‘frame’ it is crucial to understand the importance of language. To demonstrate the point I will refer to the works of George Orwell and Professor George Lakoff.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote his most famous essay “Politics and the English Language”, a brutal denunciation of sloppy and slovenly writing but also a discussion on the relationship between words and politics. Orwell argued both in this essay and in his later masterpiece 1984 that words as a political tool can contain the potential of both enlightenment and of tyranny. Words, Orwell remarked, are often used by politicians to “defend the indefensible”, when villages are bombed and their homes destroyed this is called “pacification” whilst a forced exodus of people, such as the Cossacks under Stalin, is dubbed “population transfer”. Clearly this is not a million miles away from the clinical phrase “collateral damage” that the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defence wheels out to defend modern day acts of military horror. Such words, Orwell argued, can be an empirical or intellectual sheen over indefensible acts.

However, this is not the only way in which the choice of language is pivotal to politics. Orwell was not simply writing about slovenly word play as would a sixth form English teacher, but was commenting on the relationship between words and meaning. In 1984, Orwell demonstrated how a party, which narrowed the amount of words in a person’s vocabulary, directly narrowed that person’s ability of thought, thus creating a sense of “protective stupidity”. The same process can happen to a political party, an ideology or in our case a campaign that becomes lost or bogged down in clichéd and tired rhetoric.

Orwell was writing in post-war England, in an era when totalitarianism had been defeated at a vast human cost in Germany and Italy, yet continued to thrive in Franco’s Spain and Stalin’s Soviet Union. In the world of Orwell the Cold War was yet in its infancy and due to his premature death in 1950, Orwell did not live to witness the world changing revolutions in both communications and political propaganda. This is not to say that his work is of little value, grounded as it is in the 1940’s.

Various writers have, albeit unwittingly, contributed to Orwell’s concept of the relationship between words and political meanings.George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science, at Berkeley University in the United States understands the significance of words and the lessons progressives and campaigners must learn. The premise is a simple one, “progressive political groups must struggle to define their principles and values.” Lakoff, who writes for an American audience argues that the Republican party have already learnt the significance of words.

He states, “conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them.” It is these definitions which Lakoff believes to be all important. Just as Orwell identified that words and their meaning have a political relationship, Lakoff talks of “framing words”. Like Orwell before him Lakoff argues that words are not merely expressions, they are neural links to metaphors and narratives. Political words are therefore loaded, or “framed”, from a political perspective.

To understand the affect of politically framed words in the national, and international consciousness one need only think of the phrase “War on Terror”, which has been the dogged mantra of the American Bush administration since 2001. It is clear that the “War on Terror” is not a politically neutral term, analysed objectively it means very little, it advocates a war against the intangible, against an unempirical notion. Put simply you couldn’t take a photo of the war on terror and put even more simply, you couldn’t put it on a plate. The phrase is a cold slab of rhetoric, however through endless repetition of imagery and its insertion into generic speeches, the phrase has become framed so as to unleash a plethora of values and images. The phrase now conjures horrific images of planes crashing into towers, of fireman pulling lifeless bodies from smouldering wreckage, of down flights in Pennsylvania, of turbaned fanatics wielding Kalashnikovs, of American action heroes with Ray-bans and of old fashioned flag fluttering patriotism. With this comes a necessary willing to support “our boys” and the belief that any deviation from complete loyalty to the cause is both heretical and unpatriotic. For a physical simile of how the framing of words works, simply type “War on Terror” into an image search of Google and the result will be an electronic version of our sub consciousness.

The “War on terror” is just one of many national and international phrases which have been politically framed, others include “immigration”, “terrorism”, “free market”, “free trade” and “environment” to name but a few.To return to Orwell’s essay, with Lakoff’s premise kept firmly in mind we can find clear and present lessons for Socialists. As Orwell states, “many political words are abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justices have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with each other.” Here Orwell is also referring to framing, how different political organisations can use the same word, yet frame it in such a way as to ensure its meaning completely changed. “Freedom” and the principle of what is “free” is perhaps the most engaging example of this. When the left speak of being free we may be discussing freedom from tyranny or from exploitation. Of course when a conservative speaks of freedom they may be referring to the free market, or free enterprise, thus giving the principle a vastly different meaning.

If we take this idea and apply it to Socialism we can see that the progressive opinion makers are trying to make hay while the sun shines and are opening talking of socialism, or at least socialist ideas, in mainstream debate. At the same time we are seeing a conscious effort on the half of the American right-wing Neo-conservative think tanks, so bitterly defeated by President Obama, who are trying to re-enforce and frame the word ‘Socialism’ as a term of abuse. Indeed Obama’s proposed health care reforms, reforms which still look barbaric compared to the NHS, have been deemed “socialised” or even “soviet” health care by the Republicans. The Republican aim is to frame the term ‘Socialist’ to conjure images of the Cold War. In Republican rhetoric a Socialist is an agent of a sinister foreign power, with a Russian name. It is rhetoric straight out of the 1950’s McCarthy Witch Hunt trials, portraying Democrats as enemies of freedom and enemies of America.

So what does this mean for actual socialists, both in the USA and internationally? First off let us be clear. President Obama is not a socialist. During his election campaign I argued that Socialists should support him, if for no other reason then he was a far better candidate then Mccain. Any form of progressive is better then a Neo-Con Republican. He is promising vast changes across the board, but he is still a President in the pockets of Capitalists. From a cynical, if not opportunistic stance, Socialists could embrace the Republican propaganda which attempts to portray him as “A Red” in the hope that we can gain credibility by association. However, while this may cause us short term gain in the long term it must continue to be our strength of arguments and social understanding which win hearts and minds. Indeed they are arguments and understandings which are now being played out with the financial collapse.

As actual Socialists we must be at the forefront of framing the term. We must counter and reject all claims that we merely aspire to “another Soviet Union” or “Stalinism.” We must seize the day and while the Capitalist system is reeling from its own excess we must simply encourage people to question it. We are not evangelists looking for converts, that is not our business. We are in the business of opening people’s eyes and getting them to ask why. Finally it seems, it may again be fashionable to ask questions. As Socialists we already have the answers.

Keep Calm and Carry On

2009-03-24T12:10:00.000-07:00

This week the government unveiled CONTEST, the latest 179-page strategy document for continuing the ‘war on terror’. It concludes by suggesting that a ‘dirty bomb’ or a chemical attack is a ‘realistic threat’. But, how concerned should we actually be and isn’t it all just re-packaged propaganda?

Firstly I’m pleased to point out that the phrase ‘war on terror’ is slowly being phased out now that George Bush has retired to write his memoirs. (which also means we will finally discover how long a book takes to write if you stick a chimp in front of a typewriter.) Since 2001 ‘The war on terror’ has been the bread and butter of government propaganda and yet it makes not one appearance in this mammoth document. Instead ‘tackling international terrorism’ is the mantra of choice. Unlike the ‘Opel Fruits’ / ‘Starburst’ or ‘Marathon’ / ‘Snickers’ the ‘war on terror’ re-brand meeting would have been one I’d like to have witnessed.

“Gentlemen top brass have decided the ‘war on terror’ can not be won. It’s too ambitious and if anything we only succeeded in creating more terror. We need a name with more modest ambitions. Do we have any suggestions? Yes, Nigel?”
“What about a ‘crusade against inconvenience?”
“I Like it. Barry?”
“A march against mediocrity?”
“Too militant. Keith?”
“Well Minister, I see ‘Kick racism out of football seems to be working. So, maybe something with a football theme? Perhaps ‘tackling terrorism’?”
“By Jove Keith, I think you might be onto something.”
.. and so on.

Whatever the governments on either side of the Atlantic wish to call the exercise it’s still the same game. So, as of March 2009, what exactly should we be afraid of? According to the report we can quite literally choose our poison. The range of threats considered ‘realistic’ includes: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive. We get no specifics, just vague threats. A spectre is haunting Europe, we are told, the spectre of terrorism.

CONTEST we are told, will be our saviour. It is the Government’s long term strategy for fighting off these abstract evil doers before they can harm us. Sure, we might have to sacrifice a liberty here, let an innocent man be shot on a tube train there, but by and large we can all rest easy. That is as long as we stay, suspicious, distrustful and afraid.

CONTEST we are told will also work along side our ‘counter-insurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.” We have another delightful re-branding exercise here. In 2001 the troops where ‘hunting for Bin Laden’, in 2003 they where ‘hunting for Weapons of Mass destruction.” In 2004 they were in the business of ‘regime change.” In 2006 the task was, and always had been “nation building” and now it is, and always has been “counter-insurgency.” Winston Smith would be a proud man.

For its vague threats and suspect rhetoric there are efforts to stress that something is being done. There are plenty of ‘tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism’ type slogans and a nod is given to human rights and rule of law. Which is nice to know, yet somewhat late if you consider the flights of rendition and allegations over the Secret service’s involvement in torture in recent weeks.

Government propaganda has come along way from its infancy in the First World War. Back when the men of Whitehall where slaughtering a generation on the banks of the Somme posters across the country either questioned our cowardice or our patriotism. “What did you do during the war daddy?” Simplistic, yet effective.
In the Second World War the propaganda maestros took a slightly different tack. In 1940, with invasion looking imminent and Nazism looked prepared to sweep away this green and pleasant land, a civil servant in the Ministry of Information was ordered to draw up a poster explaining how the population should respond. With a 1930’s stiff-upper-lip mentality bordering on the stereotypical this unnamed civil servant simply made a giant red poster, with a small crown logo to stamp it with officialdom and wrote: “Keep calm and carry on.”

That poster hung in the office of every ministry and government building for the duration of the war. If only that same unnamed civil servant had been responsible for propaganda during the Cold War. We’d have had no ‘4 minute warnings’ no ‘duck and cover’ leaflets and no images of maniacal red hordes pouring out of the Russian steppes. The Cold War would have been a far more civil affair. Slogans may have included. “Just put the kettle on” or “It’ll all blow over soon enough.”

Perhaps this time the government are right. Perhaps the men this report refers to are determined fanatics who have both the means, the method and the motive to carry out some of these attacks. That of course is the great gap in this document, and the great gap in all discussions of terrorism. We’re not supposed to ask what their motivation might be. We’re not encouraged to say “it seems most of the men who wish to kill us come from the Middle East. Is there any problem out there? Have we done anything at all which might have upset them?” No. It’s far easier to suggest they are just crazed murderers. As if the ranks of Al-queda and its supporters are comprised of Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe, Charles Bronson and are led by Harold Shipman. They are not.

Of course, even terrorist groups are governed by the same rules as the rest of the world. So if it helps you sleep a little better let us take the rest of the news into consideration. In the past month four nuclear submarines have collided with things. Two into each other. At the same time NASA launched a satellite intended to monitor the levels of melting polar ice. Moments after launch the rocket crashed, smashing billions of dollars of technological cargo and hundreds of tons of burning rocket fuel right into the same artic polar ice it was supposed to monitor. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if it landed on the last remaining Polar Bear family into the bargain. The point is this. If our most technologically advanced military assets keep bumping into each other in the briny depths and if NASA, with all its billions of dollars and MENSA members, can only create a smouldering hole in the artic circle, then what hope is there for a group of rag-tag desperados living in caves in the Hindu-Kush churning out poor quality video tapes to Al Jazzerra? Answer: Not a lot.

So, in the words of that most British of 1930’s wartime posters: Keep Calm and Carry On.

If it bleeds it leads”: Israel’s Propaganda

2009-03-15T01:15:00.000-07:00

If it bleeds it leads”: Israel’s Propaganda War

“If it bleeds it leads, that’s how the media works isn’t it?” With one line Noam Bedin, director of the Sderot Media Centre, cynically summarises the coverage of Israel’s latest war in Gaza. When Israel launched the woefully named ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in December the missiles not only signalled the start of another battle in the world’s longest running conflict, they were the opening shots of a whole new type of warfare. Warfare where internet videos and press packs play as vital a role as bullets and boots, and the Sderot Media Centre is on the frontline.

Sderot is not simply another small city in the Negev. It lies one kilometre from the Gaza strip and has become a symbol, a place where it is almost impossible to separate rhetoric and reality. When Prime Minister-Elect Benjamin Netanyahu wished to present himself as the patriotic candidate he visited Sderot. When military spokesmen aim to justify use of force in Gaza they conjure the image of Sderot. When pro-Israeli protesters in London or New York march, they chant for Sderot. Sderot is no longer just a town, it is a symbol for perceived Jewish suffering, epitomising the idea of Israel under siege.

For all its symbolism there remains a terrifying reality for the residents of Sderot. The town has suffered continuous bombardment from homemade Kassam rockets, thousands of which have been fired towards the city from the Gazan town of Beit Hanun since 2001. On the day I arrive, one month after Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire, three rockets land on the city’s outskirts. This is the reality which Noam, and his team aim to highlight. The Centre, established in 2006 by Noam and six fellow former students from Ben Gurion University has grown to be the official press centre of Israel’s frontline town.

“The important point of this Centre”, Noam claims, “is that we are of the community, we are not just speaking for it. We live the reality, and the reality is from six in the morning to nine at night we have to live knowing that at anytime the 15 second warning can sound.”Sderot exists like no other Israeli town I have visited. To travel through Tel Aviv or Jerusalem is to see election posters hanging meekly, widely ignored, while the occasional Star of David flag hangs limply from government buildings. The first thing you notice as you arrive in Sderot is the sheer amount of flags. They fly from almost every house, out of every bus window and in the supermarket one disabled pensioner has two huge Stars of David billowing from the back of his wheelchair. “Yes, there are a lot of flags. We’re a patriotic city” Noam agrees, “as an Englishmen you should understand. It’s like London during the Blitz. During the Gaza war it looked like Independence day every day.”

Throughout the war in Gaza Noam and his team visited every house hit by a Kassam rocket, often arriving before the emergency services. However, his work is not simply about taking photos, it is a grass-roots element of the Israeli Government’s shift towards propaganda and PR. “People talk of solutions to this war, but they don’t see the reality on the ground. Our job is to give the conflict a human face, to show the human story behind the statistics.” Humanising the headlines and hoisting reality above rhetoric is a worthy cause, yet Noam is under no illusions as to propaganda value of his work. “We’re the first level of the Media war. Our biggest challenge is having to deal with Hamas propaganda, its all just propaganda, but that’s what attracts the media. If it bleeds it leads.”

This ‘media war’ as Noam calls it began two years ago, in September 2006, when retreating Israeli troops ended the Second Lebanon War. They retreated amid international criticism and internal dissent, for the first time in recent history for IDF had failed to secure a clear victory. A few thousand irregular Hizbollah fighters had held off the strongest Army in the Middle East. By surviving the actual war Hizbollah had won the propaganda war. Israel’s unconditional support from the international community appeared to buckle as the world witnessed images of Israeli aircraft bombing civilians in Beruit, and all the while Katusha rockets continued to rain down upon the Israelis in Haifa. The two month conflict was a disaster for Israel’s military, which lost the confidence of the people and a PR disaster for Israel’s image abroad. The Winograd report, a government enquiry into the defeat cited the image of the IDF and as the key area to advance. The report states:

“The Lebanon War has brought to the foreground issues that some parts of Israeli society had preferred to suppress: Israel cannot survive in this region unless people in Israel itself and in its surroundings believe that Israel has the political and military leadership, military capabilities, and social robustness that will allow her to deter those of its neighbors who wish to harm her”

This need to prove to the IDF can protect the country through overwhelming military strength and technological superiority has become a central theme of Israeli propaganda. If Israel is beginning to learn how to use new media to promote its message it is learning fast. At the start of the war in Gaza the ‘Israeli Defence Force Spokesmen Unit’ launched its own channel on Youtube. Currently the channel has 23,700 registered subscribers and provides captioned and subtitled videos of Paratroops going house to house, or aircraft bombing ‘weapons caches’ in a clear attempt to prove Israel’s military strength, and accuracy to the world. This emphisis on propaganda can be summerised by Dr Ra’anon Gissen, Ariel Sharon’s former media adviser, who declared at a recent confernece: “You need to shoot their picture before you shoot them.”

The IDF have also learnt that when it comes to a propaganda war getting ‘the right story’ out is only half of the battle, the you must also cut off the ‘wrong story’ at the source. Throughout Operation Cast Lead no international journalists where allowed to enter the Gaza strip. The IDF would not allow another Lebanon, where reporters could freely broadcast destruction in residential areas. Instead the worlds media could only resort to showing distant explosions, while interviewing other journalists, or Israeli spokesmen.

This is the official, state run, face of Israel’s propagada efforts, yet it is the independent grass-roots movements, the lobby groups, the bloggers and the volunteer media centres which are doing the most to shape public opinion. Groups such as GIYUS.com (Give Israel Your United Support), whose motto is: “todays conflicts are won by public opinion,” motivates its members to send pre-written letters to foreign governments, or international media orgnisations, the BBC being the prefered target of choice.

‘Its true Israel is only beginning to learn, but why now?” Noam asks “Why not 2, 6, 8 or 10 years ago?” The answer is simple; Israel has historically never had to worry about its image. During the decades long struggle with the PLO the Palestinians were seen only as masked gunmen hijacking planes, an enemy easy to demonise. Israel had the monopoly of the airwaves. Today, with the internet and countless new media sources that monopoly has finally been broken. Today one mobile phone clip of a West Bank child throwing a stone at an Israeli tank can reverberate around the globe, saying more about the disproportionate injustices of the conflict then a thousand press conferences or official statements.

The Sderot Media Centre is playing a leading role in the grass-roots propaganda offensive. On the front page of their website they display a letter from the Deputy Director General for Media and Public relations from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, entitled “Operation Cast Lead – Thank you.” In this letter the ministry thanks the Centre for its cooperation and recognizes “you’re joining the nation cause” and warns: “the battle for awareness holds many complicated challenges.”

Noam’s team have achived international recognition. They’ve hosted delegations of British MPs, American Congressmen and endless American college trips. Yet giving ‘rocket tours’ to visiting dignataties, and arming journalists with press packs is only half of Noam’s work. This March, while Hilary Clinton was pledging aid to Gaza, Noam was invited to address a ‘special briefing’ of Congressmen at Capitol Hill. A meeting with a clear political agenda of continuing the international boycott of Gaza, dispite the clear and present humanitarian crisis. Noam’s personal aim however is to re-frame the debate. When I seek to discuss conflict solutions or the notion of mutual recongition Noam takes his argument down a familier ‘clash of civilisation’ frame. “ The Jihadist mind is so different to the Western mind, we can barely comprehend it.” He declares, “They hide weapons in schools and they use civilians as human shields”. It makes little difference to Noam that on the same day I visit Sderot an article in Hareetz reveals IDF troops used Gazan civilians as human shield while taking up firing positions in residential areas.

The clash of civilisations argument has always been central to Israel’s ‘war of terror’ lexicon and it was a favoured phrase of the Bush Administration. However, Noam aims to go a step further, to use historical Israeli and Jewish symbolism to frame the conflict as a religious war. He is clear to state it is not a racial war, indeed Southern Israel is home to a large Ethiopian Jewish community, as well as the majority of Israel’s Jewish Arabs. In a booklet entitled "Jewish Symbols in the Shadow of terror" Noam chronicles the bombing of Sderot's Synagogue. He describes the scene: "It was from a war zone, total chaos - elderly men and women, young parents, children and babies, all with eyes full of terror." The aim of the booklet is clear, it attempts to equate a rocket attack on Sderot with a full attack on Judaism, and by through glossey photos of the damaged icons on religious objects he attempts familiarise Israeli readers with the conflict. The Synagogue is a central pillar of Israeli society, instantly recognisable, it reminds all Israelis that the war is on their very door step. The booklet also aims to re-enforce some of the many 'statistics' and 'facts' with which Noam litters his language. 94% of Sderot's children will suffer from mental trauma and long term psychological damage. If true its a harrowing statistic, yet when I remind him that the Kassam which hit the Synagogue was fired randomly, while the IDF youtube site shows deliberate targeting of a Mosque in Gaza, Gaza Noam swiftly changes the subject.

The media pack, which the Centre prepares for all visiting journalists, contains DVD footage of Kassam rocket attacks and interviews with local residents. Their stories are harrowing and their terror is undeniable, but laced among their haunting testimonies are Noams’s attempts to frame the conflict. At the end of the third interview, narrator Noam, tells viewers the residents are “victims of Muslim terror.” In another clip he reminds the viewer that last year was the 40th anniversary of the liberation -note ‘liberation’, not ‘annexation’- of Jerusalem. Of course among the footage of damaged homes we see the ubiquitous teddy bear, the dead family pet and scattered photos of children, a range of clichéd and emotive props of war. The horror is no less real for these clichés, but the propaganda element is evident.

When not attempting to re-frame the argument Noam falls back upon the more recognisable state rhetoric. I ask him if, after eight years of bombing the people of Sderot empathise for the civilians in Gaza, or for that matter the people of Beirut two years previous. “Of course the people of Sderot have sympathy for the civillians of Gaza.” He replies “But in this war it is impossible to tell who is a civillian and who is a terrorist.” In return I ask him if the IDF’s actions in Gaza can be considered proportionate, considering the scale of the attacks on Sderot. At the last count 13 Israelis were killed throughout Operation Cast Lead, compared to 1318 Palestinians. “All talk of proprtionality is absurd”, he states, “do you want the residents of Sderot to make their own rockets and fire them back? We have an army to fight for us. The simple truth of that no other Western democracy would accept one single rocket, why should Israel? One bus is blown up in London and now British troops fight in Afghanistan, it is no different.”

Even if this argument was chronologically sound it would still not stand up to close scrutiny, yet it does reveal a third pillar of the propaganda, the notion that Israel is not another Middle Eastern country, but a slab of the West in the heart of the desert, the villa in the Jungle. This theme constantly recurs as Noam refuses to discuss recognising Hamas as the governing body of Gaza, another example of the Government’s party line. Gaza, Noam declares, is not simply a conflict between Israeli troops and Palestinian militants; it is part of a proxy war with Iran. “Tehran”, he argues, “armed Hizbollah, they are arming Hamas and they are building nuclear weapons”. This is an identical propaganda move as when Ariel Sharon denounced Yassar Arafat as “our Bin Laden” and declared the West Bank to be “our front in the War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks in New York thereby associating Jerusalem’s aims with Washington’s. Our fight is your fight; they tell the American students who travel here in droves. If we lose, you lose. If Sderot falls today, it will be Tel Aviv tomorrow and next week it could be Paris, London or Washington.

Understanding the reality of this conflict should be the first priority for all those who call for peace. The Sderot Media Centre has the potential to aid that process, to humanise headlines and push past rhetoric. However, its goal is quite different. Words have the power of weapons in this conflict. Already civilian deaths are deemed ‘collateral damage’, the wall which cuts through the West Bank is entitled an ‘anti-terrorist fence’ and the West Bank itself is officially called the ‘Western Managed Zone.’ The spin, the PR men, the ‘opinion shaping’ propaganda of the IDF and the Foreign Office and grass-roots groups such as the Sderot Media Centre are working to ensure any understanding beyond that officially sanctioned, is impossible to achieve.

Another Defeat In The Afghan Great Game

2009-03-08T09:37:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan is a place which will long be etched into the collective memory of every nation which joined America’s ‘coalition of the willing’ in 2001. Throughout the years of war, occupation and ‘insurgency’ a day has seldom passed when the conflict failed to make headlines. True, there was a brief and disastrous turn of attention towards Iraq in 2003, but the conflict of Afghanistan continued to simmer and soldiers continued to die while the bombs fell on Baghdad.

As the seventh year anniversary of the invasion quietly passed, the British envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, suggesting the only foreseeable end to the violence would be to install an ‘acceptable dictator.”

Simultaneously representatives of Afghan President Hamid Karzai have held talks in Mecca with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a personal ally of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former Taliban foreign minister.

As swiftly as these stories appeared in the press they were immediately denied by British, American and Saudi officials, but despite these swift rebuttals rumours continue to circulate that the Taliban will eventually be welcomed back into Government on the proviso that they officially cut all ties with Al-Queda. However, it is not rumour alone which fuels these claims.

The international political stage is one where spin is an everyday prop. So it was refreshing when Paddy Ashdown, who served the United Nations as de facto ruler of Bosnia, gave the world his frank predictions for the future of Afghanistan. Talking to the BBC, Ashdown said: “We do not have enough troops, aid or international will to make Afghanistan much different from what it has been for the last 1000 years – a society in which guns, drugs and tribalism have always played a part.”

When Ashdown made these comments in June his thoughts were largely ignored, but this judgment does not stand alone, Ashdown has historical precedence on his side.

When history is called upon to provide comparison all too often it is Vietnam which is plucked from the ideological ether. More often then not it is those on the left-wing who look at Afghanistan and see a poorly armed force of ‘workers and peasants’ bringing a hubristic superpower to its knees. They -and I have often been in their number- have listened to Ministry spokesmen deploying rhetoric of ‘regrettable collateral damage’ every time another civilian is killed and wait, hoping to witness repeated scenes of American helicopters escaping from embassies as previously seen in Saigon.

However, there is no need to look to Vietnam if we want to see the shape of things to come as this is not the first time that British and Commonwealth soldiers have ended their lives on the far flung corners of Afghanistan’s foreign fields. In 1838 armies of the British Empire launched the First Afghan War, marching on Kabul in the first move of the ‘great game’ between Britain and Russia. By 1842, British Imperial troops were fighting and dying on the streets of Kabul and were eventually forced into full retreat.

The retreating column of 16,500 troops were inturn defeated again and again in a series of attacks as they marched towards the hindu kush. Dr William Brydon was the only surviving member of the column, spared in order to deliver the message of the destruction of the British force in Afghanistan.This first occupation of Afghnistan was disguised as an attempt to aid Shah Shuja's small army in taking the throne. In 1838 Shuja was our ‘acceptable dictator’, a circumstance no so very different to coalition claims in 2001 that troops were bombing Kabul to allow the Afghan Northern Alliance to "reclaim the country.”

This was not the last time British boots marched on Afghan soil. In 1880 a second retreat from Kabul was underway as the British had found a second dictator with whom they felt they could do business. They found it in Abdur Rahman Khan, the so called Iron Amir. A dictator who ruled by terror and without mercy once his British benafactors had left.

Of course those dates are long past, so it would be forgivable for our Generals, Prime Ministers, and Presidents to have forgotten such events. However, our constant intervention in Afghan affairs did not end in 1880. I

n 1919, as a generation of European men lay dead on the fields of Flanders and as conscripted troops from across the European empires were mourned, British planes bombed Kabul. It was the first example of air bombardment in Afghan history, an introduction to the darkest side of modern warfare that would scar the countrys future.

But of course, why should that be remembered? The history books are clogged with macabre memories of Ypres and Gallipoli, there has been no place in the western collective memory for Kabul. It is because we have been so quick to forget the Imperial folly of the past, that we are so swift to repeat it. So what lessons are to be drawn from the dusty annals of history?

This week President Barack Obama has made the first indications that the predictions of Mr Ashdown and Mr Cowper-Coles are in fact coming to pass. Speaking to the New York Post Obama said he was there may be “opportunities to reach out to moderates in the Taliban.”

Of course, careful to ensure this is not seen as an admission of defeat, the Post was keen to remind readers of the 17,000 extra American troops who have been deployed following Obama’s ‘surge.’ This war is far from over.

So after a military campaign which has already lasted longer then the Second World War, what have are we going to leave for the people of Afghanistan? After the carpet bombings, the ‘friendly fire’, the hidden horrors of Bagram airbase, and the hundreds of thousands of casualties written off as collateral damage, and the countless dead what do we have to show for it?

We have exactly what we have every time a Western nation engages in Imperial folly in the Middle East, another “acceptable dictatoshipr” installed by a morally bankrupt superpower.

Israel - Palestine: A Socialist Perspective

2009-03-05T06:19:00.000-08:00

Israel - Palestine: A Socialist Perspective Ben Norman 4/2/2009

They say that if you wish to save the world first you must find peace in the Middle East and if you wish to find peace in the Middle East first you must solve the crisis in Palestine and Israel. It is a conflict which last year reached its 60th anniversary and since 1948 the ongoing crisis has led to several devastating wars, hundreds of thousands of refugees, a civilian death toll beyond measure and constantly threatens to cloak the Middle East in further bloodshed.

Operation Cast lead, the Israeli invasion of Gaza at the start of this year, has brought the conflict into the world’s glare once again, and with it we have seen the same arguments repeated again and again for how this conflict is to be solved. There are many who say it can not be solved, they point to have sheer complexities, and the sheer number of issues. The Independent of London printed a cynical joke on the day Operation Cast Lead began:

“Recently an Israeli and a Palestinian went to see God. They asked whether there would ever be a permanent peace between their two peoples. "Of course there will," replied God. "But it won't be in my time."

Cynicism aside, this conflict is a problem created by man, and it can therefore be solved by man. War and conflict are human constructs which require conscious acts by conscious people. They can therefore be prevented. It is my belief that the two-state solution is the only workable solution to this conflict. In this piece I intend to look briefly at the main factors, the central myths, the stark realities on the ground and the conclusions we should draw. This is not a propaganda piece; I’m not attempting to influence the thoughts of the reader, merely to state the facts as I understand them. Obviously such an analysis could take up several volumes, perhaps several libraries, so the reader will have to forgive the brief nature of this piece.

Also, I’d like to encourage you’re comments and thoughts, as varied from my own as they may be.Before I can even begin to dissect the key issues I must first offer a short series of disclaimers. They are, if you will, the underpinnings of my reasoning.

1) Sources

I write this piece based purely on my own conclusions, independent of any party line. These conclusions are based partly on my own historical research, and political understanding. They are therefore party based on secondary sourced information. However many of my conclusions are based upon my first hand experiences in Israel/Palestine. Not only through a first hand study of the Israeli media, but also through interviews with Israelis and Palestinians from Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Sderot, Ramallah and East Jerusalem to name but a few locations.

2) The ‘three golden rules’ of Socialism

I make no pretence of objectivity, I write this as a socialist. This is not to say it is imbued with political dogma, or steeped in doctrine. It means my arguments will rest on these three central points. They are my own socialist principles through which I view every situation:

• A socialist should always be on the side of peace and the people.
• A socialist should never support a group who deliberately target civilians, or encourage others to do so.
• Fascism is the enemy of all the socialist stands for and therefore should be confronted and challenged at every opportunity.

3) Socialism equals a one state solution.

Here we come to the first ideological pitfall. To be a socialist is to be an internationalist. To be a socialist means you do not recognise the ‘imagined community’ of the nation state. You recognise that borders are mere lines on a map drawn by man, not nature. To be a socialist is to call for a socialist state. A state which unites all peoples regardless of nation, colour, creed, language or tribe. Therefore, in the abstract long term at least, to be a socialist is to call for a one nation solution, based on the notion that under socialism there would only be one global state. However, just because we have this utopian vision of advancing civilisation does not mean we should ideologically rest upon it. We must recognise that both Israel and Palestine have their own national identity in exactly the same way as Britain, Holland, Indonesia or any other nation state. This is the reality of the situation and we can not confuse our call for internationalism with our call for peace between two nations. For example in the First World War we did not call for a one state solution between France and Germany. We called for peace between the warring nations, while continuing our arguments for a world system without wars and borders. The same situation applies.

4) War is not a football match.

George Orwell wrote that sport is warfare without weapons, and indeed he is probably right. However, warfare is not simply sport with weapons. As progressives, as peace campaigns and as socialists we should not view war as a situation where we should choose a side. It is not enough to ‘support’ Israel, or to ‘support’ Palestine, instead it is crucial to maintain the same position in this conflict as we do with all others. In this modern age warfare is an industry like any other. It is a phenomenon created and controlled by those with power in societies, traditionally referred to as ‘the ruling classes’ if antiquated lexicon is you’re thing. This conflict is like any other, it is driven by the powerful in society, by the politicians, the generals and the businessmen, yet it is the average man who fights and dies.

That is the reality of modern warfare, be it with British troops in Iraq, Israeli troops in the West Bank or even Hamas fighters in Gaza. It is not the job of the progressive, the peace campaigner or the socialist to support any of these figures. It is our job to support the only ‘side’ that matters, the people, be they Israeli people or Palestinian people. To continue the theme, this war is not a numbers game with a score. Sources indicate that in the past 68 days 1318 Palestinians have been killed compared to 13 Israelis. If we played the numbers game, as so many do, the exchange rate stands at: 101 Palestinians to 1 Israeli. However, these are not just numbers, they are people’s lives. The only way we can lay claim to the moral high ground is to know murder is murder. If a woman is murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv it is a tragedy, if a child is killed by a missile in Gaza it is a tragedy. Lives are not worth more simply because of the flags they live under. Of course the numbers stand in stark contrast, but that is a debate of proportionality, not a reason to forget the suffering of the other side.

Those are the key disclaimers I had to make before I could make any attempt at an honest analysis. They are my own ideological underpinnings and assumed truths. Accept them or refute them.

The Two State Solution

An abridged version of the Two State Solution would read:

“Israel must abide by United Nations resolution 242 and retreat to the ‘Green line,’ the borders drawn up prior to the Six Day War of 1967. This leaves the West Bank and Gaza as a Palestinian sovereign nation, free from Israeli occupation. Similarly Israel, within its pre-1967 borders, should be fully recognised as a legitimate state.”

That is the basic principle, but it contains innumerable flaws, for example, the right of Israel or Palestine to exist as states, the right of return for refugees, the final status of Jerusalem as the capital of either state, the final status of the Golan Heights. These are practical problems; there are also less tangible problems which are perhaps the greatest problems of all. These problems are the issue of justice for Palestine – both historically and currently- and the issues of myths, which have become central in the debate.

The Issue of ‘Justice’

• The creation of Israel: War of Independence and the tragedy of the Palestinians.

Before any solution can even be considered all sides must accept one historical truth. Israel exists. It has existed since 1948, it has an established national identity, generations of Israeli’s have been born their and it is not going to disappear. This is a key and central truth. Regarding the creation of Israel, another subject worthy of libraries, it was a historical situation laced with tragedy on all sides. If blame is to be attributed it should be set at the door of the British government who controlled the mandated territory of Palestine since the end of the First World War. The key point to draw, and the only real point I intend to make here, is that the debates of 1948 are historical debates and are holding the future back. We can criticise the actions of David Ben-Gurion’s first government, we can denounce the terror bombings by Jewish fighters, we can mourn for the massacred civilians in the village of Deir Yassin and we can remember the injustice faced by thousands of Palestinians made refugees.

On the other hand we can remember the five Arabic countries who invaded Israel the moment Independence was announced, and we can recall that the Arab league rejected the United Nations proposals for petition and peace. All these things we can do, but we can not change the past. What happened and no amount of campaigning will change that tragic fact. Failing to see this would be like marching against the Invasion of Iraq today. We were against the Invasion, we marched. We are against the occupation, so we march.

Many may still state that 1948 was a tragedy, but we must accept it happened and move onto dealing with the reality which exists today. Israel was created in the same way every other nation state has been constructed, through war and conquest. The United States was founded on the blood of the Native Americans, Great Britain came to being through the bloody suppression of the Celtic countries and Germany is but a Prussian imperial project. This is not to say historical problems surrounding Israel’s creation can be waved away and ignored. Indeed it is the nation state’s need for war and conquest which makes us internationalists, yet we can not single Israel out for special criticism. Israel exists, and we must accept this. Do anything else is merely holds peace back.

Of course accepting 1948 and thereby accepting Israel’s fundamental right to exist is no simple task. The repercussions which must be accepted are tragic. The majority of those made refugees in 1948 will not have this injustice overturned, and are very unlikely to be granted the right to return, and Palestine will not be free ‘from the river to the sea’ as some of the one-state-solutionist chants proclaim. Palestine can be free, but only as an equal neighbour of Israel. This is not a Zionist position –which will be discussed later- it is the only realistic outcome for peace. In order to have any hope of peace we must accept the very difficult and tragic truth that no solution exists which will grant justice for all, we can only hope for the best out of an awful situation.

Practical blocks to the Two State Solution

1) Mutual Recognition

Mutual recognition is the most important step all sides must take, especially in light of the devastation in Gaza. The point is that any solution must deal with the most immediate concern, get the tanks out of Gaza, the troops out of the West Bank and stop the rockets from falling on Israeli towns. The only way this can be achieved is through mutual recognition. In 1993 Yassar Arafat recognised Israel’s right to exist in the Oslo accords, today Hamas must do the same. Hamas’ charter clearly calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, and openly advocates violence against both Israel’s armed forces and its civilian population.

Clearly this is unworkable. Hamas must recognise their green flag will never fly above Tel Aviv, they will not drive Israeli’s out of Jerusalem and they will not establish a Islamic state in the historical province of Palestine. However, Israel must talk to Hamas. Israel must recognise that, deplorable as they may be viewed from the Knesset, Hamas did win the 2006 election and are therefore the democratic representatives of the Palestinians in Gaza. There is an argument that this democratic mandate was invalidated when Hamas fighters purged rivals Fatah from the Gaza strip. Regardless of this Hamas are in power in Gaza, they play a very active role in this conflict and they must be spoken to. I have little doubt these conversations are ongoing in the same convert fashion the United Kingdom used to communicate with the IRA, but the mutual recognition must be mutual. Unless both parties can accept the others right to exist there can be no peace.

2) Hamas and Fatah

Currently there is no one Palestinian government. The secular Fatah party control the Palestinian Authority, an interim government formed from the PLO in the West Bank. Hamas control the Gaza strip. A three state solution is an absurdity and both parties must form a coalition government to actively represent both the West Bank and Gaza in one united front. As a socialist I respect the policies of neither the corrupt Fatah, or Hamas. However, much like in Northern Ireland they are the two main parties and they must work together for the betterment of the Palestinian people. At the time of writing negotiations are taking place in Cairo between Fatah and Hamas to form such a government. This is largely, presumably, because of the weak state Hamas has been left in since Operation Cast Lead, and the international recognition the PA have received since the Fatah/Hamas split in 2006. The Palestinian government, when one is formed, will have to get its house in order before it can enter serious negotiations with Israel and be taken as a serious, legitimate and equal neighbour. Both parties are controlled by corrupt ruling elites and so Palestinians must hold their government to account.

3) Gaza

With a recognised government in the Gaza strip Israel must open the border crossings to allow humanitarian aid in. With international observers in place to monitor free and fair elections Israel must lift the blockade. This must include allowing shipping to Gaza’s ports and allowing the airport to re-open. Without these vital arteries the strip can not elevate itself from the extreme poverty and devastation which has been brought upon it. At the same time the Palestinian government must reign in the militant elements and stop rockets being fired onto Israeli towns. This is one of the most important actions the PA/Hamas must take to prevent a further escalation of violence.

4) West Bank

The Israeli military must leave the West Bank, and retreat to the 1967 borders as stated in United Nations resolution 242. This means the checkpoints within the West Bank must be dismantled and the ‘partition wall’ which tears through Palestinian land must be torn down. If Israel chooses to build a wall across its legal borders, so be it, but the current wall is not recognised by international law and so must be removed. The Palestinian government in Ramallah must be able to act with the freedom enjoyed by any other government in any other nation state. It must be given full control of its own borders, especially those into neighbouring nations such as Jordan.The Israeli government must publicly renounce any ambitions for a ‘greater Israel’ and must respect the sovereignty of the Palestinian West Bank as the largest part of a Palestinian nation state. This must include withdrawing support for the ever expanding settlements. The settlers must, unless a private agreement is met with the Palestinian government, return to Israel proper and the fortress like settlements must be torn down.

5) The Golan Heights

The Golan Heights lie on the border between Syria and Israel and were seized by the Israeli army during the 1967 six day war, and again in 1973 following the Yom Kippur war. Syria and Israel have existed in a state of war ever since, in fact the last Arabic army fought by Israel in a traditional sense was the Syrian army during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982. There is no doubt that for a solution to be reached Israel must make peace with its neighbours. Syria, regardless of its despotic regime, is one of Israel’s most powerful neighbours and the government of Damascus does not recognise Israel’s right to exist. At the time of writing (4/3/2009) the Israeli government are in talks, albeit through Turkish mediators, talks which may end with Israel returning the Heights to Syria. This is a huge concession on the part of the Israeli’s as ownership of the Heights offers a vast strategic advantage, however it is a crucial concession which Israel must make to secure long term peace with Syria.

The previous four points represent huge blocks on the fabled path to peace, yet they can be overcome. The following two, Jerusalem and the Right to Return, are two of the greatest of all as they are politically, economically and emotionally. These are the points where the left and the pro-Palestinian lobby must accept tragic truths which we have so far ignored.

6) Jerusalem

Jerusalem may well be the most written about city on earth, if not it has certainly been the most fought over. Anyone who suggests the conflict has nothing to do with religion has clearly never been to Jerusalem. In 1948 when Israel declared independence Jerusalem was a city divided. The new Israeli state owned the West and troops of the Arab League, held the East. One key factor of the two state solution is that the Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of any future state, thereby returning to the borders agreed by the United Nations in 1948. It is important to remember that the old city, that is to say the major religious sites, are in the East. Before I went to Jerusalem I believed that the city could be divided between the two states as joint capital, or perhaps the old city could be given international status, much like Vatican City. Having now seen the city I it my belief that dividing the city is a concession the Israeli’s will never make.

On my first visit Israel was celebrating forty years since the city was “liberated” to use their term in 1967. When Israeli paratroopers attacked the old city the first place they secured was the Western Wall, the most important site in Judaism, and it remains inconceivable they will ever give that up. The same must be said for the Mount of Olives. Unlike other cities which have been divided, such as Berlin, there remains little to mark the old demarcation line. While the city is quite literally divided on racial and religious grounds the East has been completely absorbed into the Israeli state. On my second trip, this February, I witnessed the construction of a light railway which will further connect the East to the West, efficiently consigning the old division to history. I accept that arguing ‘it is too hard to divide’ is no real reason not to call for it, and I would not side with Prime-Minister-Elect ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu who claims Jerusalem is ‘off the table.’ If the final status of Jerusalem is to be discussed it should be done once the other main problems have been addressed and a viable Palestinian state, governed by Ramallah, can come to the table and negotiate for it equally.

7) The Right to Return

The Right to Return is the second, vast and unjust concession which the Palestinian people will be forced to make for peace to move forward. In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced to flee their homes and live in refugee camps, either in the West Bank, or in the neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Egypt, Syria or Jordan. Today, the post-1948 Palestinian Diaspora has continued to grow as the generations of refugees start families in their exiled countries. This problem was further compounded when Israel invaded the remaining Palestinian territory in 1967 forcing thousands into refugee camps. Morally and historically the argument is made suggesting the exiled statues of so many Palestinians mirrors of Diaspora of the Jews since they were exiled from Israel by the Romans two thousand years ago. It is a cruel historical irony. Israel however can not allow all of the refugees to return as the influx of so many Palestinians would stop Israel from being a ‘Jewish state.’ Many argue this is a racist position to take, but Israel take it non the less.

The only workable solution is for the refugees from 1967 to return once Israel has retreated to the pre-1967 borders. However, it is highly unlikely that the 1948 refugees will be granted the right to return. For one they were exiled in 1948, over sixty years ago. The properties they fled from are unlikely to exist today. A colder analysis would argue that the majority of the 1948 generation have settled in their country of exile, their descendents have been born there are now just as Lebanese, or Syrian or Jordanian as they are Palestinian. The most realistic hope is for the State of Israel to allow the 1967 refugees to return, while offering financial reparations to all those with a proven link to the 1948 generation. It leaves a great historical injustice, and it is the second great concession which must be made.

The international community

The international community must pledge considerable amounts of economic and humanitarian aid to both the West Bank and the Gaza strip in a package not dissimilar to the Marshall Aid plan of 1945. This is vital to building strong infrastructure, vital for a stable, developed nation state. The international community, led by the United Nations and the Quartet must encourage international recognition of both Palestine and Israel, ensuring both enjoy full diplomatic recognition.

Regarding Israel the international community, by which I mean the United States and the quartet, must cease unconditional support for Israel. Israel needs allies and friends if it is to develop into partnership with its neighbours, but this support must not be unconditional. In 2006 the United Kingdom sold £24 million of cluster bombs to Israel, which were used against civilians in Lebanon. Amnesty international have published a report on the sources of the weaponry used in Gaza by the IDF during Operation Cast lead. (This report can be read at: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_19194.pdf)

As with any other nation Israel has the right to defend itself from attack, but the targeting of civilian and the disproportionate response of the IDF in both the Lebanon conflict in 2006 and the Invasion of Gaza in 2009 are clear violations of international law. It is clear that Israel has committed numerous war crimes during these campaigns, as well as during the occupation of the West Bank, and indeed the previous occupation of Lebanon. The individuals behind these crimes have not been tried for war crimes. The international community must encourage Israel to recognise the International Criminal Courts in The Hague, which must be given a United Nations mandate to investigate war crimes. This is the case in the former Yugoslavian territories and in Rwanda. It should be the case in Israel/Palestine. Crimes have been committed and the guilty must face international justice. Only Israel international allies, chiefly the United States ensure this, yet it is vital if Israel is to be viewed as a legitimate neighbour by the Arab neighbours.

The Arab World

The nations of the Arabic world must recognise Israel’s right to exist, in line with the proposed Beirut peace plan. As international neighbours the Arab nations will have to step forward as equal partners, both in diplomacy and trade with the established Palestine state.

The Myths

Like all wars and like all histories, this conflict is cluttered with myths. Myths which must be addressed and cast aside if an understanding of either side is to be gained. Some of these myths are creations of propaganda, lazy reporting by journalists, assumed truths or gross distortions forged by ideology.

1) Israelis are Pro-War

One of largest myths of this conflict is that all Israel’s are pro-war. I can testify that this is not the case. The Israeli electorate are as hungry for peace as their Palestinian counterparts. While I can only offer anecdotal evidence based upon the Israelis I have met, the majority seem to have retreated into the same apathetic disillusionment in no way dissimilar to that of the United Kingdom. Israelis are tired of war, they are tired with the constant threat of war, they are tired with having to fear rockets from Gaza, Lebanon or fear suicide bombers in Tel Aviv. The Israeli government and the Israeli military do not act with the full and unconditional support of the Israeli public. This should not be too hard for a British socialist to understand. In 2003 two million of us marched against the Invasion of Iraq, but Blair continued against the wishes of his electorate. The Israeli government operates in the same way. During Operation Cast Lead there were protests every day in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem.

2) Israelis are Right-Wing

It would certainly be possible to argue that following the general election victory of ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu earlier this month Israel has lurched to the Right. This is a myth compounded by the fact Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israel’s far-right party, is about to enter government along side Netanyahu. In reality I believe the electorate are not right wing, rather the right wing have been the unlikely winners of voter apathy and a complex system of Proportional representation. While the Maavak party, who are affiliated to the Campaign for a new Workers International and the British Socialist Party, offer a non-parliamentary socialist alternative there exists no left wing party in the Knesset. Historically this has not been the case, the labour party have moved to the centre ground, as has Kadmia, who are now the main party in opposition. Historically Israel has a proud left wing tradition, both David Ben-Gurion and Gola Meir were committed socialists and much of the early state could be declared Socialist. However as all the parties move to the centre ground the left has become vacant and voters who would normally vote left, or centre left have been refusing to vote. In this election two million voters did not cast a vote, which leaves election turn out at an all time low. It is into this void that the likes of Lieberman and Netanyahu have entered, very much from stage right.

3) Israel is a colony of the United States of America

One of the greatest myths of all is that Israel exists purely, and only, as a proxy of the United States. This is categorically not the case. There is no doubt that a “special relationship” exists between the two nations and that America is by far Israel’s strongest, unconditional ally. However, Israel is very much an independent state, with a foreign policy independent of any external influence. This is not a new state of affairs. In 1956 Israel Invaded Egypt with France and Britain in what became the Suez crisis. Israel entered this campaign against the clearly expressed wishes of the United States. Indeed this year with the election of Netanyahu the ‘special relationship’ is likely to come under more strain. When Netanyahu sat in office ten years ago President Bill Clinton remarked that ‘bibi’: “acted as if Israel were the Superpower and America existed only to do his bidding.”

4) Zionism equals Imperialism
Zionism, the political ideology established by Theodor Herzl in 1885 was the belief that the Jewish Disporia should return to the ‘promised land’ of Israel, in what was Ottoman Palestine. Today it is an abused term, used to suggest a ‘Zionist’ wishes to create a ‘Greater Israel’ across all of ancient biblical Israel, or else the term is used interchangeably with ‘Imperialsm’ to suggest that to be a Zionist is inherrantly expansionist. While there is no denying that people who hold imperialist and expansionist views do call themselves Zionists, they do not hold the monopoly on the term. There are nationalistic Zionists, Liberal Zionists, even Socialist Zionists as the early settlers deemed themselves. Stripped of all prefixes Zionism purely means believing in the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist. As I’ve already said, mutual recognition is an essential part of any future peace, so therefore I must consider myself a Zionist.

5) Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitic

One of the largest problems facing the Left, the progressives, the peace campaigners and anyone else who opposes the policies of Israel is that we are branded anti-Semitic. It must be recognised that criticism of the polices of the State of Israel are not criticisms of Jewish people.

6) We are not all Hezbollah/Hamas now

While criticism of Israel, and denouncing those who form and carry out criminal policies is not anti-Semitic, we progressives must ensure we do not associate ourselves or our arguments with those who are anti-Semitic. In 2006 when the war with Lebanon waged, thousands of protestors in the streets of London chanted “we are all Hezbollah now”, in 2009 they chanted “we are all Hamas now” and instantly lost all hope of gaining the moral high ground. Hamas and Hezbollah are not simply ‘resistance’ groups, this is not Second World War France, they are terrorist organisations with Far-Right wing polices who condone, encourage and commit terrorist acts against civilians. Just because they oppose the crimes that Israel commits and they fight an occupation we loath does not mean they are our allies. In a previous point I said Israel must talk to Hamas, and they must as Hamas are in power in Gaza. However this does not mean I support them, and nor should any socialist, or progressive with a conscience and a clear mind.

7) Palestinian’s support terrorism

Obviously in the same way I believe all Israeli’s are not pro-war I do not believe all Palestinians support terrorism. Many argue the fact that Hamas won an election suggests the Palestinian people gave them a mandate for terror. The people voted for Hamas merely to eject the corrupt Fatah regime from power, not because they support the policies or actions of Hamas.

8) Palestinian historical freedom

A historical point. Many believe that Palestinians were ‘free’ before Israel was declared in 1948. The more tragic truth of the matter is that the Palestinian have never been free, there has never been a free and independent Palestinian state. Before 1948 the territory was occupied by British troops, before the First World War the territory had been a province in the ancient Turkish Ottoman Empire. “Palestine” has never been a free state, but it will be.

9) Boycott the Boycott

One final point, one final myth to bust, and that is the boycott. Boycotting either Israeli produce or Israeli academia will not achieve anything except encouraging the idea that Israel is under attack. As I wrote at the start of this piece, those who make the policies, who plan the wars and the occupation, are those with the power in society. By boycotting Israeli Jaffa Oranges you are merely punishing a poor working class Orange farmer, and that is certainly not the figure socialists should be attacking. Regarding the boycott of academia, this is further madness. In this country, and in most countries in the world the most progressive voices, the most left wing, the most liberal, the most pro-peace are found on campuses and in student unions. Why on earth would the British left wing wish to attack their natural Israeli progressive allies? This is a topic to be discussed in a further piece.

As socialists, we can not afford to be armchair ideologues. It is far too easy to sit back in our lounges, our pubs, union rooms or coffee shops and convince ourselves of our own righteousness. If we seriously wish to advance a solution it is imperative we understand the situation on the ground and the impact any solution will have on the lives of real people. The Two State Solution is not perfect, it has flaws, it requires vast concessions and does not rectify all past injustices, yet it is the only solution which offers a workable, and realistic peace process. It will bring the Tanks out and will let the aid in. It is the only glimmer of hope for peace in the region and as a socialist, we have a duty to support it.

Gaza is not Lebanon

2009-01-11T13:50:00.000-08:00

At the time of writing, -7:00pm GMT, 9:00pm local time – the Israeli Defence Force have entered the Gaza strip. Correspondents from the BBC and Al Jazzera report hearing machine gun fire coming from the northern border of the strip. Simultaneously helicopter gun ships and jet bombers continue to bombard Gaza City, while naval vessels and artillery shell sites of Hamas rocket fire.

The ultimate aim of this assault is impossible to truly determine. It seems unlikely that Olmert and Livni, who were both in Government when Ariel Sharon withdrew from the strip in 2006, will seek to re-conquer or reoccupy the strip. Yet it also seems impossible, even in this age of ‘precision’ weaponry, that the IDF will only engage and destroy Hamas fighters.

The Israeli war aims are difficult to determine partly because the IDF have learnt some of the lessons of the 2006 Lebanon war, at least where the media are concerned. When Israeli aircraft began pounding the Hezbollah positions north of Galilee and later began bombing Beruit itself, they did so in the full gaze of the World’s media. TV, Radio, Newspaper and Internet correspondents were dispatched to watch the conflict unfold as red tops and broadsheets alike swiftly resurrected images of Dunkirk as British civilians were evacuated.

This time however we witness the one true sign that Israel has succeeded in closing down all sources of information. The journalists have resorted to interviewing other journalists outside of the sealed of ‘military zone.’ One of the few facts which the 24-Hour news anchors are pouring over is a statement from Defence Minister Ehuld Barak, who claims the IDF are prepared for ‘many long days’ of fighting as t they target "the infastructure of Hamas." As his words are broadcast around the world news was also released showing 10,000 reservists have been called up for deployment, suggesting Israel not only aim to seek out and destroy the rockets, but are likely aiming to topple the Hamas government in an attempt to stop the rocket fire permanently.

While similarities with the 2006 Lebanon war are being wheeled out by every media network, NGO and protest group a more fitting similarity would be the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. Like the South Ossetia conflict this battle has is being waged on the airwaves and on the internet with highly sophisticated propaganda. The IDF have even formed their own Youtube channel to show carefully chosen footage of missile strikes on Hamas targets. The truth of course is that the Israeli/Palestinian struggle is like no other on earth.

Since 1948 it has been the Gordian Knot of international politics, with deeply entrenched, polarising propaganda. We must look through the propaganda, it is not about choosing your side, for war is not a football match. There are victims, and villains, on all sides and it is crucial, if you are to be a true advocate of peace, to understand the plight of both peoples rather then the leadership or military of either side. After all it should not be difficult for the British to recognise that the establishment do not always represent the people. Three million people marched against the Invasion of Iraq, yet Blair deployed troops anyway.

One great concern is the assumption that the ground assault will be identical to the 2006 invasion of Lebanon. Gaza is not Lebanon, Hamas are not Hezbollah and 2009 is not 2006. To suggest otherwise is ideologically lazy or journalistically lazy. Hezbollah remain a well trained and well armed army. Like Hamas they are listed as a terrorist organisation and like Hamas I believe that is exactly what they are. However, Hezbollah are so well established they act like a state within Lebanon itself. When Israeli tanks rolled into Lebanon they were fighting an enemy which acted like a conventionally army. Hamas are not a regular army, they are paramilitary irregulars, much like the Afghan Pashtuns or the Iraqi insurgency. The IDF do not have a history of fighting such a force, which means the conflict is likely to be long and bloody for all involved.

In 2006 Israel had international support, or at the very least her allies remained silent. Today the politically landscape is slowly changed and political denouncement is coming from all angles. Gordon Brown has done what Tony Blair refused to do by calling for an immediate ceasefire. All the while Blair stays committed to his shameful silence, even in his new role as Middle Eastern Peace Envoy. Indeed the backlash against Israel has been swift and loud, with protests being held across the globe. 12,000 people rallied outside of Israel’s London embassy to call for an end to violence. Here is one small parallel with Lebanon which I fear. In 2006 protesters massing in Trafalgar square chanted “we are all Hezbollah now”, and immediately lost any pretence at morality. Today I fear we will hear chants of “we are all Hamas now” and the moral ground will be lost once more. It is the role of the progressive to support peace, and to stand by the people. Never should we support any organisation which deliberately targets civilians, be that Hamas, Hezbollah or Israel. Hamas are not a party of peace. Their fighters have spent 8 years launching rockets at unarmed civilians who live in the towns of the Negev. Their fighters have attempted to purge Gaza of political opposition and it must be remembered that it was Hamas suicide bombers who played a key role in destroying the last hopes of peace.

Both Hamas and the IDF have committed severe war crimes and this recognition is essential before a solution can be reached. The solution to this war is simple; Ceasefire and mutual recognition. President-Elect Barack Obama must break his silence and must pressure Israel to withdraw the tanks and withdraw the troops. This must be followed by talks between Israel and the moderate wing of Hamas, and do not believe that they will not talk. In the 1970’s it looked incomprehensible for the British government to talk to the IRA, but they did. Similarly it looked incomprehensible for Israel to talk to Yassar Arafat’s PLO, but they did. These talks must broker another short term cease fire, and crucially must be followed by statements of mutual recognition. Hamas must recognise the right of Israeli existence, the notion that the green flag of Hamas will one day fly over Tel Aviv or Haifa is nothing but false hope. Israel is a developed, democratic country whose sovereign rights must be recognised, both by Hamas and any other nation. Simultaneously Israel must recognise Hamas as the current elected government of the Gaza strip. They is a strong argument that Hamas forfeit this democratic status when they purged Gaza of Fatah supporters in 2007, however at the time of writing Hamas are the government, and must be recognised as such. There will be moderates within the organisation and they must be encouraged. The siege of Gaza must be lifted and humanitarian aid must be allowed in.

Shoes and Shame: The End of Empire in Iraq

2008-12-18T07:47:00.000-08:00

The bloody chapter of Iraqi history that began on March 2003 has contained an innate sense of pageantry and stage management from the off set. In the build up to war we heard of Saddam’s links to Al-Queda, his support of 9/11 and the much fabled weapons of mass destruction which Colin Powel so eloquently described to the United Nations. During the invasion we watched in both shock and awe while the missiles fell on Baghdad on a scale of force not seen since 1945. Those with good memories for drama may recall the ‘ordeal’ or Private Jessica Lynch, of her ‘capture’ and ‘heroic’ rescue. All this is of course came before the victors justice of Saddam Hussein’s trial and his inevitable execution. It also came before the battles with Iraq’s insurgency were dubbed "the new front in the war on terror."

It should therefore come as no surprise to see that the end of this blood drenched drama is being played out with the same degree of theatre as it began. As the American elections showed, there is little in the world more stage managed then the public actions of a President, and George Bush ‘farewell tour’ should have been no exception. However, the world’s attention was immediately entrapped when Cairo based journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, an image which will no doubt find internet fame for years to come. The symbolism said more then a thousand press conferences ever could. To be hit with a shoe is a supreme insult in Arabic culture, as the coalition cameramen were more than happy to demonstrate when Saddam’s statue was toppled in 2003. For a journalist to throw his shoes, however farcical it may seem, is a fine contradiction to the President’s ‘mission accomplished’ party line.

Then of course away from the farcical and the slapstick there is the grim reality, for the reality behind the rhetoric is always grim in Iraq. The Iraqi union of journalists is lobbying for the release of al-Zaidi while his brother describes beatings and torture at the hands of Baghdad’s police force. This is the reality of the Bush’s new Iraq and it is just one of a range of incidents showing that the new Iraq is merely a shadowing reflection of the old.

When Iraqi forces loyal to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were attempting to clear Basra of Muqtada al Sadar’s Mehdi militiamen I wrote in Arena, that we were witnessing a political gamble by al-Makiki to remove political rivals before pending elections. This week British Chief of the Defence Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup published an article in the British press that confirms this view. Writing about the reasoning behind the withdrawal of Basra, Sir Jock wrote:

"It was clear at that stage that our presence in Basra was creating an excuse both for violence by the militias and for inaction by the Basrawi authorities. We concluded that the best course was to withdraw from Basra city and to put the Iraqis in the security lead there. This would, in our view, force them to confront the intra-Shia political issues that were the source of much of the violence. We would have preferred it had the operation been launched in a more considered fashion, but it at least provided the clear political lead that had until then been absent in Basra."
There is no doubt that al-Maliki’s forces did attempt to ‘confront the political issues’, and did attempt to ‘provide a clear political lead’. Indeed it was the first time an Iraqi leader had personally led a military action since the fall of Saddam. Of course the British army were not merely by standers in this power struggle. Sir Jock goes so far as to suggest his forces deserve congratulation for providing "air, aviation, armoured, artillery, logistic, medical and other support."

The greatest lie that leaps from Sir Jock’s writings is the ethos of the occupation. He says: "We have always been clear that only Iraqis could solve Iraqi problems." The audacity of this claim is awe-inspiring. In 2003 Bush and Blair did not make it clear that only Iraq’s can solve Iraqi problems. Rather it was made clear that Saddam Hussein was a problem which could only be solved by tanks and troops. The statement also has an eerie echo of Iraqi history, for both Britain and America have a ignoble history of standing aside and watching Iraqis die for political expedience. When the coalition last decided to allow Iraqis to deal with Iraqi problems it was 1991 and the close of the Gulf War. The people of Southern Iraq were urged to rise up against Saddam and as a result his vengeful army rounded up thousands of Shia rebels from Basra and the surrounding towns to be executed in mass graves.

Al-Maliki’s power struggle is not the only officially sanctioned savagery in the new Iraq. The London based Independent newspaper revealed how the former headquarters of Saddam’s intelligence agency at Kazimiyah are back in operation. The very same cells used by the Baathist secret police and the same gallows used to dispatch the fallen dictator are now being employed with brutal force by al-Maliki’s own loyalists.

At the time of writing the New York Times is reporting that 35 interior ministry officials have been arrested for planning a coup against the Prime Minister. The most ominous line in the report is the claim the arrests were carried out by ‘elite counter-terrorism units who report directly to Nouri al-Maliki." It is now one month until regional elections, and once again it is being suggested that the Prime Minister is claiming conspiracy in order to consolidate power.

In his article Sir Jock claims, "Historians may debate the decision to go into Iraq, but we do not need to wait to judge the contribution that the British Military has made." In this at least he is right. After an occupation which has lasted longer then the Second World War, the British army and their allies have left a legacy their Imperial ancestors would be more then familiar with. The Iraqi people have a leadership living in glorious isolation, encased in palaces and bunkers in the heart of Baghdad. They have a leadership who move ruthlessly against potential opposition, who have re-populated the murderous prisons of Saddam, and who claim that coups and plots are a constant threat to stability. All the while the Iraqi people are still not receiving any money for the sale of their oil. Where once it went to the coffers of Saddam, now it flows in the bank accounts of western businessmen. In al-Maliki it seems the West has once again found a ‘strong man’ with whom to do business. The only thing al-Maliki lacks are the mass graves. Sadly, there may yet still be time for that.

Tyranny in the Dock: A Progressive way forward for the War on Terror?

2008-09-14T12:06:00.000-07:00

After thirteen years of running from his crimes the worlds most wanted man has finally been captured. Serbian police forces made the arrest as this most famous of fugitives got off the number 83 bus in Belgrade. Radovan Karadzic has been wanted by the International war crimes tribunal for master minding genocide, the likes of which had not been witnessed on European soil since the Second World War. Karadzic, who had adopted the name Dragan Dabic and had led a life as an alternative doctor will be deported to The Hague to face trail, thus following in the footsteps of his former ally, ex-Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. His arrest not only heralds another step away from the bitter wars which have become synonymous with the Balkans, it also places Serbia one step closer to a coveted entry to the European Union. However, if one were to look at this development in a much wider context Kardzic’s arrest may offer the opportunity for a new and progressive chapter in America’s “war on terror.”

The arrest of Karadzic immediately prompts memories of another infamous war criminal, the Nazi Adolf Eichman. Indeed the atrocities Karadzic stands accused of, including the Siege of Sarajevo and the massacure at Srebrenica, constitute the worst cases of war crimes on European soil since the Holocaust that Eichman orchestrated. However, it is not only their crimes that link the two men, but also the length of time they evaded capture, the way that both men totally adopted their new personas and the constant suspicions that those in power aided and abetted their flight from justice.
Eichman, one of the primary architects of the Final Solution, witnessed the Third Reich burn and with it the consignation of Nazi dreams of ethnic cleanings to the history books before fleeing to Argentina in 1948. After reaching the safe refuge of Argentina, Eichman adopted the name Riccardo Klement and lived the life of a rabbit farmer for twelve years. In May 1960 he was identified and abducted by Israeli Mossad agents in a quiet suburb of Buenos Aires. Throughout his time in Argentina there is little doubt that Eichman’s evasion from justice was aided by right wing elements within Argentine society. In comparrison Karadizc evaded both NATO and Serbian authorities for thirteen years having adopted the persona of an alternative doctor since 1998, an identity he is thought to have asertained with help from sympathisers and allies within the Belgrade establishment.
The fundamental difference between the men will be the way they will face justice. Eichman’s abduction from Argentina to Israel severely strained diplomatic ties between the two countries and after a much publicised trial in Tel Aviv the elderly conductor of genocide was led to the gallows. Karadizic in comparison will be handed over, voluntarily, by the Serbian government to the international courts in the Netherlands and he will face multiple life sentences as the court, mandated under the United Nations, does not exercise the death penalty.

Whilst the Eichman trial is perhaps the most famous war crimes trial after the Nuremberg trials of 1945 it is the more recent trial of Saddam Hussein that future historians will compare with the pending trial of Karadzic. All too often the international criminal courts have ignored by the hubristic powers of America and Britain. This was made all too clear during the trial of Saddam Hussein. Whilst Hussein was tried, found guilty and eventually executed by an Iraqi court accusations of victors justice and questions of the political objectivity of the court were never out of the picture. Indeed the execution of the fallen dictator not only removed him from the political arena but also ensured he would never face justice for the infamous al-Anfal campaign during which the tyrant of Baghdad mercilessly deployed chemical weapons against the Kurds. During his execution in December 2006 Hussein was taunted and jeered with the name of Muqtada Al Sadar, the Shia cleric whose family constitured a constant political threat throughout Saddam’s time in power. The taunting did little to dissuade the Sunni population that the execution was little more then an act of victors justice at the hands of the Shia minority. So it was that once his body had been cut down protests erupted, not only in his birth town of Tikrit but also in the Gaza strip as the fabled strong man of the Arab world became a political martyr. At the time I wrote an article for “Arena” suggesting that such problems would have been avoided if Saddam has been extradited to face charges of war crimes at The Hague. By physically removing him from the political arena and placing him in what would undoubtedly have been a pro-longed, at time tedious but totally comprehensive trial the fallen dictator would have received true justice and his support would have slowly, yet certainly ebbed away. This was indeed the fate of Slobodan Milosevic a fate now shared by Radaovan Karadizic.

Of course it has not been Saddam Hussein or Adolf Eichman who the mass media have attempted to use as a point of comparison; rather they have placed the spotlight on the elusive Osama Bin Laden. The comparisons between the capture of Karadzic and the on-going hunt for Osama Bin Laden are as inevitable as they are misleading. Karadzic has been the most wanted man on earth for over a decade with allegations of committing the worst war crimes on European soil since the close of the Second World War. Osama Bin Laden on the other hand has not committed war crimes. His role in orchestrating terrorist attacks across the globe is undeniable, but these actions are criminal. As Bin Laden has never been a head of state with a conventional armed force at his disposal he has not waged a conventional war. It is crucial to realise this in an age when American and British propaganda have repeatedly attempted to conjure links between al-queda and the deposed government of Saddam Hussein or the Pashtun nationalists of the Taliban. It should be remembered that unlike Adolf Eichman, Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Mullah Omar or Saddam Hussein or any other war criminal, Osama Bin Laden and his followers are members of an international criminal organisation rather then leaders of a sovereign nation state. A like for like comparison between Bin Laden and Karadzic achieves little but underestimates the terror Karadzic brought upon the Bosnian people. Throughout his brutal role in the Balkan wars of the early nineties Karadzic achieved more horror and suffering then Bin Laden and his cohorts could ever aspire to. However, there is one potential connection, which if realised could open the door for a new and progressive era for the on-going War on Terror. In a interview with the BBC Richard Holbrooke, the senior United States Diplomat who took part in negotiating the Dayton peace agreements when stationed in Bosnia in 1995, stated that “it is significant that NATO continued to fail and the Serbs captured him... a major thug has been removed from the public scene.” Indeed it is the fact that thirteen years after the toppling of Karadzic’s government there has been no military solution to capturing the worlds most wanted fugitive, instead old fashioned police work coupled with new and developing levels of international police cooperation brought the most wanted man on earth to justice. This is an important lesson for NATO, as well as British and American troops who continue to scourge the mountain passes of the Hindu Kush in the hunt for Bin Laden.

It is an interesting coincidence that the capture of Karadzic coincided with a European and Middle Eastern tour of Barack Obama, the Democrat presidential candidate. If he succeeds in his ambition of reaching the Oval office and abides by his rhetoric Obama plans a new vision for the United States foreign policy including a concrete, time tabled withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and a re-evaluation of strategy in Afghanistan. A key part of Obama’s tour aimed to reach out to European governments in a bid to bolster their support for the on-going occupation of Afghanistan, thus giving American forces room for withdrawal. The more progressive elements of the Democrat party have long advocated treating Al-queda and the issue of terrorism as a criminal, rather then military issue, relying on the work of international police cooperation rather then the invasion and bloody occupation of nation states. Over the past seven years we have witnessed the continued failure of this latter strategy, a strategy which has resulted in the death of millions, the displacement of hundreds of thousands and the occupation of two nation states whilst all the while the men who these wars were launched to capture, continue to evade justice. The success of capturing war criminals and terrorists through international police work has been a clearly demonstrated success and perhaps, if the democrats win the White House in November this could become a way to end America’s war on terror and the start of renewed international cooperation. So the capture of the worlds most wanted man should not be celebrated in the Balkans alone, we should all toast to his imprisonment and the opportunity for change it presents to us all.

Ben Norman: July 2008

Ben Norman is a British historian and freelance journalist.

Israel: Journey through the Thrice Promised Land

2008-09-13T04:10:00.000-07:00

Israel: Journey through the Thrice Promised Land (Another Diary extract)

Before you even touch down on Israeli soil you are made all too aware that this is no ordinary holiday destination. Looking out of the cabin window, down to where the Mediterranean meets the desert I can make out Tel Aviv, suddenly the woman next to me leans across with a look of concern on her face. “Don’t take any photographs out of the window” she warns me, “they’ll be confiscated and you’ll be questioned”. Clearly security is not an issue which Israelis take lightly, and who could blame them, 2008 sees the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Israeli state, each of those sixty years has been scarred with war and stained with blood. Flying into Tel Aviv is to fly into one of the most complex Gordian knots of international politics; it is flying in to a land which has suffered invasions, counter invasions, and suicide bombings.

It is because of this recent history, and Israel’s continued foreign policy of occupation that means this is a country where War, or at lease the perceived threat of War is burned into the national consciousness. The occupation of the West bank, the human rights abuses committed against Palestinians, the vast partition wall, each of these crimes stand in accusation of the Israeli government. These are documented atrocities, broadcast on the BBC, on CNN and across the internet. These are crimes which the world needs to notice, and the world needs to act upon. Whilst it is these war crimes I went to witness it is crucial to remember that this is not a one sided conflict, there are heroes, villains and victims on both sides. It is in a bar in Haifa that this message is hammered home to me.

Haifa is a large port city in northern Israel which is only a few miles from the border with Lebanon. It was in a bar in this city of Galilee that I heard the voice of the ordinary Israeli epitomised. Tomer is a thirty year old family man, who owns the “Sketch bar” where I found myself during my first night in the city. After I explained why I was in Israel I asked Tomer what the ordinary Israeli feels about the war. He tells me, “We keep smiling even through we don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow. We’re surrounded by countries that want to wipe us out.” When I spoke to Tomer it was eleven months after the war waged between the Israeli defence force and the Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. During the conflict the Israeli air force mercilessly bombed Lebanese cities such as resulting in what UN general secretary Kofi Anan denounced as war crimes. Simultaneously the Hezbollah, or “Army of god”, launched hundreds of Katusha rockets over the Israeli border, as the largest city in the north Haifa was the prime target. Tomer tells me that such a rocket exploded only yards from his home. He tells me that he sent his family to Eilat in the south, it was the only thing he could do to protect them. Fear for his family is etched on his face as he then moves the conversation onto Iran, the Iranian nuclear programme being the newest perceived threat to Israel. I ask if he truly believes Iran would use such a weapon. He waves his arm dismissively as he tells me that Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds during the Gulf war proves that “Arabic nations will use weapons of mass destruction.” After explaining his worries Tomer falls back to the sort of comforting, yet aggressive rhetoric that Government spokesmen and patriotic newspapers often espouse. He tells me that the IDF could “wipe the West bank out in half an hour”, that Israel were too concerned with avoiding civilian casualties to tackle the Hezbollah properly and that the Government should “build the wall higher”. It is all to easy to write off this sort of language as being right-wing, pro-war or “Zionist”, in reality almost a year after the war the people of Israel have retreated into a mental mixture of fatalistic apathy and official rhetoric, indeed these are the words of a man who knows the front lines lie only miles away, a man who worries for his family and feels under siege. Can we really blame him for seeking refugee in the official discourse or for “just wanting to have fun.”

Today, as the Hezbollah threaten war, as Israeli government spokesmen rattle their ideological sabres, as the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsens remember that there are victims on both sides. War produces only victims; it brings destruction, death, terror and devastation to lives on either side.

Ben Norman ( Haifa: 2007)

Ramallah:: From my Palestine Diary

2008-09-13T04:08:00.000-07:00

Ramallah: One Town in the Conflict of Contrast

It has been forty years since Ramallah became the de facto capital of the West Bank. It has been forty years since Israeli tanks first crossed the green line and the occupation began. Since that time Ramallah has witnessed Refugee camps, curfews, casual bombardment from the Israeli defence force, the construction of Yassar Arafat’s governmental compound and the subsequent destruction of that compound by his nemesis, Israeli Prime minister Ariel Sharon. Today both warlords are dead, replaced by their respective deputies and from where I sit Ramallah seems like a different town from the one I watched being reduced to rubble on BBC dispatches. It seems more like a suburb of Damascus or Cairo then the centre of the West Bank, home to an oppressed and occupied people. “Seems” is the appropriate phrase because in this Gordian knot of international politics linguistic camouflage is deployed alongside smoke and mirrors so that little is actually what it seems.

As I write I sit mere yards from the newly constructed “palace of art and culture”, I can see newly constructed flats alongside a modern looking mosque, all indications that Ramallah is a town moving forward. In reality, whilst there is money flowing into the town it is all foreign aid with the aim of providing temporary stability. The palace of culture was built by the EU, Germany funded the reconstruction of roads, the UN is building a local school whilst each refuse truck has the words “donated by the people of Japan” proudly emblazoned on the side. This is not to say that there is not affluence, a relative term for the West Bank, but that affluence is used in a very specific way. In the centre of Ramallah Coca-Cola logos appear next to Fatah propaganda posters whilst Fatah fighters wear Gucci sunglasses and posters for Nike hang alongside those of the latest Martyr. Children from refugee camps may be dressed in cheap designer clothes rather then rags but this does not mean that there is no poverty. In the large Palestinian towns there is a poverty of frustration, of waning hope rather then the absolute poverty of Sub-Saharan Africa. The refugees still long for the day they can return home, back to the houses they lost, back to the lives which were shattered forever by the Nackab or tragedy of the 1967 invasion. This is why foreign aid will only do so much, the EU et al can aim to make Ramallah inhabitable by providing culture and cola but if the refugees were to leave the camps and settle here that would be an admission of defeat and the extinguishment of the hope that has carried them through the horrors of the past forty years.
The situation in Ramallah epitomises the wider picture of complexities and Rhetoric. Ramallah, lies in the heart of the occupied territories or “Palestinian semi-autonomous zone” or even the “western managed area” to borrow terms from Israeli road signs and guidebooks. It is a land occupied by Israel, a nation which aims to attract tourists to the plush resorts of Tel Aviv, and Eliat but upon arrival informs those same tourists not to take photos from the plane and threatens interrogation and cavity searches on the return journey. Israel is a nation founded upon moral principles and religious guidance yet from the very heart of the nation, Jerusalem the contrast could not be greater. Cast your gaze over the skyline of the old city of Jerusalem and amongst the Wailing Wall, the church of the ascension or the Dome of the Rock one can make out the partition wall cutting a deep scar into the nation. The wall is three times the height of the Berlin wall and cuts through Palestinian homes, schools, fields tearing lives apart. These clashes converge in the town of Bethlehem, a town ingrained into our collective memories, a town besieged by military fortifications, saturated with religious significance and invaded by tourists ready to part with their sheckles. In Bethlehem religious scripture stands alongside graffiti calls for Resistance and no one bothers to notice. No one that is except the Palestinian people ready to tell their tale.

Yet throughout this series of vivid contrasts, propaganda and symbolism there is one icon which stands out to unite both Palestinians and Israelis, one symbol which shows that these people aren’t so different. From the Stars and Bucks coffee shop which stands above two intersection main roads of Ramallah I can see a mural of a large golden key. The key has become a popular symbol in Palestinian culture; many refugees from both 1948 and 1967 still have the keys to their old homes and cherish them in order to keep the hope alive that some day they shall return. This is not the first time in history that this symbol has been used in defiance, to enshrine hope. There is a small museum in the Israeli port of Haifa which shows the history of Jewish immigration into Israel following the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust. Palestine was the colonial possession of Britain and in order to deal with the thousands of dispossessed flooding into the tiny mandate British troops detained thousands of refugees in detention camps in Cyprus. The immigration museum shows Jewish refugees carving and painting Keys to symbolise the return to their promised land. Today those refugees have returned home and now it is their decedents who drive Palestinians into camps whilst it is the people of Ramallah, of Bethlehem, of Hebron and of Jericho who are left painting keys, and clinging to a hope that refuses to die. Perhaps it is one of history’s great ironies that the suffering of both peoples can be epitomised in the same symbol, or perhaps it is a sign that despite the past forty years these two people have more in common then they realise.

Today forty one years after the six day invasion, or “re-unification” if we are to use the official tourist board lexis, the people of Ramallah have witnessed little but cosmetic change. True, tanks no longer pound the buildings but only because the petition wall provides a strangle hold. It is time for real progress, time for the heirs of the warlords, both bloody from their own wars with the Hezbollah and Hamas, to negotiate and come to a just settlement if the gunmen and Martyr posters are to ever disappear from Ramallah.

What’s in a word? Framing the argument.

2008-08-03T11:54:00.000-07:00

What’s in a word? Framing the argument.

The following is an extract from my forthcoming book "How to Coordinate a campaign". This section forms part of Chapter 4: Campaign Marketing.

In Chapter Three: Campaign Communication, I mentioned the importance of Power words. Words which are loaded with connotations and meanings, words which if used effectively can inject a vast amount of imagery into a person’s mind within seconds. When considering your marketing it is imperative that you understand how your message is perceived, this can only be achieved by a very careful consideration of the words you use. All words carry with them deeper meaning, however they can be either neutral or loaded. The word “cat” is a neutral word but saying it or thinking it instantly conjures an image in your mind of what you believe a cat to look like, for example this may be a memory of a cat you owned as a child. Loaded words work in exactly the same fashion, yet for a political or marketing end. Immigration is perhaps the best example of this. The word instantly conjures up images of a stereotypical immigrant as defined by the media and political parties; it is unlikely that the word will conjure a neutral image because such groups and organisations have invested so much time and money associating the word with their cause and their propaganda. Indeed, in the introduction and the first chapter I addressed the words “activist” and “campaign” as these are highly charged, loaded terms which have been used to create a stereotypical mental image. Often the word is associated with militancy, political unorthodoxy and quite possibly violence. However, as this book has demonstrated this is a very misleading frame as the words can just as easily apply to children and parents campaigning to save a local swimming pool, as it can too social justice campaigners calling for Fair trade or local elderly residents protesting against the closure of a local fire station.
It is our choice of words and our use of phrases which construct the methods we as activists use to present both ourselves and our arguments, and so it is these words which we constantly need to re-evaluate. The relationship between words and the political cause is hardly a new development. To prove the point I will refer to three very different analysts and writers, whose agendas are as dissimilar as their points are parallel; George Orwell, Professor Richard Dawkins and Professor George Lakoff.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote his most famous essay “Politics and the English Language”, a brutal denunciation of sloppy and slovenly writing but also a discussion on the relationship between words and politics. Orwell argued both in this essay and in his later masterpiece 1984 that words as a political tool can contain the potential of both enlightenment and of tyranny. Words, Orwell remarked, are often used by politicians to “defend the indefensible”, when villages are bombed and their homes destroyed this is called “pacification” whilst a forced exodus of people, such as the Cossacks under Stalin, is dubbed “population transfer”. Clearly this is not a million miles away from the clinical phrase “collateral damage” that the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defence wheels out to defend modern day acts of military horror. Such words, Orwell argued, can be an empirical or intellectual sheen over indefensible acts. However, this is not the only way in which the choice of language is pivotal to politics. Orwell was not simply writing about slovenly word play as would a sixth form English teacher, but was commenting on the relationship between words and meaning. In 1984, Orwell demonstrated how a party, which narrowed the amount of words in a person’s vocabulary, directly narrowed that person’s ability of thought, thus creating a sense of “protective stupidity”. The same process can happen to a political party, an ideology or in our case a campaign that becomes lost or bogged down in clichéd and tired rhetoric. Orwell was writing in post-war England, in an era when totalitarianism had been defeated at a vast human cost in Germany and Italy, yet continued to thrive in Franco’s Spain and Stalin’s Soviet Union. In the world of Orwell the Cold War was yet in its infancy and due to his premature death in 1950, Orwell did not live to witness the world changing revolutions in both communications and political propaganda. This is not to say that his work is of little value, grounded as it is in the 1940’s. Various writers have, albeit unwittingly, contributed to Orwell’s concept of the relationship between words and political meanings.

Among these is Richard Dawkins, the controversial scientist and writer of the “The God Delusion.” Dawkins, like Orwell is an atheist, however unlike Orwell his work constitutes an educated, articulate and rational assault against God and the perceptions of religion. Orwell’s work constituted a similar assault, yet his target was human totalitarianism. The point is that whilst their causes are different, both writers recognise the huge significance of single words. As Dawkins states, “language is the single most important consciousness raiser.” To make this point Dawkins refers to the Feminist movement and specifically the radical movement of the 1970’s that fought for “feminist pronouns.” It may sound small but this isn’t simply saying “fireperson” instead of “fireman” or “chairperson” instead of “chairman” but using “she” in many of the instances where we have been trained since school days to automatically say “he”. Like Orwell, Dawkins recognised that the words we use define our thoughts and therefore our attitudes and values. Dawkins takes this principle and identifies an area within his own cause, religious pronouns for describing children. Dawkins argues that we should not refer to “Christian children”, but rather “children with Christian parents” as children are not old enough to make a consciousness choice regarding faith. Dawkins argues that this would raise consciousness surrounding religious debate as much as feminist pronouns did for feminism since the 1970’s.
George Lakoff, a professor of linguistics and cognitive science, at Berkeley University in the United States understands the significance of words and the lessons progressives and campaigners must learn. The premise is a simple one, “progressive political groups must struggle to define their principles and values.” Lakoff, who writes for an American audience argues that the Republican party have already learnt the significance of words. He states, “conservatives have spent decades defining their ideas, carefully choosing the language with which to present them, and building an infrastructure to communicate them.” It is these definitions which Lakoff believes to be all important. Just as Orwell identified that words and their meaning have a political relationship, Lakoff talks of “framing words”. Like Orwell and Dawkins, Lakoff argues that words are not merely expressions, they are neural links to metaphors and narratives. Political words are therefore loaded, or “framed”, from a political perspective. To understand the affect of politically framed words in the national, and international consciousness one need only think of the phrase “War on Terror”, which has been the dogged mantra of the American Bush administration since 2001. It is clear that the “War on Terror” is not a politically neutral term, analysed objectively it means very little, it advocates a war against the intangible, against an unempirical notion. Put simply you couldn’t take a photo of the war on terror and put even more simply, you couldn’t put it on a plate. The phrase is a cold slab of rhetoric, however through endless repetition of imagery and its insertion into generic speeches, the phrase has become framed so as to unleash a plethora of values and images. The phrase now conjures horrific images of planes crashing into towers, of fireman pulling lifeless bodies from smouldering wreckage, of down flights in Pennsylvania, of turbaned fanatics wielding Kalashnikovs, of American action heroes with Ray-bans and of old fashioned flag fluttering patriotism. With this comes a necessary willing to support “our boys” and the belief that any deviation from complete loyalty to the cause is both heretical and unpatriotic. For a physical simile of how the framing of words works, simply type “War on Terror” into an image search of Google and the result will be an electronic version of our sub consciousness. The “War on terror” is just one of many national and international phrases which have been politically framed, others include “immigration”, “terrorism”, “free market”, “free trade” and “environment” to name but a few.
To return to Orwell’s essay, with Lakoff’s premise kept firmly in mind we can find clear and present lessons for Socialists. As Orwell states, “many political words are abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable”. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justices have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with each other.” Here Orwell is also referring to framing, how different political organisations can use the same word, yet frame it in such a way as to ensure its meaning completely changed. “Freedom” and the principle of what is “free” is perhaps the most engaging example of this. When the left speak of being free we may be discussing freedom from tyranny or from exploitation. Of course when a conservative speaks of freedom they may be referring to the free market, or free enterprise, thus giving the principle a vastly different meaning.

So, we have the theory, both from contemporary analysts and from the hand of Orwell, extending towards us from the 1940’s, but what does this mean for campaigners today? It means that when considering the message you want to promote you must bear in mind the words and also the frames you are dealing with. For example, if you are against the “War on Terror” then do not use the phrase as it merely re-enforces the existing frame, which means you are campaigning against yourself. Instead it is important to construct new frames, using key words which are associated to the values and goals of your campaign. For example, if you are campaigning against the proposed building of a new motorway through a forest, then a simple “Keep our Forest Free” would be an ideal frame. With this message you are using the word free, which is associated with freedom. Whilst freedom is an often disputed term, it is a value understood by all. By using the term you are alluding to the idea that this freedom is under threat, which is inherently negative. In another example, if you are campaigning to save a local fire station from closure then a “Save our fire-fighters” will create a very effective frame. The word “save” implies that someone, usually a hero figure has to save something, the victim from somebody else, a villain. Fire-fighters are also usually depicted as heroic figures so a simple three word sentence suddenly implies that the heroes themselves need saving and that whoever is trying to shut down the station is the villain. These are very simple examples but they show how framing works and the logical words, values and imagery which are associates with key words.
The second lesson these writers bring to us is the need for clear, coherent language. Many campaigning organisations or political groups will use words, phrases and quotes which will mean very little to someone outside of the organisation. Left wing groups have been notorious for doing this with words such as “proletariat”, “bourgeoisie” and “petit-bourgeoisie”, antiquated words which will mean very little to the average person, who after all is your target audience. It is important that you consider the words you are going to use and the effect they will have on your audience. When writing a leaflet, blog an article or for that matter giving a speech, write each line as if you are writing to a friend. If your about to use a phrase which you wouldn’t use in everyday conversation then don’t use it!

Iraq: The Conquerers Return.

2008-08-03T11:39:00.000-07:00

It has been little over seven months since the British army began their slow and ignominious retreat from Iraq. In September 2007 the bagpipes played with all the expected pomp and ceremony as the union flag was lowered over the military bases of Basra to be replaced by the new flag of the newly ordained Iraqi republic. It was of course heralded as a success: the British liberators were withdrawing, the Ministry spokesmen told the world, the Iraqis are finally beginning to manage their own affairs. Mission accomplished. As has so often happened during this conflict reality has refused to stand alongside rhetoric and now, on the five year anniversary of this disastrous war, the British army are once again fighting on the streets of Basra, albeit from safe distance with the aid of artillery and air strikes. The cause of this inglorious return is the new offensive being waged against Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi army by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Iraqi security forces launched the offensive with the stated aim of targeting ‘criminal’ gangs and militia, a move supported by the US-led occupying force. Prime Minister al-Maliki himself arrived in Basra on the first day of fighting to personally overview the operation, the first time an Iraqi leader has given himself such a pivotal military role since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Indeed al-Maliki’s close involvement has suggested that his future is inextricably tied into the success of the offensive on Iraq’s oil-rich sea port. This interpretation was only strengthened when Iraqi MP Falah Shenshal, an ally of al-Sadar, pointed out that security forces are targeting only the Mehdi Army and not rival militia such as the Iranian-backed Badar Brigade, thus suggesting that this latest outbreak of violence is an attempt by al-Maliki to remove the power and influence of his political rivals before elections later this year.

The aims of this operation stand in strong contrast to the idea of an ethnic civil war that many commentators predicted, with this conflict pitting Shia against Shia in a struggle for political power. It would seem that al-Maliki is staking the legitimacy of his fledgling government on its ability to remove its rivals. On Sunday the 30 March Al-Jazeera reports indicated that over 270 people had been killed in the offensive, with hundreds more injured. Throughout the conflict Muqtada al-Sadar has not called off the ceasefire he declared last summer and has called on neighboring Arab states to join his fight against coalition forces. Al-Sadr has played a surprise role in post-Saddam Iraq that very few commentators had predicted. Following the toppling of the Bathhist regime and its prohibitive stance on religious pilgrimages, al-Sadr has used the Mosque of Imam Ali, the third holiest site after Mecca and Medina for Shia Muslims, to rally the Shia population against Coalition forces. From the Baghdad slums (‘Saddam city’ now renamed ‘Sadar city’), to the sea port of Basra, al-Sadar’s influence has continued to grow, indeed it was only with his backing in that Nuri al-Maliki assumed the role of prime minister in 2006.

While it is possible to see this latest fighting as a sign that the Iraqi government is beginning to handle its own affairs, a far more revealing interpretation is that this has become the war is now one waged by proxy. US troops fought bitterly against al-Sadr’s forces in Fallujah and Najaf thoughout 2004, sustaining huge losses that only served to increased al-Sadr’s popularity amongst the Shia population as the personification of resistance. From the perspective of the West, were Iraqi forces to bring the Shia cleric down these actions would be heralded as a step towards Iraq self-determination, rather than as US aggression against a revered character.

Indeed it appears that as the coalition casualty figures grow and as elections loom the Coalition is turning Iraq into a proxy-war zone. Historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that there are currently over 30,000 paid ‘defence contractors’ (to use the official lexicon of the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defense) operating across Iraq. This means that the number of mercenaries in Iraq currently outnumbers the 8000 troops that the British Army has stationed in the south. Simultaneously, the world watched, with near silence, as a second invasion of Iraq has taken place in the northern Kurdish region, as the Turkish military battled the Kurdish Workers Party to stamp out Kurdish separatism. Whilst Turkey officially withdrew its forces after a fortnight of fighting, regular raids and air strikes continue. The only remaining power in the region, Iran, has also entered the arena, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Baghdad, the first Iranian leader to do so since the devastating Iran–Iraq war in the 1980s, a bitter conflict of martys and chemical weapons. As the neighbouring, and the most powerful nation in the region, Iran has strong interests in the future of Iraq, an interest reflected in the Tehran-backed Badar brigade militia, which is continuing to grow in strength as its leaders acquire ministerial posts.

The world is witnessing the slow break up of Iraq into spheres of influence. Is the future of Iraq not to be governed by Baghdad but by proxy from Tehran, Ankara and Washington, with regional power bases in such places as Najaf? This is not a future to be ruled out, the balkanisation of Iraq can be achieved with as much effort, and as much bloodshed as the nation-state of Iraq was created by Winston Churchill and his foreign office in 1924. With such a future looming it is little wonder that Prime Minister al-Maliki would wish to cement the legitimacy of his central government so publicly and with such force, even if that force is partly supplied by occupying forces.

Speaking for those troops, Tom Holloway, British military spokesman in Iraq, told Al Jazeera news that British forces had fired artillery rounds at those they had identified themselves as opposition fighters. And so it is, on the fifth anniversary of war, as millions of protesters around the world gathered to commemorate, to mourn and to demand the withdrawal of occupying troops, the British army was once again firing artillery rounds into the heart of Basra, exactly as it did when it besieged the city in March 2003. In five years neither the British nor US armies have progressed far. The question that now looms for Iraqis is, in another five years time, will there even be an Iraq to fight for?

Ben Norman is a British-born historian and freelance journalist.

Does South Ossetia mark the end of the Nation State?

2008-07-24T09:26:00.000-07:00

In an ill-advised attempt to bring separatist regions back into the Georgian fold, President Mikheil Saakashvili succeeded only in launching the first war to take place on European soil in over a decade. The effort to reintegrate the break away region of South Ossetia back under the control of Tbilisi has given the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, the perfect opportunity to broaden Russia’s direct sphere of influrecne whilst directly challenging American and NATO control of the region for the first time since the fall of the USSR.

The ‘six-day war’ as it has inevitably become known on the media networks not only shows a hangover from the breakdown of the USSR, it not only demonstrates the resurging powers of Medvedev and Putin’s Russian Federation, it not only shows the havoc that American and NATO power politics can play in a region, it also highlights a growing trend across Europe and the World of the continuing breakdown of the traditional nation state model.

Eric Hobsbawnm explains the decline of the traditional nation state model in his text, ‘Globalisation, Democracy and Terrorism’ published in 2007. Hobsbawm argues that there are a couple of key elements that maintain the traditional nation state structure. The first is the assumption that the state has the most powerful effect on the lives of its citizens. With the rise in international mass media, global communication systems and multi-national corporations that stray outside of the law, this is no longer the case. An Australian media tycoon sitting in an office in New York now has more of a sway over British public opinion then the current residents of Downing Street. The second key principle is that the state has the monopoly over the military and all matters of defence; again this is no longer the case. At the time of writing there are over 30,000 military contractors operating in Iraq, vastly dwarfing the current military contribution of Britain and many of America’s allies. For the first time since the birth of the new model army the Generals of the coalition are fighting a privatised war. What does all this mean for the nation states of Europe?

Well with the erosion of these elements the current border of Europe shall likely erode with them. We are slowly seeing a growth in regional nationalism, such as in Scotland, Wales, the Basque country and other small enclaves of the continent. With the recent declaration of Kosovan independence we are also witnessing the rise of small nations that define themselves via ethnicity and race rather then geography. The result of this process is likely to be further devolution across Europe meaning a surge of power to local governments. Potentially we may well see a rise in the Ancient Greek and Italian model of city-states, but this is merely speculation. I believe that simultaneously to this increase in local government and regional nationalism we shall also witness the growth of the European Union, an organisation that will coordinate trade, and matters of foreign policy and defence.

The single most important feature of the rise of this Union is that it will become the first ‘nation’, to use the term loosely, to arise through negotiation and diplomacy rather then through war, suppression and occupation. Such a Union, with such a starting point would have a hugely beneficial role to play in a world dominated by an aging America and a growing China and India. Of course, much of this is speculation and optimism but if recent historical trends continue this may be a very potential future for the nations of Europe. Another example, away from the battlegrounds of Eastern Europe, or indeed the regional nationalism of Western Europe, is Iraq. Many would argue that the very recent history of Iraq makes it a poor example to demonstrate the decline of nation states, however when its history and sociological makeup is considered in full Iraq becomes the shape of things to come for the Middle East.

The propaganda that stems from the central Iraqi government of Nuri-al Maliki and Coalition forces that Baghdad is in control of the country is just that, propaganda. In reality, as Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn report, the government is isolated to the ‘green zone’, a modern day forbidden city unable to bring law or order to the rougher areas of Baghdad such as Sadr city. This applies across the country, be it in the Sunni triangle, the Shia dominated south or the Kurdish north. Iraq has become divided between tribal, ethnic, religious and political groups. The Government’s inability to bring about centralised power was demonstrated in recent clashes between the Iraqi army and the Mehdi army of Shia Cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr whose militia control much of Basra and Najaf. On top of this the Turkish military continue to incur into the Kurdish north to attack PKK fighters, the British forces are still stationed in Basra airport, American troops continue to occupy the Sunni heartland whilst Iranian and Syrian backed groups gain ground in the border areas.

As it stands Iraq is not running as a nation state but rather as a series of ‘spheres of influence’, a return to that cold war phrase. Whilst this situation seems almost irredeemable it must be considered that this isn’t a new development, indeed it is a return to how this territory used to be governed before the First World War. Before 1914 much of the Middle East was enveloped into the Ottoman Empire, an empire administered by outposts in areas of tribal and ethnic significance. It was only after the allies carved up the Middle East and created Iraq in 1924 that the territory became centrally ruled in Baghdad. This has been maintained by brutal suppression of regional nationalism ethnic groups, firstly by British occupation forces, then by forces of the newly appointed Kings of Iraq, they were in turn followed by the Baath party of a al-Bakr and Saddam Hussein and now the role is filled by coalition forces.

Now look at the wider Middle Eastern picture, which shows that the decline of the nation state is not simply isolated to Iraq. In Lebanon, two decades after the vicious civil war fighting has once again erupted on the streets of Beruit and Tripoli as government forces attempt to defend against a growing Hizbollah force in the South. Across the border we can witness the Gordian knot of International politics in the shape of Israel and Palestine. These ‘states’ have struggled to define themselves throughout the last sixty years and with the continued construction of settlements in the West Bank, with Hamas now ruling Gaza and with the partition wall dissecting Palestinian land it seems unlikely that a viable Palestinian state will emerge in the near future.

The nation state model has never fared well in the Middle East but now it seems new models are slowly emerging. One final example, this time from across the Atlantic is the Bolivarian revolution taking place in Venezuela and Bolivia. Presidents Hugo Chavez and Eva Morales are continuing to inspire and export pan-Latin Americanism across the continent. Whilst this project has hit various setbacks, with attempted coups and failed referendums the revolution is continuing to surge forward with its declared objective of creating one vast Latin American alliance. How now do I end this growing list of generalisations and loaded assumptions? Well as with all of my articles I feel obliged to mention George Orwell somewhere, and here he is. In 1984 Orwell created three super states, Ocearnia, Eurasia and Eastasia.

These states held sway over most of globe and remained in perpetual conflict over the remaining border areas. Whilst I am going to avoid the cliché of suggesting that Orwell was right, his work did hit upon one key historical trend, that being the slow rise of the superpowers. Whilst this book is rooted in the Cold War the emerging powers of the USA and the USSR it provides us with a potential future reality. That being the rise of large supers nations or power blocks that rely on a loose federation of small, regional states.

At the thought of a united European Union or federation which stretches from Belfast to Istanbul or Warsaw, many may scoff and wave such suggestions away, but ponder this. At the time of William Wallace and Edward Longshanks the battling Scottish tribes would never have dreamt of uniting as one Scottish nation. In 1776 that nation state of Scotland would have thought it inconceivable to form a Union with their old enemy England. Indeed such examples can be found across the continent, is it therefore such a leap of imagination to imagine that in ten or twenty years a flag of Europe will replace the Union flag flying over London? I suspect not.

9/11 Conspiracies: A cultural phenomenon

2008-07-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

It’s a slippery thing truth. Even at the best of times journalists and historians both grapple and struggle with the term by wading through political interpretations and spin. How will historians of the future be able to judge the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Will they even refer to it as “invasion” and “occupation” or will they fall to the more official lexicon of “liberation”, “regime change” and the moniker “Operation Iraqi Freedom”? Will they look back and see the toppling of a tyrannical dictator? Will they draw parallels between Saddam Hussein and Hitler, or will they see the most powerful armed force on earth humbled by an insurgence of ex-soldiers, civilians and foreign militants thus drawing comparisons with Vietnam? It is, of course, entirely likely that they shall record both and both shall contain elements of truth. However historians choose to portray the events post-march 2003 they shall have an easier task of finding the absolute truth then they shall when analysing another history defining event of this era, an event with a plethora of interpretations from the logical to the obscene, the terrorist attacks on New York city on September the 11th 2001.

It is not my intention to join the choir of voices who cry out conspiracy, yet I believe that these people and their theories represent a cultural phenomenon, even if they contain not a modicum of truth. First off let us look at what we do know to have happened. On the 11th of September 2001, two American Airline planes crashed into the World Trade Centre towers. This constituted the most destructive attack on American soil since Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in 1941. Over 3000 people were murdered by the twelve hi-jackers and as the towers crashed to the ground footage was instantly beamed to a shocked and appalled audience across the globe. Effectively this is where consensus on the event ends. In fact there are many who do not believe the hi-jackers were the cause of the carnage, but played mere bit part roles in a far wider conspiracy. As I’ve said, I do not aim to analyse the events that took place that day, instead I wish to look at the fact that so many conspiracies exist, and why.

Conspiracy theories are of course not a new development and are not unique to 9/11. Perhaps the most famous set of conspiracy theories spawned from the assassination of President John F Kennedy in Dallas Texas, a conspiracy given impetus by the subsequent murder of assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, whose own murderer also killed my unnamed gunmen. The integral difference between the two events is the rapid development in methods of mass, global communication, such as the internet, a modern phenomenon which has been given a huge boost to conspiracy theorist across the world. These developments have served to decentralise political analysis meaning that anyone with access to an internet connection can formulate their personal theories and form part of an ever growing digital sub-culture.

There are, at the very lest, around fifty mainstream conspiracy theories, born from groups such as “the 9/11 truth movement”, or “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth”. These theories are as broad and diverse as the groups themselves, yet each share a few common characteristics. Some are based simply on smaller details, yet agree with the mainstream narrative. For example the theory that the plan which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, allegedly en route to the White House, was in fact shot down by the Air Force. Evidence for this is based on an understanding of conventional military practise and a faux pas made by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference. Other theories, which are more complex, look at the bigger picture and claim that the collapse of the towers was the result of series of controlled explosions. Such theories often look at the “other” building, World Trade Centre Seven, which also collapsed that day but was over shadowed by the carnage wrecked by its larger brethren. The theorists observe that no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire, yet WTC7 seemed to suddenly crumple after being ablaze for a mere eight hours. These theorists receive a sheen of legitimacy when supported by numerous engineers and architects who debate such things as the strength of heated steel. Other, multifaceted theories suggest that security systems were deliberately closed down, that fighter jets were intentionally scrambled in the wrong direction, that fire alarm systems within the towers were switched off, that a circling military plane was remotely controlling the doomed airliners, that fire crews were already loitering in the area prior to the attack, that CIA men in suits were swiftly combing through the rubble to secret documents and that pieces of air craft that crashed into the Pentagon were in fact planted, as the attack was not carried out by an airliners but a much smaller drone or a missile. Whilst these are some of the hotly contested conspiracy details, theorists also point to the owner of the towers, Larry Silverstein, a long term friend and political ally of the Bush family. Mr Silverstien had, they allege, recently taken out an insurance policy which covered the centre from disasters and terrorist attacks to the tune of up to three billion dollars. Indeed Mr Silverstein has become a central figure in most of the theories, some of which betray sinister anti-Semitic undertones, as theorists point to his political connections and the fact that the World Trade Centre was an economic liability, swiftly loosing Silverstein and his associates money. In a Television interview Silverstein comments that he made the decision to “pull it”, when asked about the WTC7 skyscraper, a comment widely seen as an acknowledgement of controlled explosions, but could of course just as likely mean suspending the fire fighting operation, which is exactly what did happen and is exactly what Silvertein later sought to clarify.

Each of these theories form a "J’accuse" towards the administration of George.W.Bush, and claim that his government either displayed negligence bordering on criminal, or carried out the operation covertly as a “false flag”, to rally patriotic support, to pass restrictive legislation such as the Patriot Act, and to instil enough fear in the American people so as to support an expansionist, Imperial and aggressive foreign policy. These theories will have you believe that the Neo-Conservative administration had spent their years prior to electoral victory concocting one of the most audacious conspiracies in history with the explicit aim of destroying America’s cultural symbols of economic dominance and murdering thousands of Americans. The more outlandish theories, which abound not only around the internet but in published books as well as in political and religious sermons, contest that the terrorist attacks were not only an inside job by the American government but are in fact a precursor to the rise of “a new world order”, a united global government which aims to take over the world for the benefit of a elite cabal of related families. Even further along the spectrum are theories which truly test the ability to keep a straight face, such as the short lived account, which was popular among American Christian Evangelists, that images of demons, devils, and even Satan himself could be seem rising from the smoke of the collapsing towers. Along with these apocalyptic visions we have also witnessed a resurgence of 19th century Anti-Semitism as claims rose that Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence service, coordinated the attack to drag America into the Middle East. This ridiculous and blatantly racist theory, which also claims that the 4000 Jewish employees at the towers were told not to go to work that day, was briefly touted by Hezbollah as a black propaganda campaign against Israel and is a common theme of far-Right groups both in the States and across Europe as they huddle around their crumbing ideology clutching their copies of “The protocol of the Elders of Zion.”

Before coming to my conclusions surrounding these theories we must consider the facts surrounded events before, during and after the attack so as to understand the rationale and reason for the theories. Firstly, 9/11 was the largest attack on American soil since the Oklahoma bombing and the first attack from abroad since Pearl Harbour. Secondly, following the attack the Bush administration did indeed utilise it for political gain, by pushing thorough legislation which greatly inhibits civil liberties whilst denouncing any dissent as unpatriotic. At the same time the American administration, and her foreign allies have launched an aggressive foreign policy in Afghanistan, and Iraq whilst also helping wage proxy wars in Lebanon, Somalia and Latin America. Indeed Karl Rove, President Bush’s equivalent to Aliaster Campbell, privately declared that “we are an empire now.” It is perhaps a personal cliché to describe such a political culture as Orwellian. I believe it is safe to say that if Mr Orwell were with us today he would, between long drags of a cigarette, bemoan the fact that he told us this was coming. My analysis of these theories has reached the following conclusions. Firstly as far ranging, as controversial, as convincing, as tenuous or as obscene as these theories appear they all share a few common traits. Primairly it must be recognised that production of these theories means that the American and international public refuse to believe a word from which originates from the American Establishment. They reject the official findings of the “9/11 Commission”, they reject the explanations, the reasoning and at times the overwhelming evidence that figures both within and without the government have presented. Indeed any one who has put forward evidence with deviates from the theories or collaborates with the official narrative is swiftly denounced as a member of the conspiracy, even if they are as far removed from the inner cabal of power hungry oligarchs as can be imagined. Indeed it is quite obvious that, as Richard Clarke quite rightly states, the problem with Government is that it is almost impossible to keep anything secret, there are always leaks. This is especially true if, as the theorists claim, literally thousands of people have been involved in orchestrating the attack. Put simply, someone would have talked. It is of course quite understandable that in this age of multi-media propaganda, spin, information manipulation and political word play that the public should not accept the word of the politicians or the establishment at face value. We in Britain clearly learnt this lesson from the infamously “sexed-up”, “dodgy dossier” which made the case for War prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, claiming that Iraq weapons could hit British interests in Cyprus in under 45 minutes. The American public should also have learnt this when Colin Powel made his case to the United Nations to “prove” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which were transported across the desert in large, bespoke trucks. All this of course was purely fantasy, pure spin, pure Hollywood. We live in an age when civilian death is given the clinical name of “collateral damage”. This has of course led to an increased disillusionment from the politicians and governments and, in the case of the conspirators, has formed into a culture of political nihilism, and a belief that something more sinister must be going on, that there must be a hidden agenda, a secret angle. The second, and most overwhelming similarity is the point blank refusal to believe that Al Queda were responsible for the attacks, or at the very least acted without the aid of sinister forces within the United States. This is of course curious as Al-queda claimed responsibility for the attack almost immediately, and have constantly repeated this claim throughout the past seven years. Again, what do we know which is factual? Well we know that by 2001 the organisation was the most obvious threat to American and European interests. Al-queda operatives, or sympathises, bombed the USS Cole, blew up the American embassy in Kenya, and had attempted to destroy the World Trade Centre with a car bomb in 1993. Indeed President Clinton had attacked Al-queda bases in Sudan, thus forcing the group to flee to the Taliban protected mountains of Afghanistan. This much, we can safely suggest, is historical fact. Those of us who know our current affairs will tell you that Al queda, which translates as “the base”, was simply the name of Osama Bin Laden’s ranch in Kandahr, a financial base of operations where Bin Laden could coordinate his Afghan based mujahadeen whilst bank rolling any potential projects, thereby ensuring that any independent group which achieved its goals could be claimed to be doing so under the banner of Al Queda merely because Bin Laden and his cohorts funded them. In turn this achieved a wide, yet informal network of terror which has subsequently been reasonable for bombings in Bali, Madrid, London and Istanbul. Those of us who know our history will also tell you that Bin Laden and his fighters were funded and equipped by the CIA and MI6 in the 1980’s to fight the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, to create a “Russian Vietnam”, a venture which succeeded and made the end of the Cold War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union arrive that much faster. As ever, truth is far stranger, and far more dangerous then fiction. I am satisfied that these are the facts that we know to be true, yet the most prolific line throughout all of the conspiracy theories is that, as one member of the 9/11 truth movement stated, “those twelve men were armed only with Stanley knives and a basic knowledge of flying. Their efforts were coordinated by a man in a cave in Afghanistan, that is simply impossible. That is the most far fetched lie of 9/11, they could not have pulled this off.” This is the core line that almost all of the conspiracy theorists chant in chorus, the idea that such a relatively simply, if audacious act, could have been carried out against the most hi-tech, security conscious super power on earth. Americans are taught, though education and though agents of socialisation, such as the mass media, that the United States is an impregnable fortress, that the country exists in glorious isolation, that from its safe position the United States is free and able to pontificate and police the world and crucially, they are made to understand that this is only one-way-traffic. Policies and principles are exported abroad, sometimes via the tank and the bayonet, but they are never imported, and they shall never be imported through violence. America exists in a culture which is based entirely around the principle of global hegemony. The idea that twelve men could have carried out an attack of this magnitude, and with such hideous success, seriously erodes this myth. Clearly the people of the United States of America live in just as much danger of being attacked as anyone who lives in London, Madrid, Istanbul, Bali or for that matter any where else in the world. However seldom or unlikely such attacks may be their nationality gives them no automatic exemption. Yet their view of America and their ideas of cultural hegemony can not stomach this truth. Therefore one response is to come up with something far grander, they must place the blame at sinister forces within the country, as only forces that are American could possibly have the power, the intelligence and the technology to attack America. It is I suppose a sort of reverse nationalism, a belief that no foreigner could attack the super power, especially not twelve men from the fabled “third world” of the Middle East. This, I believe, is the overarching theme of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, a refusal to believe that the super power could be attacked with such ferocity and murderous intent. It is a cultural problem, not quite the “protective stupidity” which Orwell concocted for the populous of 1984, but instead it represents the product of decades of national hubris, of watching war ships sail to attack distant oceans, tanks and troops fighting upon distant shores and bombers flying over distant cites without once considering that such terror could possible come the other way. Eight years on this is the lesson which Americans must learn from that terrible day. The United States and her allies do not live in isolation but are as inextricably linked to the rest of the world as every other nation before it. If they can realise this, and can also realise that the foreign policy of government’s such that of Bush, Cheney et al only results in some very dangerous, and desperate enemies then perhaps, and only perhaps, we will see fewer bombers taking off, fewer young men being sent to secure the last days of ancient oil driven sunlight and America can once again take its place as a leader of progressive nations, working in tune and solidarity with everyone else.

Googling Orwell

2008-03-20T11:19:00.001-07:00

According to the adverts recently run by AOL, ’Orwell was wrong’. The internet has apparently ushered in an epoch where free speech is unrestricted like never before. Its global nature leaves governments powerless against it. We are told that at last ’The power is in the hands of the people’, so lets all calm down, soothe our fears and whilst we’re at it purchase AOL’s new Software (RRP $19.99, available in all good computer shops, and some rubbish ones.) Simultaneously with these adverts , Microsoft’s bi-spectacled billionaire boss Bill Gates stated that in his eyes Orwell’s dystopic vision ’didn’t come true, and I don't believe it will’, which is comforting coming from a man who last year had a net worth of $50 Billion dollars — more than the GNP of Chilli or Egypt and twice that of Guatemala. To say that Orwell was completely wrong and that 40 years after his death we’ve managed to create a society free of Orwellian terror is an exercise which at best is wishful thinking, At worst, it’s apathy induced naivety. To say that the internet is a safe haven for free speech and liberated from state interference is to forget the recent restrictions that China placed on Google searches, where typing the word ‘democracy’ can result in a one-way ticket to prison. An example of this is the case of “political subversive” Kong Youping who was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in 2003 for posting articles on the Internet calling for a reassessment of the 1989 pro-democracy movement. The Chinese government have been attempting to block and monitor internet users with varied success and how has Google responded to this? Did they cry out in the name of free speech? Did they use their great tool of communication to bypass the government and reach the people? No. Instead Google offered to create a new site, Google.cn which would be self regulating and thus pandered to a government which has been denounced by Amnesty International as being one of the worst human rights offenders. If any proof of the deplorable, wanton disregard for human right is needed look no further then a BBC report from April this year which claimed that prisoners were being selected for execution so that their organs could be harvested to sell for transplants.How can a company whose self proclaimed motto is “don’t be evil” actively cooperate with such a regime? The answer quite simply is profit. When Google was first founded by .com entrepreneurs Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 1998 it was a small operation which attempted to lay claim to the internet’s moral high ground. Today however Google is a multinational company which is valued on Wall Street at over $100bn, and generates annual profits of $2bn. In order to compete with internet arch-rivals Yahoo who have no such moral scruples, securing the Chinese market is a necessity and to do it Google seem willing to sell any of their moral pretences. Google spokesman Andrew McLaughlin stated that creating Google.cn is “the best thing for the principles we’re trying to uphold” and that the company was attempting to provide a “Meaningful disclosure” for Chinese users. The only disclosure that Google is providing for the internet users not only in China but across the globe is that the company is willing to place profits before principles. Human rights violations in China have been well documented and campaigned against by groups such as Amnesty for decades however it must be realised it is not only the far flung foreign governments which will use the internet in such a Machiavellian way. The same is true in the United States the home of AOL and Bill Gates who publicly rejoice at the freedom they claim the internet has bestowed upon the world. However it is in the United States where vast government owned computers sift though millions of e-mails searching for phrase which will result in some spotty teenager from Wyoming getting a knock on the door from the FBI. In 2003 John Mclean received a visit from the FBI Joint Terrorist task force for asking questions about the structure of Chesapeake Bay Bridge, questions which the FBI believed were of danger to national security. The sinister side of this incident is brought to light when it is realised that John Mclean is in fact 12 years old and was researching a school project. Not only was the Mclean household searched and computers analysed but the FBI also thought it wise to search the school which had the audacity to give out projects which threaten national security. It could be argued that China and the USA are unique cases. Chinese human rights violations are nothing new and the USA remains in the grip of post 9/11 paranoia. It must be remembered however that the Internet is global and any dangers it poses to users in America or China could also be posed closer to home. We may not have reached a big brother state just yet, but are we on cruising down the information super highway towards it? It would be wise not to heed optimistic claims that Orwell was wrong, It stands to reason that internet provider AOL and Microsoft Chief Gates are never going to throw their hands up in the air in dismay and regret shouting ‘look what we’ve created’, their far too busy profiting from it.

Not in my name

2008-03-20T11:18:00.000-07:00

From Iraq to Palestine, Occupation is a crime!” This was the rallying cry that brought together 200 people, both local and student to the recent Portsmouth anti-war rally. When the BBC turned up to interview those who braved the Pomponian weather the question they asked was the same question that I’d heard for weeks in the run up to the rally. Indeed it is the question I expect your thinking at this very moment. Why bother? Are 200 people in Guildhall walk on a drizzly Saturday afternoon really going to stop the war and bring home the troops? For that matter will the thousands who recently marched on London force the government to address climate change? I must answer the question with a thought of my own. What if we didn’t speak out? What would happen if we all fell silent, if we all decide to look away and busy ourselves with our own lives?By tradition students have a great legacy of being a voice at the forefront of social change, a voice capable of even toppling governments. During the 1960’s and 70’s students were internationally leading the charge against the War in Vietnam and flew the flag for the Campaign for Nuclear disarmament when the rest of the country was cowering at the fictitious threat of Nuclear Armageddon. In France student protests against the war in Algeria led to the fall of the Government of Charles De Gaulle and only last year students led nation wide riots against youth employment conditions and state racism. The International issues of today as well as those facing British students are just as significant as ever they were in the 60’s and 70’s. Not only are British troops engaged in War in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict is escalating to further far-flung corners of the world. Currently the War on Terror has claimed a death toll estimated at over 96,000 innocent civilians and that is before we even think of those killed on the forgotten fronts of the War in Palestine, Israel, Chechnya, Sudan and most recently Somalia. A border the war crossed unnoticed resulting in a further 27,000 refugees in another humanitarian disaster the West will ignore. In Britain we students have witnessed the rise of Top-up fees, plunging us further into student debt. In fact a government think tank has come to the conclusion that we, the current student generation, will take thirty years to rid ourselves of the financial ball and chain of student debt as the 2.2 Million students pay back the £14 Billion worth of student loans. Last month the department of education called on Vice Chancellors across the country to monitor “Asian looking students” for cases of “extremism”, Whilst In Portsmouth our student union has become a privatised Business venture. Surely all this cannot go unchallenged?It is not simply success that protest or the act of speaking out must be judged. In order provide an example let me refer to the work of Journalist Robert Fisk. In 2002 Fisk interviewed Amira Hass, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. Hass wrote that in 1944 her mother found herself on a train heading for the Polish concentration camps, one more victim of the Nazi persecution. However it was not the camps, nor was it the Nazis that her mother remembered most vividly. As Hass writes, “When the train pulled into a station my mother saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking.” It was the sight of these civilian women who silently watched the train go that her mother found the most disturbing. The reason for this is as the Holocaust museum in Washington DC states: “Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander”. If the German people, who lived in a Nazi state with its Gestapo secret police and its state controlled propaganda can be accused of guilt for staying silent during one of the worst atrocities in history then what does that say about us? This is an age when information is more readily available then ever before. With the Internet we have instant access to causes across the globe from murdered Columbian trade unionists, to the persecution of underground Chinese Christian or the humanitarian crisis in Palestine. Yet we choose not to use this powerful resource for anything other then Facebook, Myspace, E-bay or Amazon. We have the freedom of speech, the freedom to stand up without being shot down, the freedom to shout out without being locked up, yet many of us choose to say nothing. Obviously to claim that the current actions of any government or any army is directly comparable to the crimes of the Holocaust would be a distortion of historical fact. The Holocaust was a cold and calculating attempt to turn the industrial might of a nation in to a vast racial killing machine amounting to the greatest atrocity in European history. Yet the point remains. Indeed Holocaust Museums in Washington, Berlin, or Tel Aviv pledge “never again.” Never again must the world stay silent and allow such horror. And so we reach this, my final point. The theme of this magazine is identity, so who are we and perhaps more importantly who should we be? We are students and thus we are the educated. We have the power to think, to reason, to understand and to judge. Therefore we must also be the nations conscience. Ignorance and silence may go hand in hand, but to know and to be silent is an unacceptable crime. Therefore if we choose to become bystanders, if we choose to watch and choose to stay silent then we are also partly responsible, we become the guilty and then we are no better then those who stood on the rail side watching the doomed depart for the gas chambers. So stand up, be prepared to be counted for what you believe to be right and shout at the top of your voice: “Not in my name.”

Government plans for Student ID Cards

2008-03-20T11:08:00.002-07:00

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin (1759)

Imagine a country where it is compulsory to carry identity cards, a country where the police can stop and search at will and can hold suspects for ninety days without conviction. Imagine a country where the right to protest is abolished, where every aspect of one’s life is held on vast government databases, where the right to fair trial by jury is suspended and where suspects can legally “disappear”. In this country being presumed innocent is a lost luxury. This is not a description of Belarus, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or any other dark corner of a foreign field. It is not a nation on the infamous “axis of evil” or denounced by our politicians, for it is a vision of Britain. This Orwellian vision of the future is no longer confined to fiction, and it is not a wild prediction of the distant future it is the state of things to come in 2009. An official Home Office document, leaked to both the Conservative party and selected media, has revealed that the government are planning to use the student loan system to introduce the controversial identity card scheme as early as 2009, a scheme viewed by many as the greatest assault on our civil freedoms since the Second World War. The document states "We should issue ID cards to young people to assist them as they open their first bank account, take out a student loan, etc." This will mean that students applying for loans will be forced to hold identity cards, containing their biometric details and costing £100, if they wish to get basic levels of funding or even open a bank account. Whilst our welfare state has never been perfect it is abhorrent for individuals to have to sacrifice their liberty in order to participate in society.
The opposition have responded by denouncing these plans as a form of “blackmail.” Shadow immigration minister Damian Green called the plans "straightforward blackmail to bolster a failing policy". Green stated, "this is an outrageous plan. The government has seen its ID cards proposals stagger from shambles to shambles. They are clearly trying to introduce them by stealth." The National Union of Students have also been swift to speak out against these proposals, Vice President Ama Uzowuru stated that it is “extremely disappointing that the Government is planning to use students as guinea pigs for this scheme by forcing them to take on ID cards in order to apply for a loan.”

If the report, partly reproduced in the Guardian, is accurate then we are about to witness a creeping barrage upon our civil liberties, with students on the front line of this assault. The proposed timetable stands thus, later this year foreign nationals will be expected to carry identity cards whilst by 2009 it is expected that those “in positions of trust” shall be forced to carry them. By 2010 the government, using the student loans system, will be in a position to collect the biometric information of over two million young people. The wider population will then also be expected to apply for identity cards as they will be compulsory for Passport or driving license applications. As we toast to the end of 2010 and the rise of 2011 we shall also be toasting to the end of our freedom and the beginning or a new era, and if this timetable succeeds, we may not even notice.
We must not allow ourselves to sleep walk into a police state. We cherish living in the age of information, an age with technology that can provide levels of communication never before dreamt of. However, it is with these measures that we will wake up in an epoch of surveillance. No doubt we will hear the familiar cliché that “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to hear”; this argument of course magnificently misses a very dangerous point. For all of the faults of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s premierships they are not dictators. We do not yet live in a police state, but that is not to say we will not. Measures such as these, rushed in by opportunistic politicians and granted by a fearful public, lay the foundations for future governments to display unparalleled levels of tyranny. Imagine a Britain where a BNP government had these powers. Today they come for those you fear; tomorrow they may come for you.
We are the generation who allowed top-up fees, we are the generation who watched as our country entered an illegal war and now we are the generation who chooses to look the other way as we are striped of the liberties and our freedom. We are students, we are education, we are the future and we are on the frontlines of this assault and so it falls upon us to make a stand. Let us not throw away our freedom or forsake our liberty, let us be the generation who reclaims what is rightfully ours.

Farewell Fidel

2008-03-20T11:08:00.001-07:00

Farewell Fidel

“Men do not shape destiny, destiny produces the men of the hour.” Imbued with revolutionary fervour and a strong sense of both history and purpose Fidel Castro wrote these words about his old comrade Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Throughout the nineteen fifties and sixties revolutionary passion ran high across Latin America and the third world. It seemed that history had chosen its moment and in return destiny had chosen the men for the hour. Che, the name has become synonymous with youthful rebellion, a syllable for revolution. His face is guaranteed to appear, like a modern messiah, at most left wing protests since he became martyred to the cause in the Bolivian jungle. Of course if you don’t see his face on a placard or poster its advisable to look at hats, wallets, handbags, T-shirts, calendars, clocks or just about anything else in the ever growing “revolutionary industry”, where you can buy off the shelf ideals and a revolutionary image for a couple of dollars. There are times when you cannot help but be impressed with how capitalism has taken a man who spent years of his life locked in the bitter struggle of jungle warfare against imperialism, a man who paid the ultimate price for his ideas, how capitalism can take such a man and turn everything he stood for on its head by selling his image to an lethargic mass who largely know nothing of his struggle. Whilst Che may have this cult status, his comrade and commander Fidel Castro, who is largely responsible for nurturing this image, has not enjoyed such iconic status even though his mark upon history has, for better or worse, been far more significant.

This week Castro, who at the time of writing is the longest serving ruler of a nation, has formally resigned from his position of chair of the Cuban Communist party, relinquishing power to his brother Raul Castro. Raul is Fidel’s long serving second in command and it is widely believed that he will be ratified by party election on Sunday the 24th February. Fidel Castro has been a controversial figure on the international stage ever since his small force landed in Cuba in 1956 to begin the guerrilla war which would end with the fall of the corrupt, and American backed, Batista regime in 1959. There has always been an inescapable romanticism associated with the Cuban revolution, forgetting for a moment the fact that they became the poster boys of radicalism, the Cuban revolutionaries carved for themselves one of the defining moments of the twentieth century. After the revolution and the American government’s swift excommunication Cuba became allied with the Soviet Union and the small Caribbean island played a pivotal role in the Cold War, both in terms of strategic position and by exporting the revolution to African and Latin America.
When considering how Cuba has developed since the revolution it is crucial to remember that the Island does not exist in a vacuum, like everything else it is affected by the factors that surround it, namely a hostile superpower to the north and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 Cuba has suffered a full embargo by the USA meaning that nothing can be imported, or exported between Cuba and the USA, which until recently included US Dollars. This embargo, when linked to the 638 assassination attempts on Castro and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion has resulted in Cuba existing in a perpetual state of war in true siege mentality for the past fifty years. The fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the USSR the Cuban economy was effectively propped up by sugar exports to Russia, the lack of which resulted in a further slump into poverty for the people. From adversity comes ingenuity, to prevent the people from starvation the Castro regime has embraced the ideas of perma-culture, turning every garden and every ex- colonial estate into allotments, Havana is now the only self reliant city, which can entirely feed itself. This of course may be more due to necessity then leading by green example, but it’s impressive none the less.

Now that he has stepped down the question remains, how will history judge Fidel Castro? His exiled opponents in Miami denounce him as a tyrant pointing to the one party state of Cuba, the lack of full democratic rights and the number of political prisoners. His allies, namely on the international left but who have included Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the writer Ernest Hemmingway, and film maker Oliver stone will argue that he is a solider of ideals, a much needed dissenting voice in a world of western hubris. Whilst the revolution and the Cold war past of Cuba may be lionised by the left even Castro has acknowledged that times have changed. Castro is a personified image of the Cold War; he heralds from an era of rival superpowers and an epoch of espionage, indeed he survived 638 assassination attempts by the CIA. However, he also represented an age of hope and it is vital for the people of Cuba, and indeed Latin America as a whole that whatever the future may hold the hope that Castro and his comrades inspired is not extinguished.

As an aside: Good luck to all candidates standing in the UPSU elections this year! If your not standing make sure you vote, its your Union and its your time to choose who and how its run!

Tibet: The Shame of China

2008-03-13T04:02:00.000-07:00

The past two weeks have witnessed violence in Tibet as protestors mount the greatest challenge to Chinese authority in the past twenty years. Whilst the Chinese authorities have strived to crackdown on outside media reporting, partly by refusing foreign journalists into Tibet whilst simultaneously maintaining a stranglehold on reports being broadcast from the state media. This issue is, like so many others in the modern world of international relations, an issue of propaganda, of rhetoric being kept distant from reality as various factions use the protests to extend their own political agenda. It is therefore difficult to get an accurate picture of events on the ground, according to the BBC correspondent in the region “China has said that 19 people were killed in the Lhasa riots, which later spread to other Tibetan areas. “ However, Tibetan exiles say that nearly 100 have been killed by the Chinese security forces.” Pictures of angry mobs have been shown on screens across China, as have pictures of captured Tibetan “agitators” made to confess on air. Alternatively pictures of severe crackdowns and a strong military presence have been leaking out of isolated province.

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, who has visited both China and Tibet during the crisis, has called on the world community to denounce Chinese actions as thousands of troops are deployed to the region in a crack down on Tibetan dissidents. She called the crisis "a challenge to the conscience of the world" claiming that if the West failed to act, failed to challenge China’s action in Tibet then it would loose all remaining moral authority on any issue concerning Human rights.

The situation in Tibet is an issue which had long fallen off of the radar of those on the left, those campaigners who march for Palestine, march for Iraq, march to pre-empt military action against Iran. It has been the forgotten oppression, ignored by the Western world and denied by Chinese state media. It is back on the agenda because this year the world is looking towards Beijing, as Beijing have the honour of hosting the worlds pinnacle sporting event, the Olympic Games. Chinese authorities have denounced the riots as work of the “Dalai Clique” accusing the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile of agitating the protests in order to disrupt the upcoming Olympics so as to promote Tibetan independence. The Dalai Lama denies this, offering dialogue with Beijing and stating quite clearly that he is calling for autonomy not independence. There is no doubt that these protests will cause great embarrassment for the Government in Beijing, especially as it comes only a fortnight after Director Steven Spielberg publicly resigned from his position as Olympic ambassador over his concern about Chinese links to the genocide in Sudan.

Historically of course the International Olympic committee have shown scant regard for any human rights issues. In 1936 both the Olympic and the Winter Olympic games were awarded to and hosted by Hitler’s Germany. In 1980 the games were held in Moscow, the capital of the then USSR. Both nations’ human rights record are well documented and are of course blood soaked marks on the twentieth century. We should therefore not be too surprised that the committee select a nation such as China in 2008. There are those who would argue that politics has no place in sport, that the Olympics reside in a vacuum an opportunity to ignore any real world suffering. If this is your view then perhaps it is worth considering why China, has been awarded such a prestigious sporting prize.

Whatever the reason for Tibet’s sudden resurgence into the world’s conscience it has not happened a moment too soon, the only question is whether it has happened a moment too late. It was over forty years ago, in 1951 that Mao’s Red army marched into Tibet to liberate or subjugate –depending on your point of view - the province. A brief period of resistance followed and in 1959 the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government fled to Northern India to form the Government in exile. For a time the West supported the Tibetan right to independence, Richard Nixon’s CIA funded and armed Tibetan resistance into the mid-70’s, until Nixon decided it was economically expedient to embrace China as a future ally. From the moment that Nixon and Mao first met and China’s rise to economic powerhouse began Tibet has been conveniently cast aside. Forgotten and betrayed by the world. In 2006 the Chinese government completed the construction of a 140 KM (710 mile), Rail link from the Chinese city of Golmud through the heart of Tibet. The government say that it will act as a permanent link to the rest of China and recently announced plans to extend the railway so as to completely dissect the Tibetan province. The Tibetan government in exile denounce the railway as “cultural genocide” arguing that the fragile culture of Tibet, fostered through generations of isolation will not be destroyed and Tibet will become completely assimilated into the Chinese heartland.

The question is, will the West Act? President Bush of the United States has already suggested that he will still be attending the games and that sport and politics should not be mixed. An interesting viewpoint when it is considered that his farther was part of the American government that boycotted the Soviet Olympics in 1980. The reason is of course, purely economics. The United States is the largest debited nation whilst China is the greatest Creditor. Billions of dollars flood into China each year as the nation becomes sweat shop to the world. One only has to look as the closest object to you and the chances are it will have made in China embossed on the side. China has also been working to create new markets in the third world. China is the largest exporter of African oil, Chinese money is propping up the economies of Zimbabwe and of Sudan. China is building hospitals and schools in the Caribbean and in Latin America. These are not kindly or altruistic acts, China are creating new markets to which to sell their goods, meaning that they will not be dependent on the Western world. The governments of the west know this; they know that the sun is setting on the monopoly of power enjoyed by the Atlantic nations for so long. The sun is rising in the Far East. So for China, Tibet is an internal matter and it is a damming indictment of the Western world that our governments seem to agree.

The State of Socialism 2008: The Battle against Nihilism

2007-12-26T11:16:00.000-08:00

When historians look back upon 2007 they will note another dark year for Socialism, another year of dashed optimism with defeats coming from without, and from within. Internationally American and British coalition forces continue to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst simultaneously an ideological offensive has been launched against Iran. Else where in the world millions have been made homeless by the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia whilst the world has once again turned a blind eye to the massacres of Darfour. In Latin America Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution which promised to sweep the victories of Venezuela across the continent has stalled when his constitution reforms were defeated by referendum, whilst in Bolivia President Eva Morales has to deal with three of the richest regions attempting to claim independence in protest at his reforms of the countries economy. It would seem an ideal time for Socialists to step onto this stage, to tell the world that there is an alternative. 2008 therefore must be the year that those of sound and progressive mind step into the breach and prove that an alternative world is not only a possibility, but can be made a reality. However, in order to do this we must first fight an ideological battle for our very survival. We must put down our ideological arms which we’ve all too often deployed against each other. The long history of left wing sectarianism is a history of treason and of blood and has all too often led to disaster. The call to unity is important, but it is an argument for another time, here I wish to deal with our second great battle, the battle which we must engage once we have our house in order, the battle against nihilism. George Orwell once wrote that a post-war Socialist was in the position of a doctor treating an all but hopeless case. "As a doctor, it is his duty to keep the patient alive, and therefore to assume that the patient has at least a chance of recovery. As a scientist, it is his duty to face the facts, and therefore to admit that the patient will probably die". Orwell wrote this following a long period of dissillousinment with the rise of Stalinism and the faliure of the Spainish revolution, at the time of writing the idealism of 1936 was seen as all but dead. Whilst this was written in 1947 it could just have easily been penned today. Since 1989 social commentators such as Francis Fukiyama have herralded “the end of history” and more specifically, "the death of ideology". The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Stalinist regimes of Eastern Europe, we are told, have demonstrated the moral bankruptcy of Socialism and the inevitable victory of western liberal capitalism. It is upon this ideological foundation that a nihilistic epoch of postmodernism has risen. Herbert Marcus, one of the most underrated political thinkers of our time, described this succinctly in his text "One Dimensional man". He argued, with clarity and reason, that modern capitalism has no interest in promoting an alternative system. Therefore all agents of socialisation and all methods of social conditioning, from the education system to the mass media, will present the idea that there is no alternative. Capitalism, we are told, has defeated all potential rivals and now stands as the pinnacle of human development. So where does this leave all those millions who are disillusioned with the system? French philosopher Jean Baudrillard argues that we have entered a nihilistic epoch where all those who oppose the system do not see anywhere to go, thus we have witnessed an emerging sub-culture of non belief, of fashiobable bohmenian postmodernism. To use anecdotal evidence, how many students on our campus’s attempt to display their non-conformity through their identity? How many attempt to show their seperatism from the mainstream but have not found a alternative system in which to believe? Thousands, potentially millions. Instead we see many of sound and progressive minsd turning to "off the shelf" non-conformity, outwardly wishing to display their rebellion without actualy doing anything about it. It is at this point that I must point out that nihilism is not apathy, but the two are inextricably intertwined. Apathy is defined as being indolent of mind. The supposed rise in apathy is seen as the curse of the left wing and the death cry of activism. It is however far too simplistic for us to throw up our hands and cry that people no longer care. It is true that mass consumerism has grown to gargantuan sizes and envelops people in a comforting, distracting and apathetic embrace. It may be a generalisation but many people are too caught up on the consumerist treadmill to care for trade union fights in Columbia, ethnic tensions in the Sudan or sectarian fighting in Iraq. However, this is not to say that people are apathetic, merely that they do not see these struggles as being relevant to their lives. Anecdotally I stand assured that if you were to talk to any student, and students are the litmus test for wider society, they will find an issue with which they are unhappy. It may be high fees, or anyone of a myriad of issues, the real problem is that they do not believe anything can be done. This isn’t apathy, this is nihilism. People need to believe that their problems can be addressed, and that they can be made the solution to their problem. This is the task of the Socialist in 2008, to prove that Socialism is a real and relevant answer to the real and relevant problems of the people. Whilst the rise of post-modernism and nihilism has severe implications for socialism, socialism has not merely been a passive observer but has under gone quite a transformation from the socialism that Orwell lamented the terminal illness of in 1947. The rise in postmodernism has been a blessing and a curse for Socialism in the 21st century. Post-modernism announces the death of truth and the death of absolute knowledge, with the sound and true argument that all beliefs we hold, and all ideals we strive for are socially constructs and are thus fallible and should be challenged. This links arms with socialist ideas of false consciousness, and of social conditioning, but if you live by the sword you can die by the sword. Just as the post-modernists deconstruct capitalist ideals and values they can and will deconstruct and challenge socialist and other humanist values. This has led to, amongst other things, the ideological quagmire of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is, simply put, the argument that different cultures develop with different norms, different values and therefore different practise. Each of these norms and values are socially constructed by that society. In this era where absolute truths are considered taboo cultural relativism means that it is morally wrong, or even racist for one society to impose its belief system upon another. This would appear a fair and reasonable stance to take, on paper. To see this in reality, let us look briefly at the case studies of Iran. When considering Iran, many good socialists have argued with conviction and good intention that it is racist for us in the west to impose our ideals of human rights, of democracy, and of freedom on the Islamic republic of Iran. These ideals have been conditioned into us; they have been born out of western history, a history of Christianity and of capitalism. Iran is a country which observes strict tyrannical laws which most Islamic nations decry as being unjust. In Iran academic freedom is restricted, freedom of speech is all but a myth, and women can be stoned to death for having sex before marriage, and that includes rape. Some on the left feel the need to defend this regime, and in this age of illegal invasion and growing domestic Islamaphobia it is somewhat harsh to blame them. Ultimately it comes down to this, either you are for the stoning of women or you are not. Indeed Socialism should not be an ideology which can be bended when it is most politically expedient to do so. Universal human rights must be by their very definition must be Universal and they must be a core tenet of Socialism. Courageous men and women died to secure those rights for us and it would be abhorrent, and indeed racist, for us to deny those same rights to the people of Iran because it was not politically fashionable for us to do so. Clearly this does not mean Socialists should support an invasion of Iran in the name of regime change. You can not save the people if you are attacking them with tanks and tomahawk missiles. Instead it means we should stand in solidarity with those who are attempting to evoke change internally, the trade unionists, the Iranian socialist party, Iranian feminists and other allies we have forsaken for too long. Post-modernism and nihilism are not just ideological arguments confined to paper, the battle fields are not just those drawn up in text books, the skirmishes are not confined to journals and the salvos are not just fired from speeches from the podium, we are witnessing this in the minds of the people and its repercussions on the streets of our country. In 2003 millions of people marched on the streets of London to voice their frustration, to show their rage to a government willing to commit the country to an illegal war by lying to the very people it is supposed to represent. The people were angry the people marched, the people chanted, the people shouted, then, largely the people went home. They took their anger and they took their political disillusionment back to their desk jobs, back to their suburban lives, back to their Students’ Unions and back to their council houses. This must rank as one of the greatest missed opportunities in the history of Socialism. Thanks to our sectarian infighting, thanks to our party agendas, thanks to our very choice of language we largely failed to put Socialism on the national agenda, or in the national consciousness as a real and workable alternative to capitalism. This is of course not to say that the left achieved nothing. The Stop the War coalition, created after the invasion has continued its efforts to voice the protests of the people by organising a plethora of protests, and a myriad of marches across the country. We have also seen the rise of the Respect party, a self proclaimed coalition party which, it must be noted, has achieved the largest left wing parliamentary voice since the communist party in its heyday. Indeed I have no doubt that the Iraq war has created an entirely new generation of peace activists, social justice campaigners, anti-capitalist activists and socialists but this may be due more to the horrors of war then effective recruitment on our part. Currently Socialism remains a set of ideals discussed in Student Unions, deconstructed in lecture theatres, nostalgically toasted in labour clubs or heard in fleeting whispers in trade union meetings. Simply put, we failed to seize the day and make Socialism appear relevant, appear real to real people. This is the challenge which faces us in 2008. To further demonstrate what we must do to turn this around look at two more events of 2007. Look at the anti-capitalist protests at the G8 summit in Germany, hundreds of thousands of people descended on the German town of Rostock to take a stand against the leaders of the capitalist system. To stand against the men who keep the third world in poverty, who launch wars and who perpetuate a system of inequality and injustice. The rest of us watched on our TV screens as the riot police moved in and as the tear gas canisters were launched to quash the protests. Consider also the various anti-fascist protests across the country in 2007, in London, in Burnley and in Oxford. All of these protests share the common trait of collective nihilism. It is not enough to be anti-war, to be anti-capitalist, or even to be anti-fascist. To stand against these abominable constructs is right, is just, is honourable but if we are to truly move forward and defeat them then we must start making it clear what we stand for. We must argue and we must win in order to prove that there is a real and workable alternative to a system which gives us fascism and war. As far as we can we must do it with one clear voice. This is not a tirade against Post-modernism, nor is it a reactionary diatribe to promote modernity. Postmodernism is clearly a relevant and necessary ideological perspective. In challenging all traditional notions of truth and absolute knowledge it calls to us to reaffirm our beliefs and to question why we hold them. Eight years into a new century it is of paramount importance that we heed this call. That said it is also important as Socialists that we acknowledge the proud tradition from which we have come. This is not simply a socialist tradition; socialism has a history that extends beyond the work of Lenin, of Trotsky, of Engles or indeed Marx. Socialism has heritage born out of the Enlightenment. We owe our ideals to all those who fought in the French revolution, the American war for independence, all those who wielded the sword of reason through the shroud of darkness. We must think of Thomas Paine, of Thomas Jefferson, of John Stuart Mills and other exponents of human rights, they may not have been socialists but it is there ideals upon which Socialism was born. Indeed when looking the other way Socialism did not end with the Russian revolution, we must look also to the heroes of Spain and other struggles across the globe, right up to now. We must place all of these ideals into their historical context, learn from them, adapt them to our own time and move forward with pride and strong convictions. For this is a heritage of ideals of absolute truths, and whilst we must welcome their discussion, and whilst we must encourage them to be challenged and whilst they can be built upon, we must not lose them to political fashion. For if we lose these ideals, if we lose these truths then we lose not only our identity but also our purpose. Socialism has developed from those noble ideas and quite rightly socialism will continue to develop. Post-modernism is a crucial stage of this development, but we must ensure that it is not the end of this development. We must make 2008 the year of change.2008 must be the time where we all stand together, where we end our sectarian infighting, and make socialism a real and relevant alternative not just in rhetoric, not just in the minds of the people, but in reality.

Turkish Troops amass on Iraqi Border as peace talks collapse

2007-12-16T04:00:00.000-08:00

Turkish troops are amassing on the border of northern Iraq in response to continued fighting between Turkish forces and the Kurdish resistance movement the PKK, in what looks set to be a dark development for Iraq, a country already suffering after four long years of war and occupation.
There are many journalists, historians, military men and government officials who would tell you that the end is in sight for the British presence in Iraq, that there is a light at the end of the tunnel in this dark conflict, and of course we are hearing that eternal lie, “it'll all be over by Christmas.” No doubt those aforementioned officials are preparing for a hollow victory which will be proclaimed as union flags are lowered, observed by tear filled eyes. No doubt the bagpipes will play as the British army finally leaves Iraq for the third time in the country's history. A historic moment this may be, I have no doubt that the spirit of Dunkirk will be revived once again in the right-wing jingoistic press. In reality “our boys” haven't experienced such defeat since the ignominious retreat from the Arabic emeritae of Aden in 1967. Whist this carefully stage managed military pageant is being prepared, and whilst British troops, war weary from the battle fields of Basrah, brace themselves for re-deployment into Afghanistan a new and bloody chapter in the Iraq war looks set to begin.
This week Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the failure of crisis talks between Turkish and Iraqi ministers, claiming that the Iraqi government had failed to crack down on PKK fighters. The PKK, Kurdish Workers Party, is a unique blend of Kurdish nationalism and revolutionary Marxist-Leninism, and their goal is to create an independent state of Kurdistan. Unfortunately no such state has even been recognised and the disputed territory lies in both southern Turkey and northern Iraq. The PKK has fought with both Turkey and Saddam Hussein's Iraq since 1984. The most recent border clash on the 21st October left twelve Turkish soldiers, and according to Turkish officials, thirty two rebels dead. At the time of writing there are fierce anti-PKK protests in Istanbul, Ankara and the Kurdish regions of Turkey, if ever the stage was set for a Turkish assault into northern Iraq, it is now.
I am a historian by training and it is the task of the historian to record history, not predict it so I don't intend to start now. However, there is a historical precedence for these events and this must be remembered if the implications of these developments are to be realised and tragedy prevented. Major General Benjamin Mixon, commander of American led coalition forces in northern Iraq, said that Iraq's three northern provinces were under the control of the Kurdish provincial government and that no orders had been given for his troops to intervene in the crisis. When questioned on what his troops planned to do, Mixon replied "absolutely nothing." This is not the first time Britain and America has stayed damningly silent as the bloody fate of the Kurds unfolds. After Kuwait was liberated at the end of the Gulf war in 1991 the coalition forces incited both Iraqis and Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein's Baath party. They rebelled, and held out expecting military assistance from the allies. They were betrayed. The promised military aid never arrived and the uprising was mercilessly crushed by Saddam's republican guard. Now, just as the Kurdish people are struggling in post-Saddam Iraq they are on the verge of more suffering, from another foreign army as Britain and America silently do, “absolutely nothing.”
The second worrying development is that because Coalition forces and Turkey's European neighbours have remained silent Turkish diplomats are meeting with their Iranian counterparts to find a solution. Iran, which has a strong interest in a weak Iraqi neighbour, has also been shelling PKK forces throughout the Summer. It is possible we are witnessing the first stage in a slow division of the new Iraqi state by its neighbours? The question which must be asked before British and American flags can be lowered is, whose flag will be raised in their place?

Together we must all shout, ¡No Pasarán!

2007-11-25T11:10:00.000-08:00

Fascist. This is a word with sinister connotations. To mention it musters images which represent the darkest side of humanity. It brings to mind the jackboot, the goosestep and the gas chamber. Fascism is an ideology of hate which reached its peak in the 1930’s and, through a war which cost over fifty million lives, faced its destruction in 1945. At its height fascist flags flew over Hitler’s Berlin , over Franco’s Madrid and over Mussolini’s Rome . It is popularly believed that fascism was a European phenomenon, with Britain ’s only involvement being in its destruction. However, on Sunday October 4th 1936 over 300,000 people of London’s East end rose up, stood fast and defeated the British Union of Fascists in what became known as the Battle of Cable street. On that Sunday afternoon, seventy one years ago, the east end working class locked arms and stood in solidarity with the local Jewish community and with Anti-facist protesters to stop Oswald Mosley's British Union of Facists from marching through the poorest areas London . Together they built barricades, formed a human wall and stood fast against the marching black shirts. The battle that followed marked the beginning of the end for main stream fasism in Britain. Simultaneously thousands of British volunteers had joined the international brigade to fight in the Spanish civil war against General Franco’s fascist forces. In solidarity to the freedom fighters battling in a war raging across Spain the anti-fascists of
Cable Streetcarried placards emblazoned with the slogan ¡No Pasarán!, “they shall not pass”. This was only three years before Britain stood together with other free nations to wage war against Hitler’s Nazi war machine. The British people, and indeed the British left, have a proud history of standing against facism and now the time has come when we must all stand together, not only to remember cable street but to fight fasicm once again.

Today the British National Party are the face of modern British facism and of modern British Nazism. The BNP attempts to present itself as being a party of the working class, a party of the people but in reality its stands on a manifesto of pure hatred and of racism. Their current leader is Nick Griffin, a man whose facist credentials are beyond doubt, due to his connection to the National front and other far right organisations. On Monday the 26th November 2007 Nick Giffin will speak, alongside Holocaust denier David Irving, at Oxford universities’ freedom of speech debate. Oxford have invtied Griffin and Irving to speak, arguing that freedom of speech should have no barrier. Indeed many have argued that the arguments of facism should be allowed open forum so that they can be discussed and defeated. There is no doubt that the ideology of facism must be discussed, it must be deconstructed and then it can be destroyed. However, this must be done in a objective and academic fashion, by giving a platform to Griffin, by facilitating his tirade of hatred, his views and those of all facists are given legitimacy. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, it is enchrined in the 1948 UN declaration of human rights, it is the keystone of democracy and it is the foundation upon which civilisation is built. Whilst this is true and I would argue this with passion and determination it is also true that one persons freedom ends when another persons beings. Therefore we all have the freedom to say what we believe to be true, we have the freedom to shout it from the rooftops if need be, but we do not have to right to abuse our rights to free speech in order to jepodise the freedom of others. By giving Griffin and Irving a platform Oxford University have decided to place at risk the freedom of all those people who Griffin hates and who his tirade of hate targets.

The fact that Griffin has been invited to speak at Oxford shows that the rules of the game have changed significantly since the dark age of the 1930’s. Whilst fascism has not changed as an ideology, the method of presenting it has changed dramatically. True the BNP do not openly publicise their Nazi roots and similarly the BNP is not as straight forward to identify as the National front of the 80’s and 90’s. Whilst their fascist beliefs remain the same, it is the method of presentation which has evolved. The BNP leaders of today are, publicly at least, not knuckle dragging and brick throwing skin heads, although these types exist sure enough and they continue to make up the rank and file of combat 18 and other neo-nazi groups including the BNP. Today’s BNP leaders are graduates of Cambridge and Oxford and so attempt to present a suited, smiling and electoraly acceptable face of fascism. Their style is more subtle and their messages are more complex but their hate and their lies remain the same. It may be intellectually lazy to constantly compare the BNP to Hitler’s Nazi party, however as Griffin claims that the roots of the BNP can be found in the fascism of the 1930’s it is worth pondering on the parallels. On Mein Kampf, Hitler’s own autobiography, Griffin states that “the chapter I most enjoyed was the one on propaganda and organisation - there were some really useful ideas there.” So whilst to the cameras Griffin attempts to distance the BNP from its nazi legacy, privately he looks back to the dark days of European fascism with nostalgia. Indeed Griffin admitted in an interview in 2006 that the Nazi era has given “fascism a bad name” yet still works tirelessly to defend dictatorships of Hitler, Franco and Mussolini. One example of this would be the fact that Griffin infamously denies the Holocaust. In an interview Griffin once stated that “it's well known that the chimneys from the gas chambers at Auschwitz are fake, built after the war ended.” This distortion of history, this attempt to forget the deaths of six million innocent people is reflected in the BNP’s core beliefs arguing, as they do in their manifesto, that denying the holocaust should be a priority of the British education system.

In December 2006 I travelled to the London borough of Barking and Dagenham to take part in an anti-fascist protest. Barking and Dagenham has become the centre of the BNP’s recent election success, having recently elected twelve BNP councillors. At this protest, which coincided with the first public BNP rally in London for years, I was able to see the true face of BNP voters and I began to understand why someone would vote for a fascist party. Barking and Dagenham is an area which has suffered from the post-industrial decline of Britain . There is unemployment, there is poverty and there is crime. This despair is coupled with a growing sense that the main political parties offer nothing to the real man on the street. Indeed the big three parties are now narrow reflections of each other, there polices differ marginally and it is true that they are now the parties of big business rather then parties of the people. In to this disillusioned and apathetic picture steps the BNP. They claim to be a party of the working class and they offer straight forward reasons and solutions based purely on lies and hatred. They target immigration, they demonise Islam, and they exploit base ideals of nationalism and race to rally around. The average BNP voter is not a Nazi, the average BNP voter is a person who feels let down by the main political parties and has been duped by despair into believing the lies and the hatred.

Once this is understood it must also be understood that we must work to win people back away from the hatred spewed by the BNP. Whilst it is crucial that we all come together, as those Londoners did seventy one years ago, to fight fascism in all its forms, it is simply not enough to stand up and shout about what you are against. Shouting “Auswitz no” or chanting “Nazis off our streets”, as we did at the protest at Barking, will only get us so far. In order to successfully destroy fascist ideology we must make it known what we are standing for, we must shout it from the rooftops and then we must stand face to face, toe to toe with every last racist, and with every last fascist so they know what they are fighting. We must stand up for multi-culturalism, for peace, for cooperation, for collectivism, and for a better world for all.

So, I will be travelling to Oxford on Monday to continue a proud tradition of standing up against the evil of fascism. Supporting us on that cold Oxford night will be the heroes of the British anti-fascist movement, the ghosts of
Cable Street, the memories of the international brigade, and all those who fought and died to defend us against Fascism. We must not, and I will not be going simply to shout in vain, or to perpetuate my own hatred against Nazism. I will be going to fight for the rights that Nick Griffin would deny and to show that whilst an alternative is needed in this world, that alternative is not to be found in the darkness of fascism.

Everybody calls everybody a spy.

2007-11-17T11:17:00.000-08:00

"Everybody calls everybody a spy. In Russia everybody is under surveillance. You never feel safe”

Agnes Smedley in the Soviet Union

There was a time when the connections between the shady world of espionage and the frankly more mundane academic world of university were few and far between. Occasionally some bi-speckled, Dickie-bow wearing type would get a tap on the shoulder in the corridors of Cambridge and without further ado he’d be signed up to MI6, or the KGB as was more often the case. This was the cold war, where as Smedley says in the above quote everyone was paranoid, everyone was under surveillance and everyone lived in fear of a nuclear apocalypse which was never going to come. The world has of course changed now. The Berlin wall is little more then a tourist attraction and the KGB have become those chaps with funny accents in old Bond films. We now live in a free society with the internet, mobile phones and satellite navigation… or do we?This month the department for Education drafted an 18 page document requesting university staff to “spy on Muslim or Asian looking” students and to immediately report any suspected “extremist” activity to special branch. It’s almost too obvious to point out how inherently and explicitly racist this initiative is, so why does the Government feel the need to turn our lectures into informants of the secret police? Could it be that the great terrorist threat we’ve been warned about has infiltrated our universities? I find it hard to picture an Al Queda-Taliban war meeting, in some bomb scarred cave with Osama informing his faithful few followers “fear not my friends, Kabul may have fallen to the infidel dogs but we now have an agent in Portsmouth Uni. Early indications show the infidels love of snakebite.” In reality this has more to do with what the government considers “extremist” What is really meant is the Government’s wish to keep an eye on any discussion that it deems undesirable. Unfortunately this is just the latest in a series of draconian restrictions of our freedom which the government have ushered in post-September 11.Imagine a country where the authority keeps the population under a closely scrutinised surveillance with a vast array of cameras and computers monitoring internet activity. Imagine a country which abolishes the right to protest and sets limits on the rights to free speech. Imagine a country where the police habitually shoot suspects before bothering to prove their guilt and have the power to hold suspects indefinitely casting aside the course of law. Where is this country? Is it Kim Jong-il’s totalitarian North Korea or is it a flashback to a Stalinist dictatorship run by an over zealous secret police? No. This is Britain today. Okay so perhaps that’s a little bit alarmist but its not unrealistic. Writer Henry Porter claims that “we’re about to become the most observed nation after North Korea” and he’s not wrong. Its an alarming fact that Basingstoke has more CCTV cameras then New York City, the largest city in America with a population of 8.2 million. New York is the city that gave the world little Italy with its godfather films and its Goodfellas. Basingstoke has just over 15,000 people and either their the most dangerous, heavily armed people outside Iraq or something isn’t right. If another disturbing example is needed look no further then Liverpool where the head of the local police force announced plans for unmanned spy drones to fly over British cites to combat “anti-social” behaviour in what the same police chief termed “a declaration of war”. So imagine next time you go out to Time & Envy and you find yourself having a sly paddle in Canoe Lake whilst you’re ambling back with your inebriated housemates or at least people who look vaguely like them. You could be being watched by the latest piece of US crafted military hardware as used on the Muhjadeen fighters of Afghanistan. It’s a sorry state of affairs when one of the nation’s highest ranking police officers declares war on the people he’s supposed to protect. So how did it get this way and what can we do to stop it? Every year since 2001 an Anti-Terrorist act has been passed and with every act that is passed our freedoms are slowly ebbed away. So far this had led to some bizarre court appearances such as the case of Neil Goodwin who appeared in court charged under the serious and organised crime act for doing an impression of Charlie Chaplin outside Parliament. Then there is the case of Stephen Jargo who was arrested for carrying a placard within 500 meters of Parliament square. Maybe you could argue that in order to defeat terrorism these restrictions of our civil liberties are a fair sacrifice, it’s for our own good isn’t it? Unfortunately the more sinister side of these new laws was seen in 2005 when John Charles De Menezes, an innocent Brazilian migrant was shot dead by police in Stockwell tube station. A fatal case of mistaken identity by a police force that shoots first and avoids questions later. De Menezes is just as much a victim of the War on terror as the bombed out refugees of Fallujah or the 3000 officer workers on September 11th. By creating a predominantly mythological network of terrorists, by labelling every act of dissent as “terrorism” and by denouncing anyone who dares to stand up in challenge as an “extremist” the powers that be hope to keep us afraid and keep us fearful. For a people living in fear are easier to control, easier to manipulate. So when the Bombs fall on Baghdad today or Tehran, Pyongyang or Caracas tomorrow we will cheer and when they strip us of our civil liberties we will be thankful and we will feel safe. As university students, as educated people it is our responsibility to constantly question and challenge the world around us. We must not be made to live in fear of one another. We must not be herded by panic into an age of unreason. Its time we woke up from our apathy, cast aside our fears and began to keep a watchful eye on the government, instead of letting them keep an eye on us.

For 90 Minutes We Were All Scottish

2007-11-17T11:12:00.000-08:00

I’m not a man who loves his nation, I’m not really patriotic, I don’t get teary eyed when I hear the national anthem, I don’t really care if Britannia rules the waves, and given the choice between living in a republic or under a royal family… well I’ll even clean the guillotine for you. I am of course one of those wishy-washy-johnny-foreigner-loving-liberals which the Daily mail loves to demonise. However even I was impressed when, for ninety minutes at least, we all became Scottish.

Allow me to explain, for as long as I’ve followed any British team in any sport I’ve recognised that we all secretly accept and long for failure. Why else would hordes of middle class half-wits spend days queuing to watch Tiger Tim at Wimbledon? We seem to have a mentality that as long as “we put up a good show” or show a “stiff-upper lip” then we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of. For the British, or perhaps I should say English, watching sport is like reliving the charge of the light brigade, or listening to the band playing and drinking tea as the Titanic goes down. Yes we’re going to lose but no we’re not going to let it get us down. I’ve long accepting that this is a key part of supporting a British side, I’m fine with that, in fact that’s usually why I end up supporting someone else. That said, even I was somewhat taken aback by what must be a new low in British sport, yesterdays European 2008 qualifiers.
Here’s the scenario, due to a fantastically pathetic performance in previous games England’s chances of qualifying rested on a match thousands of miles from our own shores between Israel and Russia. If Russia beat Israel then England stay at home, wouldn’t go to the tournament in Switzerland next year and we'd all be spared another year of build up and inevitable disappointment, probably at the hands of a penalty shootout. Simultaneously Scotland were playing World cup winners Italy, and could have gone through into the tournament for the first time in the memories of most fans. So, English fans were left with a dilemma. They could support another country, Israel against Russia, in the hope that they gift England a place at the ball or give up centuries of blind nationalistic aggression and support Scotland. For those Englishmen who have tattoos of Wayne Rooney, and think Churchill was a hero disliking the Scottish comes in just after hating the Germans and hating the French as a hobby. However, as Scotland were the only team who looked like going to the tournament they ceased to be Scottish and all of a sudden we believed they were British we invited them into the fold, we joined the tartan army and suddenly we’re all in it together.
To me this just all goes to show how bizarre, and ultimately pointless nationalism truly is. Let us make this clear, by nationalism I mean defining who you are by working out who you aren’t. For example the English know they are English because they know they aren’t French. The French on the other hand know who they are because they are quite sure they aren’t German. Since the creation of nation states we’ve been encouraged to define ourselves this way. The fact that we can chop and change this to suddenly be English if we’re playing Scotland, British if we’re playing Italy, or European if we’re playing America shows what nonsense it all is. George Orwell once wrote that international football was “like war without the guns” and this is how we are encouraged to view it. This tends to be why when it comes to international sport I don't start flying the flag of nationalistic convienance. International sport should be viewed as a vast showcase for the worlds best talent, not simply another way to start dividing people.
Sadly Scotland lost whilst Israel were victorious so English fans resorted back to being English. So congratulations Italy, play up Israel and lets all enjoy the “must win” game for England on Monday... I’ve put the kettle on and I’m sure I can hear the band playing on.

Lest we forget, lest we remember.

2007-11-11T11:14:00.000-08:00

On the 11th hour, of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns of the western front fell silent, and so ended the most brutal conflict the world had yet witnessed with over eight million men left dead and forgotten. This weekend the queen will dutifully lay a wreath of poppies as the military bands play, the flags will be lowered and those who died to preserve and defend this pomp, this ceremony will be lionised for another year.
In the trenches of France, the landing fields of turkey, the great plaines of the Russian steppes and the deserts of the middle east the world sacrificed an entire generation on the alter of imperialism. The two main combatants, Germany and Britain lost 1,773,700 and 908,371 men respectively, and that’s before the crippled, the missing or those who would carry the scars of war internally for the rest of their lives are counted. These deaths are one of the great scandals of history, eight million men butchered and damned in the name of imperial greed. If we truly wish to remember their sacrifice then it is crucial that we understand the true reasons why they were sent to die. In the process we must abandon the glorious rhetoric, the war memorials and the marching bands whose only purpose is to camouflage mass murder under a cloak of jingoism.
Traditionally we are taught the rosy narrative of war, we’re taught of the stiff upper lip approach to the trenches, of the football matches at Christmas and of brave British “Tommys” doing their duty for King and Country. Believe this and believe that Britain was standing alone against Prussian militarism, defending plucky Belgium, bashing the heathen Turk and liberating the French, albeit with some late in the game assistance from the Americans. Here war is quaint, it’s a sport, and it’s an opportunity for glory. The true horror is lost amongst the poetic prose or metaphorically transformed into the rugger pitches of Eton. As always, the reality was very different.
When war broke out in 1914 the first British forces to be deployed were not into Belgium or northern France but into Iraq. The Dorset regiment was deployed into the Iraqi town of Basra to join fifty one other British military divisions, positioned in the desert to safeguard and defend the oilfields, needed to service the ever growing dreadnought fleet. Where is the Dorset regiment in the glorious narrative? Where are the troops deployed into Archangel and Vladivostok to fight and lose to Lenin’s Russian Bolsheviks? Where are the infamous black and tans, deployed to Ireland to savage the population into submission? These men, fought with the same steely conviction and courage as their comrades at Ypres or the Somme, it would simply be too difficult to remember them or the dark motivations of their paymasters.
This perhaps leads us to the greatest myth of the War, that it was inevitable. No war is inevitable, it is a human construct and it takes men, conscious of their actions to create the conditions and issue the orders. Soldiers don’t simply turn up to battlefields; war requires preparation, planning, cunning, and the deliberate intent to kill thousands. By suggesting that war, any war, is inevitable it takes responsibility away from those who should be held to account for their actions. A generation of men were led to the front by arrogant field marshals and posing monarchs to die for oil and imperial prestige. Forget the heroics, the glory, the jingoism or the played up patriotism, this is the true face of war. It is the face of suffering, of pain and of death. For soldiers and civilians alike War is about choking to death as lungs disintegrate from mustard gas, screaming for your mother as you lay cold and dying in the mud, its about becoming forever a corner of that far-flung foreign field. It’s about more suffering then we can fully comprehend living as we do today in the luxury of peace, and for that mercy we must be grateful.
This is as true today as it was in 1914 and by forgetting the horror of the Somme, Gallipoli, Verdun or Flanders it makes it so much easier to ignore the horror of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Darfur, Congo or anywhere else in the world when good men, women and children are being sent to die. For ignoring suffering is something we are led to do, from the clinical language of military spokesman to the reality smothering phrases of the mass media. The deaths of innocents has become “collateral damage”, battlefields have become “target rich environments”, killing is referred to as “neutralisation”, it is this Orwellian use of language which has made War acceptable, an issue for the middle pages of newspapers to be glanced over and then forgotten. We are people of education and intellect and we must use these tools to look past the linguistic camouflage and the lies, we must remember and we must refuse to allow it to happen again.
So as the last call echoes around the cenotaph this afternoon and the few remaining veterans shuffle past your TV screens don’t just remember the dead. Instead remember why they died, remember that these motives haven’t changed and then say, never again.
11/11/2007

What Does Socialism Mean Today?

2007-01-20T11:20:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to be a socialist? Does it require holding delusional notions of a grand world vision of equality which inevitably corrupts in to Stalinism? Is it the chosen ideology of dictators and corrupt regimes the world over? Does it make it necessary to address everyone as comrade or to wear a t-shirt with Che Guevara plastered across the front? Simply Put, No, Not at all. The Portsmouth Student Socialist group aims to cast aside these labels and stereotypes to promote basic socialist ideas. Socialism is the belief that people should campaign against the injustices in the world. It is the realisation that society is not fair and can be cruel and merciless. Socialism is against war, tyranny, poverty, oppression and greed wherever it may be found. It is an ideology which acts for the weak, for the majority. It is the hope and the dream that with one voice we can all show that we will not stand by and let the few profit from the suffering of millions. One of the criticisms of Socialism is that it is too divided to achieve anything. It is true that there is not one strand of Socialist thought, but a board spectrum of beliefs and ideas. Each group and organisation seeks to tackle the problems of the world, Portsmouth Student Socialists campaign for a change to the current system, to reform it, to make it fair and just. Another of the most widely spread criticisms of Left wing groups is that they are living in the Past. That they respond to every situation by saying to themselves “what would Marx say?” whilst also becoming fixated with the ideas and actions of long dead revolutionaries with multi-syllabled Russian names. Well it must be realised that Marx did not have all the answers; you can not live life by taking a dogmatic stance on a 150 year old text. Too much has happened for Marx to still hold all the answers. However the guiding ethos of figures such as Marx and Lenin are still relevant. Their thoughts, hopes and Ideals must be placed in to their historical context, to be kept in mind yet adapted to the modern world.For example, Marx spoke of the Proletariat – Bourgeois divide, claiming that society was divided into those who worked for and those who owned the means of production. Many would say that this no longer applies to the UK that as Tony Blair said in 1997, “we are all middle class now”. Today the truly oppressed workers are found in Sweat shops in China and Indonesia. Globalisation has spread the tyranny of Western capitalism. Just because we can live a live a comfortable lifestyle does not mean we should be blinded to the suffering of those that provide it for us.Internationally this is the age of the “War on terror” when troops are ordered to shoot at people whose only crime is to live in a nation not colonised by McDonalds or Coca-cola. There is conflict in the Middle East, controversy in Latin America and chaos in Africa. It is the task of socialists to understand these problems and to campaign for a peaceful solution for the benefit of the people.Domestically this is a time when the foundations of society are under attack, not from without, but from within. Our health service and our education system are slowly being sold off as our civil liberties are being ebbed away. Top up fees have been introduced to further exploit those who are the nations future. As students are being forced to pay more, lecturers are being paid less, this can not go unchallenged. We are told we live in a democracy however we live in a society where the only say we get is one tick box form once every four years. This results in a system where a government has taken the nation to war without the support of the people. If you think this is democracy, then its time to re-access the situation.You may not believe that socialism has the answers to any of these problems. All we ask is that you acknowledge that these problems exist and that you join us in questioning what is to be done. As students and as educated people it is our responsibility to question, to ask why. It is our hope as socialists that you never stop doing this.