Various | ukwatch.net

Letter to EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso

JamieSW — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:27:38 +0000

Your Excellency Mr. Jose Manuel Barroso,

On the occasion of the meeting of the EU-Israel Association Council on 16 June 2008, the under-signed human rights and humanitarian organizations would like to bring to your attention a number of concerns regarding Israel’s non-compliance with international human rights standards, international humanitarian law and therefore also the EU-Israel Association Agreement.

In its external actions, the EU must not breach the fundamental principles of the European Union, including human rights, as set out in the Treaty on European Union. The EU has committed itself to the highest possible respect for human rights, and concrete commitments in this area have been in a period of steady expansion for the past decade. Following the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Treaty on European Union was amended to include a new Article 6, setting out that the principles on which the Union is based include: “liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States”. On 25 June 2001, the European Council, in its conclusions on the European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries stressed its strong commitment to “the mainstreaming of human rights and democratisation into EU policies and actions”. It further stated that “human rights and democratisation should systematically and at different levels be included in all EU political dialogues and bilateral relations with third countries”. Emphasising its commitment to human rights, the EU established a Fundamental Rights Agency in 2007.

We further note that Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement establishes that: “Relations between the parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on a respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.” In the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, the Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs undertook to “respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and guarantee the effective legitimate exercise of such rights and freedoms … without any discrimination on grounds of race, nationality, language, religion or sex.” Finally, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding Legal Consequences of Construction of a Wall in the occupied Palestinian territory establishes that all states and international actors are obliged not to recognise, aid or assist the illegal situation resulting from Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territory and all parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are bound to ensure Israel’s compliance with this Convention. These obligations relate both to EU member states as signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and to EU institutions charged to ensure that EU-Israel contractual relations are undertaken in respect of Community and international law.

We believe in the human rights of all. In matters both related to its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory, as well as Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israel is currently not acting in conformity with international human rights law and, in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory, with international humanitarian law. Recent examples of such violations include:

The blockade on Gaza is leading to denial of economic, social and cultural rights for Gazans, in particular their human rights to food, water, sanitation and health, and which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has described as constituting collective punishment.
Palestinian citizens of Israel and the occupied territories continue to be denied equal access to services such as water, education, housing and land.
Israel continues to forcibly evict and displace Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including through the construction of the Separation Barrier, as well as in the Gaza ‘buffer zone’.

Israel continues to deny Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens, as well as spouses and family members from a number of other Arab states, from obtaining legal status in Israel.

The Annex to this letter lists reports on recent human rights violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by Israel.

Israel has failed to implement the observations of the UN human rights monitoring mechanisms, as well as human rights obligations established in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and several United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. Examples of these are contained in the Annex to this letter.

Israel faces real security threats and attacks that violate the human rights of its civilians. Its reactions to such threats and attacks must be proportionate and must not violate Israel’s obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

The undersigned organisations call upon the EU to require that, within the framework of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, specific conditionalities are established to ensure that without delay, Israel:

1. Ends the blockade on the Gaza Strip which is undermining the economic, social and cultural rights of Gazans.
2. Complies with all UN resolutions, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and concluding observations of international human rights treaty bodies relating to the human rights of Palestinians, including the rights of Palestinian refugees.
3. Refrains from violations of the human rights of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories which necessitates a swift end to the occupation, a recognition of the right of Palestinians to self determination and the removal of the Separation Barrier from Palestinian land.
4. Ends discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, including in relation to access to land, housing and public services and enact a legally binding prohibition against discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and religion.

We look forward to your response and an opportunity to meaningfully engage with you on these issues.

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Switzerland
Cordaid, The Netherlands
Defence for Children International-Palestine Section (DCI/PS)
DIAKONIA, Sweden
Al-Haq, occupied Palestinian territory,
ICCO, interchurch organisation for development co-operation, Netherlands
Aljamaheer Association for development in the Arab & Jewish sectors, Israel
Medical Aid for Palestinians, United Kingdom
medico international e.V., Germany
Al Mezan Center for Human Rights-Gaza
Palestinian hydrology group for water and environmental resources development
Physicians for Human Rights- Israel (PHR-IL)
The Swedish Organization for Individual Relief (SOIR)
Trócaire, Ireland

EU Countries Arming Myanmar

Tim Holmes — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:22:46 +0000

New report by Amnesty International, Saferworld and other NGOs: EU-Made Rockets, Guns And Engines Risk Undermining Myanmar Arms Embargo

The proposed transfer to Myanmar (Burma) of a military helicopter containing components and technology from as many as six European Union countries threatens to undermine an EU arms embargo on Myanmar, according to a new report issued today.

‘Indian helicopters for Myanmar: making a mockery of the EU arms embargo?’, a report by European and international NGOs, including Amnesty International and Saferworld, cites credible sources who say that the Indian government is planning to transfer the Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) to Myanmar. It reveals how the Indian-manufactured helicopter would not be operational without vital components from EU Member States and highlights the urgent need for stricter EU arms controls.

Should this transfer go ahead, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK could be undermining an EU arms embargo on Myanmar in place since 1988.

Variants of the ALH attack helicopter contain rocket launchers from Belgium; rockets, guns and engines from France; brake systems from Italy; fuel tanks and gearboxes from the UK and self-protection equipment from a Swedish company. German companies have been crucial to the design development of the ALH.

Saferworld’s Roy Isbister said:
“The EU embargo explicitly states that no military equipment should be supplied, either directly or indirectly, for use in Myanmar – what’s the point in having an arms embargo if it is not going to be implemented or enforced?”

Myanmar – or Burma – has a widely-documented record of serious human rights violations, which the United Nations has described as widespread and systematic. Such abuses include summary executions, torture, and the recruitment of child soldiers.

Amnesty International’s arms control researcher Helen Hughes said:
“Greater attention has to be given to the end-use agreements and the re-export of components from EU member states. Otherwise, these states could find themselves indirectly propping up a brutal regime which they themselves have condemned and whose violations have amounted to crimes against humanity.”

Info Birmanie, Burma Campaign, France said:
“The EU must stand by its obligations to prevent its military equipment being used in Burma and urge the Indian Government to stop this transfer. EU equipment must not be allowed to be used in connection with human rights abuses in Burma.”

The report also identifies US companies involved in the making of military equipment for the ALH despite a US arms embargo on Myanmar. Currently, there are no existing restrictions on India transferring these weapons to Myanmar.

The report calls on the EU to initiate immediate consultations with the Indian government. If India plans to supply or has indeed already supplied ALHs to Myanmar, EU member states should:

• withdraw all existing export licence authorisations and refuse any new applications for any transfers of components or technology that could be used for the ALH;
• discontinue all future production co-operation with India that might lead to transfers of embargoed equipment to Myanmar;
• attach to all future licences for transfers of controlled goods and technology to India a strict and enforceable condition prohibiting re-export to states under embargo.

In addition to improving national and EU practice, EU member states should give their full support to current efforts to develop an international Arms Trade Treaty, establishing globally-binding rules on arms transfers in accordance with international law and human rights standards.

The report can be viewed here.

For more information, please contact:

Nicola East, Amnesty International, Tel: +44 (0)207 413 5729; neast@amnesty.org

Sonia Rai, Advocacy and Communications, Saferworld, Tel: +44 (0)207 324 4646; srai@saferworld.org.uk

NGOs endorsing this report include:
Africa-Europe Faith & Justice Network (AEFJN), Belgium; Amnesty International; Armaments Information Office (RüstungsInformationsBüro), Germany; Burma Campaign France; Burma Campaign UK; Caritas France; Campagne tegen Wapenhandel, Netherlands; Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), UK; Groupe de Recherche et d’Information sur la Paix et la Sécurité (GRIP), Belgium; Pax Christi Flanders; School for a Culture of Peace, Autonomous University of Barcelona (Spain); Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SweFOR); Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (SPAS); Saferworld, UK; Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC), UK.

Iran Experts Admonish FT

eddie — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:20:50 +0000

The Financial Times has refused to publish the following letter:

Dear Sir,

In the context of the widely-reported ambitions of US neo-conservatives to mount a military attack on Iran, we, Iranian/British academics, are disappointed to note that your article (Al-Qaeda linked to operations from Iran, by Stephen Fidler, dated 8th July 2007) adds the Financial Times to the list of “reputable” newspapers prepared to engage in amplifying the drum beats of a new and bloody war in the Middle East.

Would you, for example, have led with the headline: “Al-Qaeda linked to operations from Pakistan”? This would have been far closer to the truth, but no one in the White House is seeking war with Pakistan.

Your report is hardly “news”. The Guardian splashed precisely the same story – also citing anonymous officials – on May 22, alleging that “Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaeda elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq”.

Indeed, the FT is but the last of the British “quality” newspapers, with the exception of the Independent, to run recent front-page stories claiming that Iran is a major factor in the Iraqi insurgency.

However, any Middle-East expert would have told you that the likelihood that the Shia Iranian regime is backing Sunni extremists in Al-Qaeda is slim in the extreme. Of course Iran has its clients in Iraq, as everyone knows, they are members of the Iraqi government. Why should Iran back the mortal enemies of SCIRI and the Da’wa?

Only this weekend, the Associated Press reported that the leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shiites in Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the group Islamic State in Iraq, said on a website commonly used by insurgent groups that his Sunni fighters have been preparing for four years to wage a battle against Shiite-dominated Iran, the agency reported.

In the run-up to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, Pentagon and MoD officials manipulated a credulous media to plant “news” stories bolstering the case for war. We are witnessing in the same process in the British press once more, this time pushing for military action against Iran.

Briefings with unnamed officials are a classic means by which governments and the military place their propaganda in the media. It is the ABC of journalism to treat such sources with scepticism.

When the New York Times on February 10 splashed with “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made By Iran”, sourced from those same unnamed officials again, the newspaper was widely condemned for resurrecting the “Judith Miller school” of journalism. It is a sad day indeed if the Financial Times has also failed to learn the lessons of the Iraq WMD fiasco and is adding its voice and reputation, wittingly or unwittingly, to those of the Pentagon hawks.

Signatures:

Dr. Mehri Honarbin-Holliday, Canterbury Christ Church University

Dr. Elaheh Rostami-Povey, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Dr. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, London Middle East Institute

Professor Haleh Afshar, OBE, University of York

Professor Abbas Edalat, Imperial College, University of London

Ending the Occupation

Tim Holmes — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:02:02 +0000

ENDING THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ: WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

Iraq Occupation Focus Discusson Sheet October 2006

Introduction

This discussion sheet collates some initial
thoughts from several anti-war campaigners in
answer to the question: What will it take for us
to end the occupation of Iraq? It is intended as
a starting point to help campaigners prepare for
the strategy gathering IOF is organising on 18th
November. We would like to be able to circulate
as many contributions as possible in advance of
the gathering concerning your local experiences
of anti-war activism, your ideas and proposals
for action, and thoughts on what the anti-war
movement should (or shouldnt!) be doing to
end the occupation. So, if you or your group
has written something or would like to write
something about these topics, please send it
to iraqfocus@riseup.net, so that we can make it
available to other campaigners.

Targeting the mainstream

Alex Pilcher, Iraq Occupation Focus

The occupation of Iraq must be brought to an end
without delay if there is to be any chance of the
Iraqi people finding peace, stability, democracy
and prosperity. The devastation caused by
the US/UK presence is obvious to much of the
public, despite the endless denials from Tony
Blair. Yet the anti-war movement that generated
such a dynamic and vocal campaign to oppose
the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has not managed
to build a forceful campaign to end the ensuing
occupation. Activists have not been idle. There
have been countless vigils, die-ins and direct
action protests, public meetings, street stalls,
petitions and so forth. But there is a weakness
in the very diversity of these activities. All our
anti-occupation work, apart from the national
demonstrations, has been fragmented, localised,
small in scale, occasional and unsustained. If we
continue in the same vein for another three and
half years we can hardly hope to see a change in
government policy through our efforts.

It is time to rethink our approach and learn from
past campaigns that have used durable mass
participation to raise the profile of a political
demand and to force the hand of governments.
Models ranging from the South Africa boycott
and the Poll Tax non-payment campaign to
the AIDS red ribbon and Make Poverty History
wristbands all show, in their different ways,
the power of a simple tactic when it is adopted
and sustained over time by a sizeable section of
the public. We need to be encouraging as many
people as possible to display their opposition to
the occupation in a similarly routine, everyday
fashion.

One of greatest hurdles we face is the pervasive
myth that nobody seriously suggests we should
leave Iraq now. Yet this hurdle is also one of the
simplest to overcome. By developing a channel
for the expression of anti-occupation opinion that
enables it to steadily amplify from one week to
the next and reverberate across the country, we
can demonstrate that there are actually millions
of people who think we should get out of Iraq
right away.

Shifting the terms of mainstream debate is vital
if we are to see any serious political pressure on
the government. We will not see MPs stepping
forward to call for an end to the occupation
while that option is so routinely marginalised
as to cut and run, abandon the Iraqi people
and surrender to terrorists. By proving that
mainstream public opinion recognises the
occupation is a disaster for Iraqis, we can
sway even more people to this view and at last
legitimate public debate about ending it.

Opposing the occupation: what are the blockages?

Milan Rai, Justice Not Vengeance

Our main challenge is to ask the right question.
Why is do we have public opinion poll numbers
similar to those we had before the invasion, and
daily reports of horror in Iraq, but such a low
level of activity? The majority of people oppose
the war, but they arent active. If we can identify
what is blocking them from taking action, we can
liberate that energy into the movement. Im sure
there are lots of factors, including simple despair.
My own feeling is that the central blockage for
most people who oppose the war, but who do
nothing, is their fear for the Iraqi people in the
event of immediate and unconditional Western
withdrawal. (Iraqis themselves seem to share
that fear, hence the lack of majority support in
Iraq for instant withdrawal. See the September
2006 PIPA poll.) How can the anti-war movement
overcome this blockage? Yes, by demonstrating
that the occupation forces are increasing violence
in Iraq, but crucially, in my view, by offering
the option if acceptable to Iraqi opinion of
replacement international forces independent
of the US and UK. Such an option has had the
support of Sunni and Shia insurgents in the past.

Choosing a mix of tactics

Milan Rai, Justice Not Vengeance

Its not just about being effective, we also need to
feel effective. Keeping morale up means choosing
a mix of tactics that provides us with satisfaction
as well as impact. It also means choosing a
mix of goals: long-range and shorter-term. Our
overall goal is to end the occupation. But we all
know that to force the US out of Iraq, which has
the second largest proven reserves of oil in the
world, is way beyond forcing the US to get out
of, say, Vietnam. Vietnam was peripheral to the
US. Iraq is central. This will take a very long
time. We also need smaller goals that (a) make a
difference to the lives of ordinary families in Iraq,
and (b) that are winnable. Thats good for Iraqis,
and also good for activist morale. For example,
supporting trade unions. Or changing the rules
of engagement for US soldiers, so they dont
use lethal force as soon as they feel threatened
(there were some changes this summer in
this direction). Or reversing the erosion of fuel
subsidies and the state food ration. All these
things have a measurable impact on the lives
of ordinary Iraqis. And they are all winnable.

Time for a counter-recruitment network?

Ippy, Peace News

In Britain there are a number of groups and
campaigns working both with soldiers and
prospective soldiers. However most are
specialising in particular areas and most are not
coming from a clear antimilitarist position.

Therefore we have groups like Military Families
Against War who are campaigning against the
current war on Iraq and for justice for their own
relatives, and counselling services like At Ease
and Combat Stress who provide a kind of social
services for serving and ex military personnel.

Each year however, there are also small-scale
counter-recruitment actions taking place in
towns and cities across Britain. These are often
the initiative of local groups and networks
who hear that the military are coming to their
neighbourhood to try to capture kids with their
glossy brochures and exciting promo films, and
decide to do something to counter the militarys
lies about the real experience of war.

Heres some examples of actions that have taken
place over the past few years:

In 2002, the d10 Group visited Army 2002 an
unofficial recruitment event held on Salisbury
Plane and disrupted the family entertainment
with a banner action during the Apache
helicopter display; in 2003 an army display event
in Watford was disrupted in a hail of paintfilled
eggs; in Oxford and Bristol activists have
managed to chase the army out of town when
theyve tried to set up shop in the high street
and at festivals; earlier this year Wrexham Peace
and Justice Group held three days of actions and
information-giving inside and outside the armys
Dragons March recruitment fair in Chirk North
Wales; the Belfast peace network picketed the
British armys Kinnegar base during a recruitment
day in May; London antimilitarists have held
protests at the annual London Soldier event at the
armys Chelsea barracks.

The issue however, is that while theres obviously
energy and enthusiasm for countering the
militarys lies about warfare and military life, at
the moment it is a disparate set of groups and
individuals working on this issue and there is
no joined-up campaigning to tackle the forces
massive propaganda machine.

Ironically perhaps, experience suggests that the
military are very vulnerable to counter-recruitment
activity in that they cannot really cope with
people standing up and telling the truth about
their recruitment tactics, military life, and combat
itself. All the more reason to try to build a national
network of groups and individuals who can share
information and resources on this issue and make
sure that every time the military go walkabouts
to kidnap kids, they get the opportunity to hear
another voice.

If you are interested in working to develop a
national campaign, come along to the Counterrecruitment
workshop at the strategy gathering,
or email iraqfocus@riseup.net and ask to be kept
in touch with what comes out of it.

__Further information about some of the actions
mentioned above can be found via www.peacenews.info. __

Changing the mood in Parliament

Gabriel Carlyle, Voices in the Wilderness

According to a recent opinion poll 71% of the UK
public think that the presence of British forces in
Iraq is either making the situation worse (36%)
or making no difference (35%). Sixty-two percent
want to see a timetable for withdrawal and yet
there has been little work done to put sustained
and effective pressure on MPs to support
withdrawal.

Indeed, as of September 2006 there wasnt even
an Early Day Motion to this effect and hadnt
been for the past 15 months.

In contrast to the current situation in which a
handful of anti-war activists occasionally visit
their MP to argue with him about Iraq to little or
no effect or the lone activist writes a brilliantly
argued letter to John Reid and receives a form
reply a serious grassroots campaign, combining
constituency-based petition drives (going doorto-
door if necessary), effective local media work,
public accountability sessions with the MP and
activities to raise the political costs for those
who wont support withdrawal (eg. by creating
negative publicity for them in the local paper or
leafleting door-to-door) could yield real results.

Media workshops could be run for those activists
with little or no experience in this area, powerful
displays produced for use in local petition drives,
and activists from different areas could hone their
efforts and support one another – by sharing
experiences of what does and doesnt work in
practice.

Many of the resources to run such a campaign
already exist so what are we waiting for?

Civil disobedience in Westminster

Jonathan Stevenson, Mass Action Group

An ad hoc collection of anti-war activists meeting
in London have organised two unauthorised
demonstrations in Parliament Square in 2006
against the occupation. The first, Naming the
Dead in April, saw several hundred people
including Joanna Lumley take part in a fourhour
name reading ceremony under the banner
Who Lies? Who Dies? Who Profits? The second,
No More Fallujahs, takes place at the end
of this month in an attempted 24-hour antioccupation
camp in the square, with Milan Rai
and Maya Evans repeating their unauthorsed
name readings from October 2005. As well as
resisting the no protest laws around Parliament
and expressing solidarity with Brian Haws
continuing vigil, the actions indicate the growing
number of anti-war activists who are not only
willng to do more than march but who see direct
action and civil disobedience as a necessary part
of a successful movement against the occupation.

The oil rip-off is coming

Notes from a talk by Greg Muttitt from Platform

Western oil companies will be moving in for
the kill in early 2007 if a new oil law scheduled
to be shown to Iraqs parliament in December
is successfully rubber-stamped. The US has
been heavily involved in drafting the law, with
Energy Secretary Bodman visiting Iraq in July to
look at a draft and Iraqi Oil Minister Husayn al-
Shahristani meeting executives from nine major
oil companies on his return visit to Washington
DC. While the IMF has also been involved in
drafting the law, an official from the Oil Ministry
has stated that Iraqi
civil society and the
general public will not
be consulted at all.

Iraqi oil workers in
particularly are busy
resisting the passage
of the new law and
there is some prospect of at least delaying its
introduction into 2007. If and when it passes,
though, there will be substantial scope for
solidarity campaigning in the UK and elsewhere
to prevent Big Oil from grabbing the next 30
years of Iraqs oil revenue by signing up to
Production Sharing Agreements. UK-based Shell
has put itself in a prime position to do just that,
with consistent support from Downing St. But it
may find that the anti-war movement has other
ideas.

Reports from the US

A report in the New York Times on 13 October
revealed the extent to which anti-war protests in
the US have been monitored by the Department
of Defense. Documents obtained by the American
Civil Liberties Union warned of the threat posed
by counter-recruitment activities, including an
investigation in May 2005 into the Students
for Peace and Justice group at the University
of California, Santa Cruz, following protests at
recruitment fairs by several hundred students.
The clear purpose of these civil disobedience
actions was to disrupt the recruiting mission of
the U.S. Army Recruiting Command by blocking
the entrance to the recruiting station and causing
the stations to shut down early, it said.

An email from United for Peace and Justice on
2 October reported on the Declaration of Peace
campaign over the summer, which called for
Congress to produce a plan for the withdrawal
of US troops by 21 September. If that did not
happen, then a new round of antiwar protests
and events would unfold, including greater
use of nonviolent civil resistance and civil
disobedience around the nation. From September
21-28, people in over 150 cities and towns
organised and participated in a wide range of
actions: vigils, peace concerts, marches, parades,
readings of the Iraqi and US war dead, interfaith
services, and acts of nonviolent resistance. The
Declaration of Peace campaign has inspired new
activists, re-energized folks working against
this war for years, and helped expand the tools
our movement is using, it said. In the coming
weeks organizers at both the local and national
level will be evaluating the campaigns work so
far and planning for the next steps.

Kingdom of the Blind

Tim Holmes — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:54:55 +0000

With the fund-raising methods of Tony Blairs tennis partner cum Middle East envoy, Lord Levy, continuing to attract widespread attention (not to mention the occasional knock on the door from the boys in blue),our attention was drawn to an article in the Red Pepper archives.

In 1998 we sent Martin McIvor to interview Henry Drucker, who had given fund-raising advice to the Labour Party in 1996 but resigned after a fall out with Blairs new fund-raiser, then simply Mr Michael Levy. The disagreement was over the use of blind trusts a funding conduit (since made illegal) that allowed people to make donations to politicians via independent trustees, supposedly so that the politicians themselves didnt know who was backing them. Druckers advice to the Labour Party was highly critical of the blind trusts. And in general, his answers to our questions were prescient:

How did your work with the Labour Party end?

The day before we presented our report, we had an altercation with Michael Levy over the blind funds and about his authority over us. We went to interview him. And he threw us out shouted at us for, I dont know, 15 minutes, half an hour.

Literally threw you out?

Literally threw us out. But there was a wonderful moment, which Ill treasure for a long time. We were in his stunningly beautiful and showy house; he stood up throughout. After five minutes he realised hed forgotten something. Oh! Oh! I I should have offered you coffee! My wifes out and the servants are at the other end of the house and, er, I dont know how to make coffee! And then he went back to his previous line of conversation. And eventually threw us out. The end result was that Levy wanted the blind funds to stay. He advised Tony and Tony accepted his advice.

How did the blind trusts issue come up?

Although Jonathan Powell (head of Blairs office) wanted us simply to fundraise, I had insisted that the professional way to handle it is to study the market and to produce a report about how much you might raise and what mechanisms to use to raise it. So we conducted interviews of past and possible future donors. The issue of blind trusts came up in our interviews repeatedly. There were three such trusts: Tony Blairs which he says has been closed; Gordon Browns; and John Prescotts. A number of Labours biggest donors are very unhappy about them very unhappy. These were honourable people who were giving to the Labour Party because they believed in what it stood for and they wanted to be in the company of other honourable people, and they didnt see why honourable people would want to give to a blind fund. We were quite convinced that Labour would have done much better if it had got rid of these secretive funds, which were opposed to the principles the party had begun to annunciate when it wanted the funding of political parties to be transparent. There has to be a suspicion after all, anyone who gives to a blind fund has some reason for wanting his gift to be kept secret. Why?

Isnt that suspicion removed by the beneficiary not knowing who the donors are?

If you believe that. I was pretty damn sure Jonathan Powell knew exactly who had given to the blind fund, and how much. And he wasnt a trustee was he? Brenda Dean, Merlyn Rees and Baroness Jay are the trustees. Everybody who talked to us was saying, Come on, lets cut the cackle, people wouldnt give to the fund if they didnt think the leader knew who gave the gift to them … Drucker concluded the interview in 1998 by telling Red Pepper: `My strong suspicion is that until we have the accounts of the blind funds made public, there are skeletons in the cupboard, which can come out at any moment …

Sadly, we cannot go back to Henry Drucker as the cupboard door is opened. He died from a heart attack in 2002. So well give the last word to David Osler from his book Labour Party Plc; New Labour as a Party of Business.

The problem with blind trusts is that they are not so much blind as just a little bit short-sighted. Not only did the beneficiaries regularly find out who their supporters were, but sometimes the world and her cohabiting partner did so as well. Such was the public disquiet that such arrangements are now banned under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

But Levy took full advantage of the system while the going was good. His adept blind trust fundraising enabled Blair to run the biggest opposition leaders office in history, employing some 20 full-time staff on appreciable salaries. Although figures remain confidential, the best guess is that in just three years the Labour leader received around £2.5 million in this manner before becoming prime minister …

Details (of who paid into the blind trusts and how their interests fared under New Labour) are sketchy at best. But one point is clear. Big business was the provenance of most of the money that flowed in. That, of course, dovetailed nicely with Blairs political project. Financial independence from union funding was seen as a good in itself. Conversely, the willingness of a layer of business people to put their hands in their pockets represented one of the first concrete manifestations of rapprochement with the private sector. In short, the rise of the blind trusts marked an important staging post in the partys
transformation.

We the European People

Tim Holmes — Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:32:43 +0000

Four and a half years on from the first European Social Forum (ESF), and with the fourth, in Athens, just successfully completed, it is a useful time for us all to reflect. As part of this process, more than 30 activists from across Europe have responded to a survey aimed to stimulate such shared thinking on questions concerning building a European us: key moments, networks, main impacts, failures, innovations, recurrent problems and challenges for the ESF.

This article from the latest issue of Eurotopia (see www.redpepper.org.uk), which brings together those responses, is just a rough beginning. It is also a pilot experiment in applying the ESF open space philosophy to the collective construction of an E-yearbook on social movements in Europe (see www.euromovements.info/yearbook). It is part of an attempt, in short, to bring together a multiplicity of voices and to see how far we, the people of the European social movements, are able to share a common vision.

Is there a we on the European scale?

The we should not be taken for granted, warned an activist researcher from Athens. But there was significant agreement among our activist respondents about a pan-European we understood as diverse movements, struggles, networks and political tendencies building common campaigns and opening new public space for discussion across the continent, as part of a struggle for another world.

Many responses stressed this diversity of the we. Some described the diversity of political tendencies, others of strategic vision. A particular divergence of emphasis occurred over the relationship between the European and other local, national, regional and global dimensions. Some stressed the need to create a European common ground and denounced too much focus on national or local levels, while others argued for the need for concrete connections with everyday struggles at the local level. A Catalan respondent emphasised the European we as a transit for a global we reminding us that the ESF was a response to a global call at the World Social Forum.

What were the key moments contributing towards a European we?

One response offered a useful criterion for a key moment as one which succeeded in putting a changing movement into a relationship with movements elsewhere and starting a chain reaction. Although everyone emphasised some moments more than others with a lot of agreement over Genoa 2001 and Florence 2002 a pattern emerges from these lists.

First, there is the period between the end of 1980 and November 1999 which, looking back, was one of build-up, when campaigns exposing the anti-democratic role of multilateral organisations such as the World Bank and WTO begin to appear. The counter-summit in Amsterdam in April 1997 stimulated the first networking processes at the European level, most notably the European marches against unemployment and social insecurity. International networking with global objectives grew rapidly and ambitiously in the 1990s with the emergence of transnational movements such as ATTAC, Peoples Global Action and Via Campesina.

The mobilisation against the WTO in Seattle in November 1999 saw this emerging global movement burst into the headlines. In Europe, as elsewhere, there was an extraordinary surge of transnational activism. In 2002, the first ESF took place in Florence, followed by Paris in 2003 and London in 2004. To varying degrees these facilitated a process of European mobilisation and also moved the emphasis on to developing positive proposals and alternatives. Florence has a special place in the collective memory because of the number of people who attended and the call for an international mobilisation against the Iraq war on 15 February 2003.

The defeat of the Aznar government in Spain in 2004 was the first sign of national repercussions to internationally inspired mobilisations; the fall of Berlusconi in Italy was the latest. We are now in a new phase when movements based in particular territories see global transformation as starting from the transformation of where they are, as one activist put it.

Similar thinking is shared by two leading activists in the more militant sections of the Italian trade union movement, FIOM and Cobas. They see the campaign against Berlusconis gran opera (great works), such as the high-speed train link in the Sussa Valley, and that of French youth against insecure job contracts, as signs, in the words of one, that the global justice movement is putting down roots. A regular ESF participant from Moscow referred to what he hoped would mark a key moment in the future, opening a new phase to the east: a G8 contra-summit meeting planned for St Petersburg in July.

What pan-European networks and groupings have been built?

Whatever else it has or hasnt achieved, the ESF has been, as one response put it, a space for the interaction of networks in a process of continuous redefinition. There has been little, if any building of more permanent structures, like the ATTAC model. Autonomy and collaboration are the keywords of these fluid new structures.

Responses highlighted the following networks, but there are hundreds more: the list keeps growing and changing.

- the No US Bases network, which started in Paris in 2003 and now involves anti-war activists all over the globe;

- the ESF education network, which coordinates activists in teaching unions across Europe;

- the health network, whose union participation is not strong but has greater participation of citizens associations and local communities;

- the Euromayday coordination of marches against social insecurity, which meets at the ESF;

- the Charter of Principles for Another Europe;

- European Coordination for Palestine;

- the pan-European network on housing rights; and

- the migrants network.

The relationship of feminist organisations to the ESF is important and uneasy. One of the Athens womens assembly organisers reported: Womens networking has been strengthened by the social forum; on the other hand many women are wary because of a certain male domination.

What impact have we had?

The activists surveyed were cautious of claiming too much and the general feeling was that it is not enough anyway!

The most visible impact, most agreed, has been to undermine the legitimacy of the institutions of the much vaunted new world order; to open up a public debate; and to compel world leaders to hide behind high walls or in inaccessible places.

Before the birth of this movement, neoliberalism was opposed only by nationalism and protectionism. Now the debate is about which kind of globalisation we want neoliberal versus social and democratic globalisation, said one activist. Capitalism has lost its inevitability, said another.

New ideas for alternatives are on the agenda too; the cross fertilisation of experiences and ideas has led to what one respondent called the widening of the range of democratic tools for managing the common good and public decisions.

There have also been important impacts in terms of defeating or weakening neoliberal measures within pan-national institutions. The success of the European no in France is the most notable. The weakening of the Bolkestein directive (the EU directive introducing market forces to essential services) was another example, although the objective was its abolition.

On Iraq we did not stop the war but we have punched big holes in the USs ability to find allies, declared a community activist in Dublin, and we have probably made the announced goal of an indefinitely long war on terror, going after one rogue state after another, untenable.

Finally, several responses stressed the importance of the impact of the movements and networks on everyday life, producing a pervasive challenge to the model of constant consumption and emphasising sustainability and home production.

Where/how have we failed?

Some people found the word failure inappropriate, either because movements aim to move, and we are still in movement or because the achievement of very specific goals is too narrow a basis for assessing success or failure. Others had no hesitation in using the F word. A response from Moscow is stark: We have failed. We are outsiders. Unless you break into the system of mainstream politics or/and destroy it altogether strategic change is not possible.

Other responses referred to the European movements failure effectively to fight against the war with the Iraqi people or really act with the Palestinian civil society. An activist from Florence made the general point that: We have failed every time we dont manage to put forward a positive proposal to match the ones we oppose.

What continuing problems do we face?

In the survey, we listed a number of problems raised in discussions among Eurotopia partners: internal communication, mobility, accessibility reaching beyond a movement/activist ghetto, language, democracy, inequalities within the movement. Some responses just said All of these! plus, a Russian added, the lack of resources (not just financial ones) in the east and the lack of understanding of the difficulties in the west.

Others spelt out the problems. There was considerable agreement about the problem of reaching out, connecting with grassroots popular discontent, going beyond our people. And several responses mentioned the problem of reproducing inequalities in terms of difficulties of access to our networks for migrants, the homeless and unemployed, for example.

The publishers of Carta in Italy, one of __Eurotopia__s partners, raised the problem of news circulation (especially to and from Greece or Portugal or Poland) and the lack of a common political culture.

Here we lag behind the EU: they have a common project for the continent we dont, yet. Others agreed with this in different ways: We have not achieved a genuine Europeanness.

An activist in the Greek Network for Political and Social Rights was emphatic: My organisation does not claim another Europe is possible. Another world, yes. We try not to identify ourselves as Europeans but as a hybrid the old that comes from our national struggles and the new that does not uses national identities.

Where have we innovated to overcome these problems?

Many respondents to our survey shared the view, as one activist described it, that we had invented different ways to stay and act together, to establish relations, to find solutions by consensus, but still we dont yet have an adequate new language to communicate in a broader way.

Several responses emphasised the new ways of combining research and activism, the new techno-political tools for communication, organisation and the systematisation of knowledge, at the same time reconceptualising the place of intellectuals. A number of responses highlighted the development of alternative systems of information to the mainstream media.

How have we ourselves our ways of organising, our culture, our awareness, our experience and our horizons changed?

Not everyone felt we had changed. There are still the same power struggles between different groups, was one response. Others were more optimistic: We are more open, more tolerant and we are much more able to work together than before.

This sentiment was echoed many times. Some related it directly to new ways of organising: Through networks weve learnt to be together with people who are different. Weve learnt to contaminate ourselves, learning from the cultures and practice and vision of the world of our travelling companions. This didnt mean clear agreement on a single way forward: We do not have a clear horizon any longer, but there is a lot of agreement that this horizon is to be built on the process of mobilisation.

What challenges are posed for the future of the ESF?

Our basic problem is expanding, declared a respondent from Greece. Expanding to the east of Europe, expanding in terms of social depth so that we are in contact with the most excluded, the most flexible, precarious workers and the migrants, which we are not at present. This is the future of the forum.

Many agreed with this. A respondent involved in the first ESF drew out lessons for the future: We need to find a more human rhythm for the meetings so that the main energies of social movements are not used up in constructing forums in which we discuss struggle at the expense of carrying out the struggles.

Writers from Carta presented a challenge: It has to be more daring: dropping the idea of the national state as a useful tool, and starting to think on a truly continental scale. We need to build a stronger continental consciousness thats one of the purposes of Eurotopia.

Others stressed internal difficulties that many felt needed to be addressed, including resolving the relationship between libertarian approaches and the methods of the organised left, which on several occasions has been disastrous. The aim of excluding the other group is not a realistic one, however complex the solutions needed to find a way of working together or at least in parallel.

Another response stressed: We have still to face the problem of internal communication The crucial need is for a clear decision-making process, which should be as inclusive as possible. There was some anxiety about the amount of energy spent dealing with groups that operate as a block; others were calmly optimistic about the underlying democratic capacity of the ESF process: After the failure of the attempt during the London ESF by certain groups to control power inside our movement, we have little to fear on the question of democracy.

Let the last word be from one of the Greek hosts of the last forum: In developing common actions the forum is diverse and each component thinks differently about what is needed. This is the hybrid political and social personality of the forum. And there are no easy answers. Certainly it must be based on an alternative globalisation to avoid nostalgic nationalism. And certainly we need a renewal. Perhaps Athens will have helped to achieve it.

__ This article is an edited version of an innovative, collaborative report produced using wiki software. You are invited to edit the material or add your own comments online. To do so, or to find out more about the survey responses and the activists who made them, visit www.euromovements.info/yearbook

Eurotopia is a group of radical democratic left publications from across Europe, including Red Pepper, inspired by the spirit of the social forums movement. For further information, visit www.eurotopiamag.org __

The EU and Latin America

Alex Doherty — Wed, 31 May 2006 17:45:12 +0000

Civil society activists from the EU, Latin America and the Caribbean gathered in Vienna from 10-13 May for Enlazando Alternativas 2, a Social Encounter on “Linking Alternatives in a new era of Europe-Latin America relations” held in parallel to a Heads of States and Governments Summit. A Peoples Tribunal indicted several European-based transnational corporations for “legal and moral injustices” committed in Latin America. The following is the concluding declaration.

Men and women involved in social and political movements and organisations in Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe met in Vienna from 10-13 May 2006 to express our opposition and resistance to the neoliberal free trade policies that governments in both regions are implementing in our countries, and which they propose as a framework for a new Association Agreement. We reject efforts by the EU to create a Free Trade Area for the entire Latin American region by 2010, as well as the expressed intention to expand existing agreements with Mexico and Chile, establish a similar agreements with Mercosur, Central America and the Andean Region. We also came together to further social and political dialogue among peoples, because we defend our right to propose alternatives and we believe in our capacity to formulate them.

There is growing popular resistance in Latin America and the Caribbean to the aggressive, plundering policies of the United States, and we must now add resistance to efforts by the European Union to impose neoliberal policies. Examples of this include the rejection of the neoliberal, militaristic European Constitution by the people of France and Holland, resistance by the people of Europe to neoliberal policies promoted by their own governments, and resistance to the community institutions that are dismantling hard-won social gains and public systems of protection. Faced with this increase in popular resistance, governments have responded by criminalising the social movement. We are giving impetus to the globalisation of popular and social resistance by all people who, because of exclusion, unemployment, marginalisation or direct oppression, join together to reverse these trends and propose a different kind of world.

The concerns that brought us together in Rio and Madrid, and which finally gave rise to the first social forum, Linking Alternatives, in Guadalajara in May 2004, are still issues in both Latin America and the European Union.

The lessons from 10 years of NAFTA and six years of the EU-Mexico Association Agreement are sufficiently clear to justify our political positioning on a model of free trade that is based on secrecy and asymmetry in the relationship between rich and poor stakeholders.

This can be seen in the de-industrialisation and dismantling of the public service sectors, which has led to chronic poverty and social exclusion in Latin America. In Europe, that same neoliberal wave is reflected in the Bolkestein Directive, which is leading to the liberalisation of services, pressure for lower labour standards, a crisis of the welfare state, threats to farmers and the creation of a hostile climate in which social disintegration, xenophobia, gender violence, urban violence and other symptoms proliferate. These are the most visible results of a global crisis that has been spurred by the Washington Consensus.

We question the role of European transnational corporations in Latin America. Far from being a force for development and social peace, these corporations’ actions have led to massive conflicts, especially among users of public services, and have jeopardised access to basic services (such as water, electricity and telephone service). They have led to the pillaging and indiscriminate extraction of natural resources, causing environmental deterioration. The negative effects of this model will be exacerbated by the implementation of agreements on trade liberalisation and large-scale infrastructure projects such as the Initiative for Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) and Plan Puebla Panama (PPP).

With regard to water, which is a human right and common good of humanity, the privatisation of public systems in various Latin American countries and regions has created a golden opportunity for European corporations and transnationals to increase their revenues while undermining the power of the people to make decisions about their territory and their lives. In both Latin America and Europe, privatisation has resulted in huge price increases, deterioration of the hydrologic system and a lower standard of living for citizens and workers.

European transnational petroleum companies have expropriated the hydrocarbon wealth of Latin American countries for decades, plundering their resources and destroying their communities and environment. All relations between Latin America and the European Union must be based on respect for the sovereignty of peoples, respect for their resources and the re-nationalisation of hydrocarbons that has begun in the region.

Access to land is a fundamental human right, as is the defence of collective land ownership by peasant farmers and indigenous people, which is threatened by individual land titling programmes sponsored by international bodies. We call for agrarian reform and we affirm that natural resources, traditional knowledge and biodiversity are the heritage of the people. These are common goods that cannot be commercialised. We oppose transgenic crops and the export agriculture model that promotes the displacement of entire populations and the ruin of peasant economies.

The European Investment Bank (EIB), along with other European banking institutions, is demonstrating growing interest in financing investments in Latin America, although there is much doubt about whether the people of Latin America will truly benefit from financial aid from these banks.

It was amid this scenario of neoliberal strategies promoted by European and Latin American governments and fostered by their corporations that the Summit of Presidents of Latin America and the European Union took place. The agenda of the Summit was riddled with empty promises that disguised the actual goal of accelerating bi-regional free trade agreements. Meanwhile, the European Union is continuing with plans to increase the number of its member states, based largely on a neoliberal orientation that will only lead to new and deeper internal crises.

With regard to the possibility of an Association Agreement between the two regions, we hold that if such an agreement is to be fair and beneficial for our peoples, it cannot follow the model and the rules of a free trade agreement. We do not want “free trade” between Europe and Latin America. We want trade relations and opportunities for cooperation between the two regions that favour the welfare of our peoples, the sovereignty of our countries and respect for cultural diversity, and which do not destroy our environment. We oppose a free trade agenda that serves the interests of European transnational corporations and Latin America’s elite exporters.

We consider the proposed political dialogue and cooperation to be devoid of substance. The convergence of interests between most of the governments of Latin America and the European Union and transnational corporations was made clear in the privileged relationships that were established at the Business Forum held during the summit. Given the current situation in which Europe finds itself, the European governments are not the best qualified to speak about social cohesion. In order for political dialogue to take place, conditions must be created for social movements to truly participate; it cannot merely be limited to consultation. Cooperation must be a tool that benefits our peoples, not an aggressive practice based on mercantile rhetoric that facilitates the plundering and control of our territories, resource and public services, as it is today.

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal session on Neoliberal Politics and European Transnationals in Latin America and the Caribbean exposed the systematic nature of the operations of transnational corporations, their involvement in the creation of laws that protect them, and the facilitation of international bodies like the WTO, World Bank and IMF in facilitating and guaranteeing their revenues. Meanwhile, users, consumers, workers and the general public are left defenceless and suffer the violation of their rights. We therefore consider the creation of bi-regional opportunities for oversight, denouncement of and opposition to transnational companies to be of crucial importance, so as to put a stop to the arbitrariness resulting from TNCs’ global power.

Security in the post-Cold War world cannot be resolved by an empty appeal to the juxtaposition of unipolarity against multipolarity. Such a tactic masks a perverse game that combines the condescension implicit in warmongering policies with open support for or pacts of opposition to those policies. The result of this unipolar approach has left thousands of victims throughout the world and has broken the promise of peace by the illegal war against Iraq and the imminent possibility of war on an even larger scale against Iran. Latin America cannot ignore the neoliberal policies contained in the agreements proposed by the European Union, which are based on geopolitical calculations in which our countries do not count.

We also call for a multilateral economic system that regulates capital flows and encourages the complementarity of economies, promotes clear and fair rules for trade, leaves public goods untouched, and makes it possible to close the economic gaps between South and North, which have been widened by a spiralling external debt – by this we mean a multilateral system that is obviously not the World Trade Organisation.

We are concerned that the exacerbation of current economic asymmetries will push our regions into scenarios in which the loss of jobs spurs both migration and a rejection of migration. These are scenarios that, driven by paranoia about terrorism which is provoked by certain European governments, lead to disintegration and social violence, the criminalisation of migrant workers and the loss of social solidarity. We demand respect for migrant workers and the immediate recognition of their civil, social and political rights, as well as the closing of all migrant detention centres.

We demand respect for human, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right of women and youth not to suffer social exclusion; we believe that reversing the feminisation of poverty is of primordial importance. We call for justice that does not foster impunity for those who have committed crimes that violate fundamental rights.

We condemn ethnocide and the militarisation of indigenous territories. We demand recognition of the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, because only respect for their autonomy and their cultures will ensure that the planet will continue to enjoy the riches of which these peoples are stewards.

We call for the demilitarisation of the fight against drug trafficking, which is often used as an excuse to crack down on grassroots struggles, and we support the legalisation of the coca leaf and its derivatives for non-narcotic uses.

We denounce and condemn the positions of the European Union that place it at the service of the aggressive US policy against Cuba. We condemn extraterritorial laws such as the Helms Burton Law, and we demand recognition and respect for the Cuban people’s self-determination in implementing their own political, economic and social model.

We oppose the privatisation of the means of communication and information and call for its democratisation. We call for the development of media that is responsive to the people and characterised by solidarity, which builds a sense of citizenship and whose diversity and plurality are guaranteed. We applaud the emergence and consolidation of TELESUR.

We call for an end of the UN mandate of force in Haiti, which reinforces the militarisation of the region instead of contributing to its development. In Colombia, we call for a political agreement to resolve the internal armed conflict and the establishment of peace with social justice. We condemn impunity and recent laws which have re-inserted paramilitaries and expanded impunity, such as the misnamed “Justice and Peace” Law. We call for compliance with UN recommendations and respect for the victims’ right to truth, justice and reparations. We demand and work together for peace, the demilitarisation of international relations, disarmament, the dismantling of military bases and the return of soldiers to their countries of origin. We reject the militarisation and military-industrial complex that support neoliberalism. We call for the suspension of EU preferential tariffs for countries in Central America and the Andean Region that violate labour and environmental rights.

As social movements of Latin America, the Caribbean and the European Union, we reaffirm our will to strengthen cooperation, coordination and solidarity in all shared struggles against the flexibilisation of labour, for decent work of high quality, for citizen oversight of corporations and multinationals, against governments’ neoliberal policies, for the defence and expansion of social and labour rights, and for the re-nationalisation of our resources, natural reserves and public services that have been privatised.

In the face of practices rooted in the imposition of neoliberal policies, there are concrete signs in Latin America of a true relationship based on integration and the development of alternatives, such as the ALBA initiative promoted mainly by the governments of Venezuela and Cuba, or the Trade Agreement of the Peoples (TAP) proposed by the Bolivian government in its resistance to FTAs, which complements these efforts at transformation and marks the start of a new stage of sovereign initiatives based on cooperation and solidarity. We also recognise the efforts to turn Mercosur into a viable space for integration, as well as the creation of the South American Community of Nations. The social movements of Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe recognise these efforts and we commit ourselves to contributing to the development of these initiatives with efforts rooted in our independence and our identity as a grassroots movement. We trust that there will be true political dialogue that will stimulate a relationship with these governments that is marked by openness and accountability.

We trust that the new winds we feel in the strong activism and mobilisation of social movements in Europe and Latin America, in the emergence of transforming governments like those of Venezuela and Bolivia, and in other Latin American governments that distance themselves from free trade policies will help broaden efforts to reverse current neoliberal policies and move toward a new process of integration that is fostered by the people and based on their real interests.

Our greatest achievement in “Linking Alternatives 2” has been to demonstrate the convergences in our analysis and our actions against neoliberal policies and the governments that encourage them. We, the women and men of the social movements and civil society organisations of Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean commit to continuing to link our initiatives that, together, create the conditions for a more just world characterised by solidarity.

-No to free trade agreements between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean. No to the European “FTAA” and the creation of security and military clauses to defend the interests of capital.

-No to the expansion of free trade agreements with Mexico and Chile and the establishment of free trade agreements with Central America, the Andean Region and Mercosur.

-Yes to the abolition of the external debt of Latin America and the Caribbean with countries of the European Union and recognition of the historical debt. We do not owe, we will not pay! We are creditors, not debtors!

-No to the European Constitution Treaty. No to crackdowns on migrants. No to “Fortress Europe.” No to the Bolkestein Directive and the privatisation of public services in the European Union.

-For the strengthening of the unity and bi-regional convergence of the social movements of the two continents so as to achieve another possible world that is fair, equitable, anti-patriarchal and at peace with the planet.

Roundtable Discussion on Civil Liberties

eddie — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:17:45 +0000

The following is the transcript of a discussion on civil liberties and terrorism

AMY GOODMAN: “I don’t destroy civil liberties, I protect them” – that’s the title of an article by British Prime Minister Tony Blair published last month in the Observer newspaper. In it, Blair suggests that critics of recently-passed anti-terror measures do not understand the nature of crimes in the modern world. Blair writes “The question is not one of individual liberty versus the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people. In theory, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed.” The prime minister concludes by saying “If the nature of the threat changes, so should our policies. That is not destroying our liberties, but protecting them.” Blair wrote the piece in defense of several sweeping anti-terror measures passed in the wake of the subway bombings of last July.

The measures include deportation and exclusion of foreigners who are accused of “condoning and inciting violence.” They also incorporate closing worship places used for “fomenting terrorism” and stripping people of their British nationality if proved acting against British interests. He is currently also fighting to pass an amendment through parliament that would making “glorification of terrorism” a crime.

Other issues at the forefront of national debate in Britain are a proposed new points-based immigration system as well as the introduction of a national identity card. Britain’s role in the CIA’s practice of “extraordinary rendition” is also coming under scrutiny. In Parliament, lawmakers are debating legislation that would grant the British government new authority to search any aircraft thought to be carrying terror suspects. Advocates of the proposed measure say the bill would help prevent British complicity in the practice of flying detainees to countries where they face torture. Just this week, government officials admitted CIA aircraft made at least 14 landings at two local airbases between October 2003 and May 2004.

Today we host a roundtable discussion on how these issues are being dealt with in Britain today.

Milan Rai, founding member of Voices in the Wilderness, formed in the mid-1990s to draw attention to the effects of the US-British led economic sanctions on Iraq. He is currently coordinating the group Justice Not Vengeance. Milan Rai is also the first person charged with “organizing an unauthorized demonstration” under the new “Serious Organized Crime and Policing Act.” Rai and another protester were arrested at an anti-war demonstration in London last year as they read out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. He is also the author of “7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War” and “Regime Unchanged.”
Shami Chakrabarti, an attorney and director of the British civil rights group Liberty. She sits on the Advisory Board of the British Institute of Human Rights and the Executive Committee of the Administrative Law Bar Association.
Brian Barder, retired British diplomat with decades of experience in government service at home and abroad. His posts include serving as British ambassador to Ethiopia, Poland and the Republic of Benin. He has also served stints as British High Commissioner in Nigeria and Australia. In January 2004, Brian Barder resigned from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission over his objection to laws allowing the indefinite detention and deportation of terrorist suspects without trial.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, we host a roundtable discussion on these issues, how they’re being dealt with in Britain today. We’re joined by Brian Barder. He is a retired British diplomat with decades of experience in government service at home and abroad. His posts include serving as British ambassador to Ethiopia, Poland and the Republic of Benin. Hes also served stints as the British High Commissioner in Nigeria and in Australia. In January 2004, Brian Barder resigned from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, over his objection to laws allowing the indefinite detention and deportation of people without trial.

We’re also joined by Shami Chakrabarti. She’s an attorney and director of the British civil rights group, Liberty. She sits on the advisory board of the British Institute of Human Rights and the Executive Committee of the Administrative Law Bar Association.

And we’re joined also by Milan Rai, who has also been in our studio in New York. He’s founding member of Voices in the Wilderness, formed in the mid-1990s, to draw attention to the effects of the U.S.-British led economic sanctions on Iraq. He’s currently coordinating the group Justice Not Vengeance. And Milan Rai is the first person charged with, quote, organizing an unauthorized demonstration under the new Serious Organized Crime and Policing Act. Milan Rai and another protester were arrested in an anti-war protest in London last year, as they read out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. He’s the author of 7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War. His previous book is Regime Unchanged.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Milan Rai, let’s begin with you, what happened?

MILAN RAI: Well, last October, as part of an international effort to mark the anniversary of the Lancet estimate that 100,000 people had died in Iraq, Maya Evans and I were opposite Downing Street, reading out the names of people who had died in the conflict so far. Maya was reading out the names of British soldiers who had died, and I was reading out the names of Iraqi civilians who were recorded as having died violently because of the occupation, invasion and occupation.

And we were arrested. And Maya was speedily tried for participating in an unauthorized demonstration. And they took quite a while to decide, but eventually they charged me with organizing this unauthorized demonstration. And, at first, we thought that the maximum penalty was 51 weeks imprisonment. That’s what the police had told me when I was arranging this demonstration. But next week, I’m going on trial, and it turns out the maximum penalty is three months in jail.

AMY GOODMAN: And what’s your defense?

MILAN RAI: Well, there’s a general defense being run that this is a violation of freedom of expression. And so, there’s a whole bunch of cases, which are appealing. And if the case goes against me, then I’ll be joining that appeal on that basis, on the basis that the European Convention on Human Rights is being violated.

AMY GOODMAN: Shami Chakrabarti, its your organization, that is, Liberty, that is representing Milan. Can you put this in the broader context of the new anti-terrorism laws?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Absolutely. Well, I’m sure, and I hope that many of your viewers and listeners will be chilled at the notion that in Britain, which has always been very proud of its democratic tradition, that its possible to be prosecuted for reading out the names of dead people in a war as part of an unauthorized protest. The notion of authorized protest, the notion of having to apply to the police for permission to protest here in Westminster ought to chill, I think, any Democrat in the United States or in Britain.

And I would say I mean, that piece of legislation is not actually an anti-terror measure, so I want you to remember, this isn’t just about the atrocity here in London last summer or even about the war on terror that came after the appalling events in New York on the 11th of September. This is, I’m afraid, a broader, deeper picture here in Britain, a real authoritarian creep — perhaps an authoritarian march is a better metaphor — that’s been going on in British politics for at least ten, possibly fifteen years.

And it’s possibly best encapsulated in the sorts of remarks that you read out from our prime minister. He’s written many other pieces in a similar vein, hes made speeches, where he essentially says, This is year naught. Modernity and the challenges facing the world today, not just anti-terror challenges, but binge drinking and anti-social behavior in our housing estates, and so on, all suggest that the core principles of the right to a fair trial, for example, which is a great British tradition exported around the world, the presumption of innocence, rights to expression and protest, all of these things really need to go by the by now, and fundamental rights as we’ve understood them in the post-war period really need to be swept away. The rules of the game are changing, is what he said on August the 4th, in the wake of the atrocity.

And this is a very dangerous approach, because we don’t have the post-war universal rights and freedoms framework to guide us. One asks, Where is democracy? One also asks, What distinguishes us if we, for example, engage in torture? What distinguishes us from dictatorships or indeed from terrorists?

AMY GOODMAN: Brian Barder, why did you quit your position? Explain the commission you served on.

BRIAN BARDER: Well, SIAC, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, was set up originally to hear appeals against deportation orders, where the foreigner, a non-British citizen, was ordered to be deported on national security grounds by the Home Secretary, or Interior Minister, as it were. Such people could be deported if they seemed to be a threat to national security, seemed to government to be a threat to national security, without any form of trial. And that goes back actually a long way. But under human rights convention principles, it was accepted that there should be a proper appeal against these orders, and SIAC was set up to hear such appeals. This was not a trial, because these people were not accused of anything specific. It was a question of deciding whether the Home Secretary had proper grounds for deporting this particular foreigner.

Well, I sat on the first of SIACs cases, which we allowed. I mean, we found against the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary appealed. It went to the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords eventually. It took over two years. And eventually, the higher courts overturned what we had decided on points of law, not on points of fact, because there was no appeal on fact. But they found against SIAC on points of law, which, in my view, reduced SIAC to virtual impotence. It made it very, very difficult for SIAC, in future cases, to question the Home Secretary’s judgment, so that was one reason.

The other thing was that the government decided in the wake of 9/11 to take powers to imprison foreigners that they wanted to deport, but could not deport, because there was no country where they could safely be sent to, where they wouldn’t risk being tortured or even killed. This involved, of course, imprisoning people indefinitely and without trial. And SIAC was — had its functions extended to hear appeals against these detentions. I decided that I couldn’t be involved in such procedures, because it seemed to me that indefinite detention without trial was simply something that was completely contrary to our longstanding traditions and quite wrong. So, I resigned.

In fact, actually, the regime of detention without trial was later, much later, struck down by the House of Lords, which is our highest court of appeal. The lords in the House of Lords decided that this was contrary to the Human Rights Act and the human rights convention, European Convention on Human Rights, and that was changed, but, in fact, the government then introduced in some ways even more draconian legislation to get around the ruling of the House of Lords. I mean, now, I have a regime of control orders, under which anybody, not just foreigners, not just people awaiting deportation or who cant be deported, but anybody who is regarded by the government as a potential threat can be — can have their career wrecked, can be subjected to what amounts almost to house arrest, just on the say-so of the government. And this seems to me — and this applies to British citizens, as well as foreigners. So it seemed to me that we had gone out of the frying pan into the fire. And things have really got steadily worse since.

AMY GOODMAN: Brian Barder, Shami Chakrabarti and Milan Rai, we have to break. When we come back, I want to ask you if 7/7, for you, the bombings here last summer, changed the country like 9/11 did for people in the United States, and then, specifically, how many immigrants are being detained and what the landscape is today.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guests, again, Brian Barder, who quit immigration commission over the policies around detention and deportation; Shami Chakrabarti is with us, who heads up the human rights group, Liberty; and Milan Rai, who is going to be tried next week and is author of 7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War. Let’s go to 7/7 and what happened on that day and what happened after, and particularly as it relates to Muslims.

MILAN RAI: Well, earlier we were talking about the civil rights environment in Britain, how it’s deteriorated, and Shami Chakrabarti was talking about the larger environment of authoritarian government, but what happened immediately after 7/7, in my view, is that the government was very much on the defensive, because immediately people put the bombings in this country together with British foreign policy and Britain’s alignment with the United States. And we saw polls in the Guardian, in the Daily Mirror, which showed over 60% over 80% of people in this country saying, There is some connection between what the governments doing abroad and the threat of terror in this country.

And my view is that what happened was that the government was under so much pressure, where it was trying to deny that connection, which was obvious to the majority of people in this country, that I think that one of the reasons why Tony Blair made his announcements, just before going off on his August holiday a month after the 7/7 bombings, why he made that particular raft of proposals, and he did it in the way that he did well, he didn’t really consult with the Home Office. He suddenly said, We’re going to do all these very repressive things. And suddenly the conversation changed.

So, up until that point, he had been pressed harder and harder and harder: Is there not a connection between your foreign policy, and the risk of terror in this country? And he had been slowly giving a little bit of ground until, at the end of July, he was having to say, Well, they make some use you know, the terrorists make some use of what’s happening in Afghanistan and Iraq to recruit. And he was slowly giving ground, and there was he was soon going to come to a point where he was going to have to admit that there was a connection between what he was doing with British foreign policy and what the British people were having to face in this country.

And one of the things which spurred me to write this book is that, in fact, the Home Office and Foreign Office’s own internal analysis, which we know from leaked documents a year earlier, was that British foreign policy was at the top of the list in the causes of growing extremism amongst young Muslims in Britain today. So that was the governments own analysis.

But, anyway, what happened at the beginning of August was, the conversation changed, and since then, the government has been spared a lot of pressure on the connection between British foreign policy and alignment with the U.S., and what’s been happening in Muslim communities here. The anger that people feel at what is happening to Muslims around the world and, in particular, in Afghanistan and Iraq, that topic has been sidelined, and instead the government has been fielding these human rights debates instead. And I think for Tony Blair, in a way, even though he’s had a lot of heat, especially from people who care a lot about human rights, in a way, that’s been a welcome distraction from the thing which is going to wreck his reputation in history, and that’s what he’s trying to protect right now, I think.

AMY GOODMAN: Shami Chakrabarti, you also deal a lot with what has been called extraordinary rendition, what other people call kidnapping. Can you talk about this latest news of the British government having to admit there were at least, what, 14 flights at two British military bases? What is happening with Britain’s part in this?

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Well, what’s happening is that there is a lot on the one hand, a lot of circumstantial evidence, and now hard evidence, of C.I.A. flights coming through the U.K. That’s been building over time, exposed principally, initially, by journalists on papers like the Guardian and other investigative journalists, whom we’ve been working closely with. Thats happened on thats one part of the picture. All of these flights coming through, accompanied by statements, very open statements, by Dr. Rice in your country and other people on behalf of the American government, that renditions happens, and it saves lives.

Of course, this then begs the question about why does rendition save lives. And our understanding and youre right, I think, to call it kidnap, thats some of this debate is actually colored by an abuse of language, or the sanitization of language; we don’t say kidnap or torture flights, we say rendition. We didn’t initially say internment about the Belmarsh indefinite detention, the government called it immigration detention. So language is important. So, on the one hand, we have the United States administration telling us that it saves lives somehow to take people to certain other countries for interrogation.

Now, why would you do that if it wasn’t quite obviously to subject people to an interrogation regime that would not comply with whatever your prevailing constitutional human rights standard is in Britain or the United States? So that’s the first thing, that we see this circumstantial evidence hardening of these planes coming through the U.K. And then we see groups like my own, Liberty, and other people in this country who are a little concerned about the way in which weve stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States, not that we shouldn’t all condemn terrorism, but whether we have been right to adopt certain policies, saying: What did the British government know about this? And what is the British government going to do about this if we are if this special relationship means anything to us, it should be about great democracies in the world, holding fast to their democratic and human rights standards.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re calling for legislation that would outlaw these —

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Well, we’re doing various things. Firstly, on the diplomatic front, we are attempting to shame our government into being slightly more rigorous in its questioning if its closest ally about what on earth has actually been going on in our name through British airspace, at British airports, and so on. There’s been a bit of a “see no evil” approach on the part of the British government. So that’s the diplomatic, political approach.

Secondly we have demanded that chief constables, chief police officers in this country, investigate these allegations, these increasing allegations and this evidence that English criminal offenses have been perpetrated here, if people have been kidnapped and taken for torture. There would be issues of English and British criminal law that have been breached potentially by the C.I.A. and whoever else.

And, thirdly, just this week we’ve drafted an amendment to our Civil Aviation Act, which has been taken up by a member of the House of Lords, Baroness D’Souza, creating an explicit duty on our government to demand that suspected flights land, and secondly, to ensure that British police officers and immigration officers and customs officers are able to inspect such flights.

AMY GOODMAN: Brian Barder, you were a long-time British diplomat. You joined with scores of others in sending a letter to Prime Minister Blair opposing Middle East policy. Explain, please.

BRIAN BARDER: Well, we, 52 of us, mostly former ambassadors or high commissionershigh commissioners are what we call ambassadors in other Commonwealth countries, so they’re the same, effectively, as ambassadorsfifty-two of us signed an open letter to Tony Blair, mainly about Iraq, questioning the basis on which we had gone to war with the United States in Iraq and calling for much better administration of the occupation regime, with far greater attention to human rights and also to the behavior of the troops in Iraq, but also questioning British and American policy towards Israel and Palestine. This came very soon after President Bush and Tony Blair had apparently given the green light, in effect, to Israel to proceed unilaterally with redrawing the borders and so on, where we believed that it ought to be done multilaterally, in discussion, in negotiation with the Palestinians and all the other parties involved. We never got a satisfactory answer to the letter, but it created quite a stir.

AMY GOODMAN: You also wrote a letter to the Guardian saying, New Labour fails torture test.

BRIAN BARDER: Yes. I think the acquiescence in the use of torture by our major ally and our senior ally, by our government, the absence really of serious condemnation of what’s been going on, especially in Guantanamo, and also, of course, in Abu Ghraib, has really been extremely regrettable, and I think it’s a great pity that our ministers haven’t spoken up more clearly. They have actually condemned the Guantanamo regime, but the strongest word that Tony Blair has so far been able to use of it, is that it’s an anomaly. Well, that’s fairly quiet.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: Youve heard of English understatement

BRIAN BARDER: Yes, thats right.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: but that really takes it to —

BRIAN BARDER: Takes the biscuit, really.

SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: to new extremes.

BRIAN BARDER: Yeah. I mean, I think it is worth saying that the kind of erosions of our civil liberties that Shami and Milan have been talking about haven’t gone nearly as far as what’s been happening in the United States or under United States supervision, as it were. And equally, I think it’s important

AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.

BRIAN BARDER: Sorry?

AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.

BRIAN BARDER: OK. And also, it’s important to say that 7/7 in Britain was nothing like as traumatic as 9/11. We have a longer experience of terrorism in Britain than you do.

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to have to leave it there. Brian Barder, Shami Chakrabarti, and Milan Rai, author of 7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War, I want to thank you for being with us.