Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Friday 8 February 2019

Rare chance to hear from 'Veterans for Peace' Monday February 11th at Brent Mencap


Brent Stop the War has held meetings and demonstrations about the cost of war in terms of victims' deaths, infrastructure destruction, environmental disaster and creation of refugees as well as the financial cost to the economy.

Monday's meeting will be a little different.  We will hear first-hand from an American and a British soldier, who are members of Veterans for Peace (UK), about the personal cost to them and their families, friends and neighbours of participation in these wars.  Their voices are not heard as much as they should be and BStW has organised this special meeting so that Brent residents can hear directly from veterans about what war has meant for them, the conclusions they have drawn from their experience and their resultant activism.

The meeting is on Monday February 11th 7.30pm to 9.15pm at Brent Mencap, 379-381 High Road, Willesden, London NW10 2JR  Nearest tube Dollis Hill (Jubilee line) and 260, 266, 297 bus routes.

Speakers: 

Julio Torres, Veterans for Peace (UK) New York born Torres was a member of the U.S.  Army for 11 years 2005-2016, including a year in Iraq, with the rank of Staff Sergeant.

Ben Griffin. Ben is an ex Paratrooper, SAS soldier and founder of  Veterans for Peace UK. He served in Northern Ireland, Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2005 he was released from army service after refusing to continue serving under American command in Iraq. Ben served as as national coordinator for VfP until 2018 and remains an active member.
 

Tuesday 19 July 2016

Wembley meeting seeking justice for Anis Sardar

From Justice for Anis Sardar campaign.  Readers may be interested in this local meeting in the wake of the Chilcot Report.


Justice for Anis Sardar campaign event

Chilcot stated that the 2003 iraqi invasion was NOT the "last resort"
There was "no imminent threat" from Saddam - and the intelligence case was "not justified"

Who will be brought to account for the loss of innocent lives?

Anis Sardar is the only person in the UK to be convicted for taking part in the Iraqi insurgency, yet there was no direct link to his charge

Find out how the Iraqi invasion led to Anis Sardar to risking his life to aid the Iraqi people and now is being punished for it

Speakers
Gareth Pierce (Lawyer)
Asif Uddin (Spokesperson)
Abid Sardar (Anis's Father)

also spoken words of poetry by Talha Ahsan (twitter: @talhaahsanesq)


Date: Saturday 23rd July 2016
Time: 1.30-5pm

Venue:
Church of the Ascension
The Avenue,
Wembley Park,
Middlesex,
HA9 9QL

Refreshments will be provided
Free parking available onsite and nearby roads


www.justice4anis.com
www.facebook.com/justice4anis

Facebook event page
https://www.facebook.com/events/744357399032056/

#justice4anis

Wembley meeting seeking justice for Anis Sardar

From Justice for Anis Sardar campaign.  Readers may be interested in this local meeting in the walke of the Chilcot Report.


Justice for Anis Sardar campaign event

Chilcot stated that the 2003 iraqi invasion was NOT the "last resort"
There was "no imminent threat" from Saddam - and the intelligence case was "not justified"

Who will be brought to account for the loss of innocent lives?

Anis Sardar is the only person in the UK to be convicted for taking part in the Iraqi insurgency, yet there was no direct link to his charge

Find out how the Iraqi invasion led to Anis Sardar to risking his life to aid the Iraqi people and now is being punished for it

Speakers
Gareth Pierce (Lawyer)
Asif Uddin (Spokesperson)
Abid Sardar (Anis's Father)

also spoken words of poetry by Talha Ahsan (twitter: @talhaahsanesq)


Date: Saturday 23rd July 2016
Time: 1.30-5pm

Venue:
Church of the Ascension
The Avenue,
Wembley Park,
Middlesex,
HA9 9QL

Refreshments will be provided
Free parking available onsite and nearby roads


www.justice4anis.com
www.facebook.com/justice4anis

Facebook event page
https://www.facebook.com/events/744357399032056/

#justice4anis

Thursday 14 July 2016

Brent Stop the War Meeting: Chilcot - what now?

This was the surprise guest at Brent Stop the War/Brent & Harrow PSC findraising garden party on Sunday
From Brent Stop the War

There is a growing demand that Tony Blair should face a motion of contempt in the House of Commons over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has said he would probably support.

What does the Chilcot Report mean for Stop the War?  How can we build a movement capable of stopping current and future interventions abroad?

Mundher Adhami [a member of the Brussels Tribunal on Iraq, and the Iraqi National Foundation Congress]will speak at a special meeting of Brent Stop the War which will take place on Monday, July 18th at 7.30pm

Brent Trades Hall (London Apollo Club) 375 High Rd, Willesden, NW10 2JR

[It’s very close to Willesden Bus Garage, buses 6, 52, 98, 226, 260, 266, 302, 460 and just five minutes’ walk from Dollis Hill Jubilee Line station]

Wednesday 6 July 2016

Lucas: Chilcot proves Blair lied about reasons for going to war - Stop the War meeting tomorrow


Caroline Lucas the Green party MP, said today that the report is 'damning' and shows that Blair and colleagues 'lied' to the public about their reasons for going to war.

She said:
“Chilcot’s report is damning for Blair, his cabinet and all those MPs who voted to take this country into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. Iraqis continue to pay the price for an invasion that took place long before other options for a peaceful resolution were explored. 

"This report confirms the series of serious failures that led to this disastrous war. We know for sure that Government Ministers, including Tony Blair, lied to the public about their reasons for going to war. He said he would support George Bush ‘whatever’ eight months before the war – and thousands of lives were lost because he stuck to that promise despite the evidence in front of him.

“This report confirms that Blair had indeed decided to back the Iraq war far earlier than he has previously admitted. His claim that it was a war solely to eradicate WMDs is now in tatters. Blair knew he would never have garnered enough support for regime change, so he lied to Parliament and the Public to invade Iraq.

“We can now see the consequences of this horrific war: many thousands of civilians dead, hundreds of British troops killed and injured and continued civil wars raging across the Middle East.

"Ultimately we should have never needed this report because MPs should have taken note of the clear evidence presented to them and voted against the war. There's no doubt that Tony Blair should take much of the responsibility for this disaster - but every MP who closed their ears and eyes to the facts and voted for the war should now publicly apologise.

"411 MPs walked through the lobbies to vote alongside Blair for the Iraq war - and both parties need to take responsibility for that. The Prime Minister is the only leader in Westminster to have voted for the war and he should apologise in full for doing so.

"Parliamentary and constitutional failures are a constant feature in this report. The relevent checks and balances were not in place and we need to urgently explore how we can better hold the executive to account in this country. 

"Moving forward from today it's crucial that we learn lessons. That's why I'm demanding that the Prime Minister today joins me in calling for all future votes on military intervention to be unwhipped - so MPs use the facts and their conscience as their guide rather than threats from their party machinery."
Stop the War Coalition responded to the Chilcot Report with this statement:
The Chilcot report is a damning indictment of Tony Blair and those around him who took us to war in Iraq.

The report vindicates Stop the War and all we have been campaigning for over the years.  This report would not have happened without our campaigns and our ceaseless demands for Blair to be held to account.

It clear that Blair used lies and deception to get his way, that the war was unnecessary and illegal and that everything was done to ensure it went ahead.

The victims are the Iraqis, those soldiers who died and were injured, but also the whole political system traduced by this process.

The anti-war movement and the millions who marched were vindicated by this report and we now demand justice.

We welcome the fact that this report is so damning but for us this is not the end but the beginning. Meetings should be held in every town and city around the country. There must be legal sanctions against Tony Blair and he should no longer be considered fit for any office.

If you are in London, join us tomorrow (7 July) at the People's Response to Chilcot public rally at Mary Ward House at 7pm
Reacting to the publication of the Chilcot Report, Natalie Bennett, Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said:
“The Green Party believes the report’s final confirmation that the Iraq war was ‘not a last resort’ and that the British government decided to invade before all the peaceful options had been exhausted is a verdict that must produce action. We must not just say 'never again' but act to make that fact.

“That the judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were presented with a certainty that was not justified is simply inexcusable. Never again must the executive be able to lead us to war based on massaged information.

“And never again should MPs be told how to vote on such a critical matter. The Government should, immediately, announce that all future military interventions will have unwhipped votes in the House of Commons. We must never again see MPs being cajoled into voting along party lines when their conscience tells them otherwise. No MP should answer when asked why they voted for war 'I was told to.'

"Those MPs must be given genuinely independent legal advice about the legality of the action. They must know it is their responsibility to act legally, and that they could face sanction if they don't live up to it."

Speaking from Westminster, Shahrar Ali, Green Party Deputy Leader, said:
"The Green Party is resolutely committed to finding non-violent solutions to conflict situations and unequivocally opposed the war in 2003.

"The headline points of this mammoth report are chilling, yet unsurprising to all those who have been calling for Blair to be investigated at the International Criminal Court. 
"Whether on grounds of Blair's intent to bypass the UN, diplomacy not having been exhausted, or critical papers being denied to the Foreign Office, I support those renewed calls for a criminal investigation."


Monday 30 November 2015

Updated: No support for bombing Syria at Barry Gardiner's meeting with constituents

Barry Gardiner with Jeremy Corbyn on Saturday's Climate March
In a 20 minute cogent presentation in a North Wembley church hall last night, Barry Gardiner set out his thinking on the Syria air strikes issue. He said that he was not a pacifist and that sometimes military action was justified. He had voted for the Iraq war but later went on to criticise the lack of an exit strategy, was one of only 13 MPs who opposed the bombing of Libya, and had helped persuade a change of policy by Ed Miliband's Labour Shadow Cabinet on the earlier Syria intervention mandate.

Gardiner said that he had a duty to constituents to consider whether an extension of existing UK military intervention would be counterproductive.  He considered the legal basis for intervention on the basis of a request by a state to intervene in their defence. Assad had not made such a request. The British Government had recognised the opposition as the sole representative of the Syrian people.

He discussed whether the  'Self Defence' criterion under Section 51 of the UN Convention was met. Action has to be necessary and proportionate and demonstrated by the 'overwhelming  necessity' for force to be used.

Finally in discussing UN Security Council Resolution 2249 which states that ISIS 'a global and unprecedented threat' to global security' and calls on member states who have the capacity to take action against them, he concluded that it was not credible to argue that there is no legal basis for UK government action. However, the question was whether it was right to do so.

Countering David Cameron's argument that air strikes on Syria would add capacity to the campaign against ISIS , Gardiner said that the same amount of assets would be deployed but now deployed in Syria as well.  It would not amount to a 'significant' military contribution and according to experts was not a 'war winning campaign' by any stretch of the imagination.

British expansion of the existing intervention in the region may feed radicalisation and do more harm than good.

Explaining that he preferred to use the term Daesh LINK rather than Islamic State, as the latter gave the organisation credibility as a 'state' and illegitimately appropriated Islam as a whole, he suggested that bombing bombing might kill many innocent people without significantly harming Daesh.

A cartoon shared widely over the weekend
Gardiner argued that without ground forces the Government's position was one of 'more hope than intent'. Discussing the current forces on the ground in Syria he said that the US had given up trying to train them and were now concentrating on supplying weapons and ammunition. 'A foolish approach' considering the disparate forces involved.

Cameron's suggestion that there was a 'moderate opposition' numbering thousands was a 'falsification of facts'. There were thousands of fighting forces under arms with different aims and rapidly shifting
alliances.  According the the Select Committee Report  so called 'moderates' had been squeezed out.

 Gardiner suggested that British troops could join a multi-national ground force co-ordinated by thw UN but only in tandem with a diplomatic strategy.

Rather than extending existing action the Government should be contributing to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict through the Vienna Conference.

In discussion, although recognising the legacy of Colonialism and Imperialism, Gardiner denounced as 'infantalism' the argument that history justified Daesh's murderous actions.  Challenged on whether, if the Government came up with a more plausible strategy, he would come back to consult constituents in another meeting, Gardiner said that an MP was not a delegate, and a church hall of people was not necessarily representative of all constituents.  He would read all the reports that constituents were unlikely to have time to read, weight the evidence and reach a judgement which he felt was in all constituents best interests.

On the question of whipping Gardiner said that he would not deserve to be MP for Brent North if he did not follow his conscience on such an important issue rather than the party line.

Responding to a question on the funding and arming of Daesh, Barry Gardiner said that the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia needed to be rethought in the context of its export of its philosophy throughout the region. He said that Britain's involvement in the arms trade was a continuing problem, complicated by the fact that many jobs depended on it, but also needing to be tackled.

When discussion turned to what happened in Brent, Gardiner said that many in the Muslim community felt threatened by media coverage of the conflict. Leading figures in that community who spoke out powerfully against Daesh should be supported. We were fortunate that Brent is such a mixed community that no one group feels they can dominate.  He said that Labour had been critical of the Government's Prevent programme. It was a top down model rather than the bottom up approach that could harness forces at a community level. The thought that adolescent youth, at a stage in life when they were searching for their own identity,  could be inculcated with 'British values' was laughable. He was unable to attend the December 10th Prevent: Protectng Our Liberty?  meeting at the Interfaith Centre in Queen's Park because he would still be in Paris for the climate talks, but he welcomed the initiative.

No one at the meeting spoke in favour of the Government policy, or the approach of some in the Shadow Cabinet.  One woman who had been worried about what the 'French and Belgians would think of us if we did not support them' said that she had changed her mind during the course of the discussion.

The most moving speech of the evening was from an 8 year old girl who spoke eloquently about the bombing killing innocent people: 'It isn't right that some innocent people will be killed because of some bad people.'

Radio 4 Today report on the meeting is at 1.50 here LINK

Full transcript of Barry Gardiner's presenattion at the meeting HERE

Tuesday 24 November 2015

Tulip Siddiq outlines her concerns on Syria bombing

Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn has set out her views on Syria in a detailed letter to a constituent. I reproduce it below. I have offered, via Twitter, Barry Gardiner MP Labour, Brent North, an opportunity to put his views but have heard nothing back so far:

-->
I am writing in response to your email about the ongoing conflict in Syria, and in particular whether the UK should extend its air strikes against ISIL into the region. I appreciate the gravity of this issue, not least given Britains history of military conflict in the Middle East, so I hope you will forgive a substantive response reflecting the broad concerns you have raised.

To give some important background, the humanitarian impact of the ongoing conflict in Syria has been catastrophic. Various estimates suggest that since the civil war began in 2011, some 210,000-320,000 people have been killed, some 7.6 million have been internally displaced within Syria, and a further 3.9 million have fled the country as refugees. This is the worst humanitarian crisis in decades, and it is clear that many factions in this conflict,  not least the Assad regime, are guilty of war crimes.

This is now a complex and fast-developing conflict involving a range of internal factions, each of which have support from various external actors. At present, reports suggest that Assads grip on the country is weakening. He has lost control of half his territory, having ceded lands in the west to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups; in the north to more moderate opposition groups; and in the east to ISIL, who declared a Caliphate stretching from Syria to Iraq in June 2014. No longer able to draw revenues from Syrian oil fields, his regime has become dependent on financial support from Iran and Russia; and Shiite Hezbollah militant groups and Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear to be becoming increasingly influential in his army. Regrettably, the recent involvement of Russia, who are now launching air strikes against all of Assads enemies, even moderate rebels, looks set to bolster his regime, increase the death toll and, ultimately, prolong this bloody conflict even further.

As you will know, in August 2013, following the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, there was a push on the part of the British Prime Minister and the US to launch air strikes to support rebel groups in the country. There were two important Commons votes on military intervention in Syria. Although I was not an MP at the time, I would have voted against these two motions. Whilst the US did ultimately initiate a programme of air strikes in Syria, I was glad when Labour MPs joined with backbench Conservatives and Lib Dems to ensure, against the wishes of the then-Coalition Government, that the UK did not participate in these operations. Incidentally, I also personally marched against the Iraq War back in 2003. I remain mindful to this day of the tragic effects that this war has had on the people in the region.

Since the vote in 2013, the situation has developed even further. ISIL has emerged as a formidable and dangerous force in both Syria and Iraq, and indeed in September 2014, Parliament voted in support of a targeted international bombing campaign in Iraq to fight ISIL forces, in support of Kurdish forces and the incumbent Iraqi government. Reports from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) also suggest that the Assad regime has continued its use of chemical weapons, launching chlorine attacks in Syrian villages; and has also withheld a portion of its chemical weapons stockpile, failing to report it to the OPCW. Efforts to broker a peaceful settlement at the Geneva II peace conference in February last year have also failed, in no small part because of al-Assads intransigence.

In the House of Commons in July 2015, in light of the continued conflict, the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon MP suggested that Britain might consider extending its air strikes against ISIS to Syria, joining the existing US operation there. Thankfully, the Defence Secretary has confirmed that should the Government decide to push for military action again, there would have to be another Parliamentary vote. Although the Prime Minister went back on this plan some months afterwards, with the recent tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, it looks like there may soon be another vote on this matter.

Were a Parliamentary vote indeed to take place, I appreciate that I would have a very significant decision to make as your MP, and I thank you for taking the effort to raise your concerns with me ahead of this. Personally, I am concerned about some of the rhetoric people have been using in support of intervention, and I will be pressing the Government to explain more clearly their rationale for further military action. I have four main concerns, which I have outlined below.

Firstly, I feel that neither the Government nor some in the press quite appreciate the complexity of this conflict, and how the situation has changed since the Parliamentary vote of August 2013. Indeed, in my view, subsequent events have entirely vindicated the cautious, multi-lateral approach of Parliamentarians during the vote in 2013. MPs at the time highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing between moderate and extremist rebel groups, and warned that bombing strikes could intensify the conflict, the later emergence of ISIL as a key force in the region only confirms this. Indeed, it is curious that the renewed calls for air strikes are being justified on the basis of a need to combat ISIL even though, in 2013, the target was the Assad regime, the Government have refused to acknowledge this, and many Ministers are conducting themselves as if we are to simply repeat the vote of two years ago.

Secondly, and linked with this, I disagree with the attempts of some Ministers and others to conflate this issue with the ongoing refugee crisis. Military intervention against ISIL would not solve the refugee crisis, if it could, it would have do already, as the US and others have been bombing Syria since August 2014. Furthermore, the bulk of the displaced people in Syria are the result of Assads attacks and not those of ISIL bombing ISIL forces will do little to address this problem. Regrettably, scant regard is also being given to the fact that as significant as Syrian refugees are in the ongoing refugee crisis, they are not the only source of refugees: last year, Britain accepted more asylum applications from Eritrea and Pakistan than it did from Syria.

Thirdly, any action that is taken in Syria must be multi-lateral, and pursued at a UN Level. I agree with Labour Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn MPs calls for a UN Security Council resolution on Syria. He is also right, inclusive in this resolution, to push for the referral of suspected war crimes to the International Criminal Court,  this should include Assad. As a way of resolving this bloody conflict, I support the formation of a unity Government in Syria comprising more moderate factions in the country.  It is clear from their gruesome conduct that neither ISIL nor Assad himself can play a part in this negotiated solution. But the only way to secure this is if we work with our UN partners to achieve it, and Hilary Benn was right to call on the Prime Minister to push for this at the recent UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Finally, there is an important humanitarian element to the conflict in Syria, and I do not feel that enough is being done to help those who should be the key focus of our concern: the innocent Syrian civilians themselves. Whether they are still in Syria, have been forced to neighbouring states by war or have made the treacherous journey into Europe, they are deserving our help. I disagree with the Prime Ministers decision to opt-out of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees programme to help the refugees in Syria, and also his decision to deny help to those refugees already in Europe. I have written him a letter calling on him to reverse his position on these twin issues. Hillary Benn MP was also right to call, as part of the UN resolution, for the establishment of Safe Zones within Syria to shelter those displaced by war and relieve the pressures on refugees.

Please be assured, therefore, that I will continue to monitor this situation closely and update you on future developments. I will press the Government on the need for humanitarian aid and a negotiated, multi-lateral solution to the conflict in Syria, and challenge Ministers and others on some of the points they have made in justifying military action. I also remain ever mindful both of the consequences of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and also the points raised by Parliamentarians at the important vote in August 2013.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding this issue, and do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any further queries or issues.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP



Friday 24 April 2015

Tulip, Dawn and War

Prior to Ed Miliband's speech today there had been press comment that foreign policy had played little part in the General Election campaign. Here is Brent we did have a cross-Brent hustings on War, Peace and the Middle East where some of these issues were raised. LINK

'Unintended consequences' of military intervention is as pertinent to Labour as it is to the Conservatives given Blair's intervention in Iraq. What is suprising to me is the lack of comment on Chilcot and the decision to put it on the back burner until after the election. Surely the findings should have formed a centre piece of this General Election?

At the hustings Tulip Siddiq (Labour candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn)  gave specific undertakings about war and said that she had voted for Ed Miliband precisely because David Miliband was too associated with Tony Blair and the Iraq War.


Dawn Butler was not invited to that particular hustings but was asked about her views at a subsequent election meeting. She said she had been against the war in 2003 and had voted against an inquiry in June 2007 because she thought it would have impacted on the British troops that were deployed in Iraq at the time.

This is the motion that Dawn Butler voted for. Only 8 Labour MPs voted against.
  This House, recognising that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq and recognising the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath, declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task
Earlier in 2006 she had asked Tony Blair a question in the House of Commons which seemed to indicate some disquiet about policy in Iraq.


Butler was subsequently seen as a government loyalist. She seconded the Queen's Speech in November 2007 and became Assistant Chief Whip in September 2008.

Attending the hustings in Brent there have been a number of occasions when candidates have been asked if they would defy the party line (and the party whips) on issues of principle. It is clearly an issue that concerns local people and the shadow of Iraq, it seems to me, is behind much of that concern as Iraq and the war figured quite large in the Brent Central battle between Dawn Butler and Sarah Teather.

Butler's Green challenger in Brent Central, Shahrar Ali, has claimed in his election material that he, rather than Dawn, is Teather's natural successor as far as issues of war and Israel-Palesrtine are concerned.

Over in Hampstead and Kilburn, Tulip Siddiq is challenged by Green candidate Rebecca Johnson, who has a long and distinguished record in the peace and disarmanent movement and is a member of Women In BlackLINK

Footnote: In case you are wondering, Barry Gardiner, speaking in 2003 after Robin Cook resigned over Iraq stated: 'The Prime Minister has behaved with absolute integrity' but had a different position by 2011 over Libya:  LINK

BBC June 7th 2011
Amid growing unease about Nato's role, MPs are expected to press for a statement on Libya on Tuesday when Parliament returns from its 10-day recess.

Although he voted for the Iraq invasion in 2003, Mr Gardiner says the parallels between the two situations are "ironic".

"Every single argument that has been used over the last eight years to decry what happened in Iraq is being used to justify - with much less justification - what is going on in Libya," he argues.
Despite the frequent military interventions of the Blair years, he believes Labour should be looking further back into its history for its foreign policy principles.

"There is a historic role for Labour that is not being followed through here - as effectively an anti-war party that recognises war is the worst option and something that should be avoided becoming embroiled in at all costs."

And while in no doubt about the nature of the Gaddafi regime, he worries that the current intervention sets a worrying precedent for the future.

"The danger is we are being drawn into a position, in terms of what we should be doing internationally, of it 'does not matter because it is only Gaddafi'."

Friday 26 September 2014

Caroline Lucas: Why I oppose Government's motion on Iraq air strikes

Caroline Lucas spoke in the Parliamentary recall Iraq debate today:



Every vote I cast in Parliament weighs heavily on my mind, especially as, unlike most other MPs, I have no whip telling me what to do – I consider the evidence, reflect on the principles I was elected to stand up for, listen to my constituents in Brighton Pavilion.  

Never more so than on a day like today, when MPs are deciding whether to carry out air strikes in Iraq against the so called Islamic State (ISIL).

Whatever we decide people will die. Be it directly at the hands of ISIL, whose barbarity seems to know no limits. Or when they are hit by bombs dropped by the US, France or the UK

And, of course, people are dying as a result of the humanitarian crisis engulfing the region – the Refugee Council tell me it’s the first time since the Second World War that the number of people worldwide who are fleeing their homes is more than 50 million, and the conflicts in the Middle East are a key driver of this exodus.  The death toll from the crisis in Syria is heading towards 200,000. Getting aid to all Syrians and Iraqis in need must remain one of the UK’s top priorities.
Amongst the questions I have asked myself ahead of today’s vote is how best to help close down the cycles of violence, which are taking so many lives.

There are no easy answers. But there is this certainty: killing people rarely kills their ideas.

The hateful ideology of ISIL must be stopped but the risk is that air strikes will be counterproductive: every Western bomb dropped will fuel it anew, providing fertile recruitment, fundraising and propaganda opportunities.
I don’t think this is like the last Iraq war.  I don’t think that the Prime Minster is manipulating intelligence or lying to the House.

There is much in the Government’s motion with which I agree.  It is written in a measured and very reasonable-sounding tone.  But the considered, thoughtful tone cannot get away from the bottom line, which is to give permission for the UK to bomb Iraq. Nor can it mask that what is often called ‘precision bombing’ is rarely precise.  We should be under no illusion that we are debating whether to go to war.

With virtually everyone on the Government and opposition benches looking set to vote for air strikes, there is a real danger too that diplomatic and political solutions are side lined yet further – and possibly even made more difficult.
The real question should not be whether to bomb but how we can intensify work politically and diplomatically to address the fundamental hostility between Sunnis and Shias – with regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia centre stage and support for a fledgling new Iraqi government to deal with seemingly intractable problems like the failures of the Iraqi armed forces, sharing of oil revenues, decentralisation demands and territorial disputes a top priority.

Also uppermost in my mind, in a week where it’s been revealed that a young man from Brighton has been killed whilst fighting for ISIL in Syria, is that there is nothing Islamic about what this extremist group are doing. That as well as embarking upon a concerted effort to find a political solution to the current crisis, we must also redouble our efforts to tackle the radicalisation of some members of our communities, and redouble our efforts to address deeply worrying levels of anti-Muslim sentiment and incidents.

Our best hope of reducing the numbers radicalised would be to champion a new foreign policy doctrine based on clear principles, consistently applied.  This should not include selling arms to brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It should not include tolerating war crimes in Gaza.  We must stand up for international law.

Being the only Green MP can be lonely at times, especially on days like today. But my inbox this morning is full of messages from constituents urging me to vote against air strikes and I know that when I stand up and oppose the Government’s motion, I am representing the views of many.

Tuesday 27 August 2013

Lucas: Syria action likely to provoke regime and escalate the conflict

COMMENTING on the announcement that Parliament is being recalled to discuss possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“I’m pleased that Parliament has been recalled, and have long argued that MPs should be guaranteed a free (un-whipped) vote before any involvement in conflict.

“However, I have deep concerns about resorting to military action. While completely deploring the actions of Assad and his regime, and believing that all those responsible for war crimes should be referred to the International Criminal Court, it is by no means clear that military action will reduce suffering in the region.

“Our guiding principle now must be to do all we can to protect lives. When considering military intervention, we need to look at the balance of risks. Currently, there is no evidence that the most likely scenario – a symbolic missile strike on a key regime target – would have a deterrent effect on the Assad regime.  To the contrary, it seems at least as likely that it could act as a provocation to the regime, and lead to an escalation of the conflict, and greater harm to civilians.

“We need to learn from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the UK supports or participates in military action, particularly before a full report from the UN weapons inspectors, our chances of working towards a diplomatic resolution would be seriously undermined.

“Given that Russia looks likely to block agreement at the Security Council, the legality of a military response is also in question.

“The UK should now redouble efforts to address the refugee crisis, particularly in Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon, and support all humanitarian efforts to reduce suffering.”

No attack on Syria: Protest Wednesday, Demonstrate Saturday

No attack on Syria
- Protest tomorrow 5pm, Wednesday 28 August, Downing Street, London
- National Demonstration: Saturday 31 August, 12 noon, Embankment, London

Britain, France and the US are committing to another disastrous military intervention. Apart from the inevitable casualties, any attack on Syria can only inflame an already disastrous civil war and would risk pulling in regional powers further.

Most people in this country have learnt from the disasters of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. According to a Telegraph/YouGov poll on Sunday only 9% of the British public would support troops being sent to Syria, and only 16% support sending more arms to the region. Our politicians however have learnt nothing.

Take action:
We need the maximum level of protests to stop them plunging us in to yet another catastrophic war.

No attack on Syria
- Protest tomorrow 5pm, Wednesday 28 August, Downing Street, London
- National Demonstration: Saturday 31 August, 12 noon, Embankment, London

The national demonstration on Saturday will gather at Embankment (near Embankment tube) and march via Parliament and Downing Street, ending in Central London for a political rally to say No attack on Syria.

Please do not hesitate to contact the office on 020 7561 4830 or email office@stopwar.org.uk

 http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/get-involved/join-or-donate

What should we do about Syria?

The following is the text of a letter which Philip Grant sent jointly to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 27 August, and which is produced here as a “guest blog” so that other readers can express their own views, if they wish to do so. As Parliament has been recalled to discuss Syria, Philip also copied it to Barry Gardiner MP, with the message: ‘I hope that, on this issue, you will not repeat the error of judgement you made in 2003 in supporting British military action in Iraq.’
 
Dear Mr Cameron and Mr Hague,

Why Britain should not take military action over Syria

I am writing to ask you to reconsider the action which several recent public statements and media reports suggest that you are about to commit this country to taking. Like you, I am appalled by the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria, particularly against civilians, but the use by Britain and/or its allies of military action in this conflict will not solve Syria’s problems, and is more likely to make matters in the Middle East worse rather than better.

The current situation in Syria is, like all armed conflicts, terrible for the people caught up in it, but it is a civil war, and does not directly involve, or threaten, the United Kingdom. Like all such conflicts, atrocities have occurred, and have probably been committed by groups on both sides. Civil wars are awful events and take a long time to heal, but they have to be resolved by the people of the countries that they affect. England’s own eight year civil war in the 1640’s was followed by more than ten years of discord and dictatorship, before the return of the monarchy and parliamentary government. The Ottoman Empire did not get involved in our civil war, and there was no reason why it should – it was a long distance away, and our conflict had nothing to do with a country in the eastern Mediterranean. Although there are much better communications in the 21st century than in the 17th, the principle is still the same.

Have our involvement in the Iraq war from 2003, in Afghanistan since 2001 and more recently in the Libyan civil conflict, meant that those countries now enjoy peace, stability and democracy? The honest answer is “No”. Not only that, our own and the US’s military involvement in those countries has seen the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, some as a direct result of high-tech weapons being directed at the “wrong” targets, or even worse, because of deliberate action by over-zealous service personnel. There is no way that our military involvement in the Syrian conflict would not cause more unnecessary deaths.

This country was wrong, and in breach of international law, to attack Iraq without the full approval of the United Nations in 2003. It would be equally wrong to get involved, with allies but again without a clear resolution approved by the UN Security Council, in any military action against the Assad government or any other group in Syria. That approval will not be forthcoming, because of the “checks and balances” built into the UN system. Those “balances” are not a bad thing, because one country engaging in military action against another sovereign country which is not at war with it is something which the international community rightly wishes to avoid, unless there is absolutely no alternative.

I am sure you feel that Britain has to do something, and I agree. It should continue to speak out against any atrocities, and support all efforts to get them properly investigated, so that whoever commits them can be brought before a proper court in due course, either within Syria or at the international court, to be tried for their crimes. It should do everything it can to support humanitarian work to help those affected by the conflict, both refugees in neighbouring countries and, where possible, those displaced and suffering within Syria. It should encourage all sides to cease fighting and try to resolve their differences by discussion and agreement, for the sake of their own fellow Syrians.

What Britain should not do is to use any of its weapons and armed forces, or to support or encourage others to use theirs, to attack any targets within Syria. If we were to go down that road, where would it stop? Assume that the US navy (and our own?) were to fire several hundred cruise missiles at so-called military targets in Syria. Damage would be done, people would be killed, but would that make the various sides in the civil war stop fighting? And if it did not, what action would “the allies” take next? How many more people would die, and how long would we continue to take such action, before this extra destruction ended? 

What damage would also be done to Britain’s relations with other countries around the world, and what further instability and conflict might such action trigger in the Middle East?

Please listen to this common sense advice from an ordinary British citizen and voter, and resist the temptation to take “the military option”.

Friday 22 February 2013

Natalie Bennett rounds on Labour and the Iraq War

Natalie Bennett's leaders speech (extract) at today's Green Party Conference in Nottingahm

Monday 11 July 2011

Vital meetings this week

BRENT STOP THE WAR MEETING MONDAY 11th JULY, 7.30 p.m.
For the next Brent Stop the War meeting, we are very fortunate to have Gregg Muttit as our speaker.  He is the author of a very powerful book: Fuel on the Fire, oil and politics in occupied Iraq.  The meeting will be at the Brent Trades Hall (Apollo Club), 375 High Rd, Willesden, NW10 2JR and will start at 7.30 pm.  Or for a flyer advertising the meeting and a map to show the venue, go to our website www.brentstopwar.org.uk



BRENT FIGHTBACK PUBLIC MEETING, THURSDAY 14th JULY, 7.30 p.m.

The meeting is on Where Next For the Fight Against the ConDem Attacks? and the speaker will be Zita Holbourne who is an executive member of both the PCS union and BARAC - Black Activists Rising Against Cuts. It will be on Thursday 14th July 7.30 pm at the Learie Constantine Centre 43 - 47 Dudden Hill Lane NW10 2ET (map here: http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=522165&Y=184885&A=Y&Z=110 ).   We hope that following the successful strike rally and demonstration on June 30th many more trades unionists and activists will come along, contribute to the meeting and get involved in Brent Fightback. Everybody is welcome whether they are trade union members, service users, students, pensioners, employed or unemployed.  

Please pass this invitation on to everyone you know who is affected by the cuts and the government's attacks on pay, pensions, benefits, housing, the NHS and education.

Sunday 31 January 2010

We must not let Blair get away with murder


The comments on my story about the Youth Parliament show how angry, frustrated and disenchanted people feel with local politicians. At a national level the expenses scandal got massive publicity, but to my mind the public lies told by Tony Blair and his government over Iraq are of a different magnitude. The number of British soldiers killed is in the hundreds - the number of Iraqi civilians killed is in the hundreds of thousands. War crimes are more important than financial crimes.

That was the reason I went down to the demonstration outside the Chilcott Inquiry on Friday when Blair was due to testify. Interviewed by Australian TV for Channel 9, I stated baldly that the Iraq War had been illegal and that therefore Blair should be put on trial for war crimes. I predicted that he would easily manage the Inquiry Panel and would be unapologetic.  I stated my belief that his action had been predicated on staying onside with President Bush and the US at any cost.

So it turned out. The low number of people attending the demonstration, after the hundreds of thousands who marched against the war in the first place, was a big disappointment. It may be that everyone expected Blair to dance circles around a toothless panel but I fear that our failure to express massive anger about Blair's actions is a sign of our feelings of helplessness and resignation. If this is part of a wider political disengagement we leave the way clear, internationally for an attack on Iran, and nationally for the shadowy Right to exert more influence. 

Earlier in the week I read an account on the front page of the local paper in Leighton Buzzard of a row about the BNP renting the local British Legion club for a meeting. A BNP spokesperson was quoted as saying that the BNP should be heard because it was the only political party opposed to the British presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such a stance opens up all sorts of scenarios for the General Election.