Imagining Other

 

Power and Protest (social movements) in the 20th Century:

(4) The peace, anti-war and anti-nuclear movements:

Notes compiled up to 2010.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                Links: Imagining Other index page.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Updates since 2010.

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 Note: these notes are presented in reverse chronological order of my writing them – most recent first – though some recent additions have also been made.

They contain both some topics that I believe are important aspects of the peace movement, and some concerning the horrors of war and war’s ‘collateral’ effects.

 

Alphabetical List of Bookmarks:

 

Blackwater

climate change and war – war and the natural environment

colonialism - legacy of  

comparing war today with the two world wars

cost of defence (UK)

Dow

international courts (ICJ, ICC) and the UN

Iraq war (resource control)                                                                                

Iraq war 2 (PMSCs – privatization of war)

Iraq war: will there be an inquiry, etc? Costs. Legality and other observations. Torture. See also Current Affairs books...

Kosovo

Libya   

mercenaries (PMSCs - private military security companies) 

new technology  (napalm, cluster bombs, mines, aerial bombs, robots, spy systems)

nuclear proliferation

proxy wars       

refugees and other consequences of war (poverty)

resource control

 

Dow, Bhopal and the 2012 London Olympics:

Meredith Alexander resigned from the Olympics Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 when Dow was given the job of providing the ‘wrap around’ – Dow claims not to have any responsibility for Bhopal, since it took over the responsible company after the event. Amnesty International argues it is still responsible. Dow’s claims to have paid what was asked for are rejected by e.g. Freedom – the cost of ‘cleaning up’ the area has not been met, and the remains of the chemicals are still causing birth malformations etc.

 

Costs of defence:

 

George Monbiot, G 230609, gives some staggering figures:

 

- MoD budget is £38 bn, more than any other department except health and education, and equivalent of 12% of state spending

- service charges on the MoD’s private finance initiative funding: £1.3 bn – more than the entire budget of the department of energy and climate change

- MoD’s budget for capital charges and depreciation: £9.6 bn – twice the budget of the department for international development

- property management: £1.5 bn

- consultants and lawyers: £470 m

- let alone ‘bullets bombs and the like’: £650 m.

 

I agree with George: we could cut the defence budget by 90% and suffer no loss to our national security. After all, in 2003 the MoD said: ‘there are currently no major conventional military threats to the UK or NATO… it is clear that we no longer need to retain a capability against the re-emergence of a direct conventional strategic threat.’

 

By comparison, though, the cost of the ‘credit crunch’ so far is:

- to rescue RBS and Lloyds: £1.5 tn

- national (net state) debt now over £700 bn and likely to reach 150% of GDP next year

 

Comparison with the two “world wars”:

 

Geoffrey Wheatcroft (Independent on Sunday, Comment, 11.11.07) rightly, in my opinion, points out that our attitude to war has changed dramatically. In the two World Wars there was an incredible loss of life – today’s wars produce comparatively few casualties. Thus the death toll of Americans in the Iraq war to date is 805. British dead in the First World War: 750,000 (of whom 300,000 had no known grave – this is in an article on Jack Kipling whose father made sure he went to war, and who was killed within days at Loos in the autumn of 1915), and in the Second: 300,000. During these wars hundreds were killed within hours – not over months as now.

 

There are also many more civilian casualties: we do not know exactly how many Iraqis have died, but it is likely to be in the hundreds of thousands. During the Kosovo war, a French General asked if we now only kill civilians in war. And maybe our soldiers are ready to kill but not to die…

 

With regard to the political class, the contrast is also striking: None of our present government has any experience of military action. In the First WW, 22 sitting MPs were killed in action., and every PM from 1940 – 1963 had previously served as an infantry officer in that war. 85 sons of MPs were killed: does any MP now have a son serving?

 

Of the men who went to Oxford in 1913, 31% were killed over the next five years. The Bush administration is composed of “chicken-hawks”… Only 12 Harvard men died in Vietnam. See: Roth-Douquet, Kathy and Schaeffer, Frank: AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service – and How It Hurts Our Country.

 

As Kipling himself put it:

 

“If any question why we died,

Tell them because our fathers lied.”

 

Wheatcroft says perhaps this should now read “rulers”.

 

Refugees:

- although war between European powers has been avoided (unless we include the former Yugoslavia), there have been many wars in the rest of the world, and refugees from such conflict constitute one of the biggest problems today

- War on Want says that ‘conflict is a major source of poverty’: Iraq gains 95% of its revenue from oil, but international oil companies are being given control (see below) when such resources should be under the control of the people of Iraq. See www.waronwant.org/iraq. The pressure-group is also campaigning to have mercenaries controlled…  

 

Proxy wars:

- it seems to me that, instead of direct conflict between "major powers", “proxy wars” are more common – i.e. wars in countries of “third parties”, where the major powers may be backing opposing sides. 

 

Control over resources:

- more conflict occurs now over control of resources, and less as a result of ideology (hopefully, fascism was a passing phase, and the end of the Cold War means that differences between “communism” and “capitalism” are no longer likely to explode into direct armed conflict). Resource control, I would argue, lies at the heart of much conflict, even if it is overlaid with religious or ideological difference.

 

Iraq and resource control:

 

At the end of May 2007 the US admitted it was looking for “a long and enduring presence” in Iraq – according to Robert Gates, the US defence secretary. He drew parallels with the situation in Korea and Japan as regards “security arrangements” between the US and other governments. US troops have been in Japan since 1945, and in Korea since the end of the Korean war, says Patrick Seale, author of The Struggle for Syria (Guardian 9/6/07). Seale lists: the wish to retain control of energy resources, the ability to protect US power over the whole oil-rich Gulf, as well as confronting Iran and Syria, making up in Iraq for the loss of bases in Saudi Arabia, and being on hand to protect Israel – as the real reasons behind the Iraq invasion. This is, he says, a “neo-colonial or imperial project”.

 

Seale quotes Jimmy Carter as saying “there are people in Washington… who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq…the reason we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region.” The war is costing the US $1bn a year, and shortly after the invasion the US established 110 bases in Iraq – the present plan is to consolidate these into 14 “enduring bases”. The US is also building what will be the biggest US embassy in the world – it will hold 1,000 staff and occupy a 100-acre site on the banks of the Tigris.  Maybe hopes of the US leaving Iraq eventually are pipe-dreams?

 

David Strahan (Guardian 26/6/07 and 3/10/2007) also  finds evidence of the real reason behind the invasion of Iraq in the interests of the oil Companies:

Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson said he was looking forward “to the day when we can partner with Iraq to develop that resource potential.” Strahan argues that global oil production is likely to peak within about a decade, aggregate oil production in the developed world has been falling steadily since 1997 – from the middle of the next decade everything depends on OPEC. The US Department of Energy warned in 2005 that a crash programme of mitigation would be needed, 20 years before the peak is reached. Others have warned that OPEC might be exaggerating how much oil it still has. Iraq has the world’s third largest reserves (115bn barrels). In 2000 Cheney made a speech on oil depletion in which he said “the Middle east with two thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.” British North Sea oil production peaked in 1999. In 2002 Bush and Blair met, and this is probably when Blair gave his support to Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. At the same summit, they agreed (without any publicity) to set up a US-UK Energy Dialogue, a permanent liaison dedicated to “energy security and diversity.” This agreement was only revealed later after a freedom of information inquiry. Minutes of the meetings have not been released despite requests. However, one paper dated February 2003 says that Middle East oil production would have to be doubled by 2030. This on the eve of the invasion!

 

Even Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve concedes that the Iraq war was “largely about oil” – Strahan argues that is all about deferring peak oil. However, it has failed, as there are many attacks on the pipelines, and output is at a level below the pre-invasion level.

 

See: The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man, by David Strahan. Also: www.lastoilshock.com

 

Iraq: is war being “privatized”? 

 

Globally, it has been estimated that £44.5 billion is paid every year to private military companies. They operate in some 50 countries.

 

In the UK, War on Want estimates (Oct 2006) that private security firms’ revenue soared from £320 m in 2003 to £1.8 bn in 2004, due to Iraqi contracts. At least 181 companies, mainly British or American, employing more than 48,000 staff (of whom some 21,000 are British) are operating in Iraq. UK legislation does not cover their activities (Richard Norton-Taylor, G 301006, quoting War on Want report). Iraqi officials have often complained about their behaviour. There are three British security guards to every one British soldier in Iraq (Richard Norton-Taylor, G 311006).  The number of their employees killed is around 827 (2006).

 

In Iraq there are more than 180 private military companies operating (as “security guards” etc), and this may amount to 48,000 private soldiers, according to a US government report (some estimate this at 80,000). They can earn a great deal each day - £400, or up to £750 if well-trained – which is more than the enlisted soldier. America has paid out $18 bn for reconstruction in Iraq, but the money is now drying up (Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian 22.09.07) – largely because the situation there is too dangerous!

 

Especially of note is Blackwater USA: four of their workers were ambushed in their vehicles in Fallujah in 2004; they were killed, and their bodies burned, hacked up, trampled on, and then displayed on a bridge. The company is secretive, and based in North Carolina. They have lost about 30 men in Iraq. Blackwater employees (paid up to £325 a day) have recently (May 07) got into trouble for firing on and killing 11 civilians; they opened fire when a vehicle failed to stop, killing the driver and his wife – 12 other civilians were injured. Although Blackwater says the convoy fired back when it was attacked, the Iraqi government wants it expelled, and has revoked its license to operate in Iraq.  There is no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors, says Jeremy Scahill author of a book on Blackwater: see SM4 Section 5 (Conclusion and References). They cannot be prosecuted in Iraq because of edicts imposed by the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer.

 

Blackwater’s management has deep ties to the Republican Party, and it provided personal security for Paul Bremer, the American “proconsul” in Baghdad. Blackwater provided guards for the better properties in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina… An organisation called Blackwater Watch says that it is out of control. Jeremy Scahill, points out that whilst there have been 64 courts martial of US soldiers, no private contractor has been prosecuted, despite numerous incidents. Blackwater employees have to sign a lifelong non-disclosure contract that carries a $250,000 penalty!

 

In America they are being sued for unlawful deaths (of US employees) in relation to incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blackwater here is arguing it should have the same immunity as the US army!

 

More on Blackwater: founded in 1997 by two former navy Seals, its mission is “to support security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.” It has trained more than 40,000 people at its base in North Carolina, and has more than 21,000 “soldiers” on its books. It had its first government contract in 2000. Had a $1bn five-year contract to protect US officials in Baghdad.  It has more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gun-ships, and the world’s largest private military facility – 7,000 acres in North Carolina, and facilities elsewhere in the US. It manufactures an armoured vehicle (the Grizzly).

It is being investigated by the FBI (Guardian). It has had “diplomatic security” contracts with the State Department, since 2004, worth $750m. 

 

Also operating in Iraq are: Aegis Defence Services, which is run by a former Scots Guard called Tim Spicer (implicated in the Arms to Africa scandal of the late 1990s – weapons were shipped to Sierra Leone during an embargo), and chaired by Field Marshal Lord Inge, former chief of the defence staff (!) – they were awarded a $300m in 2004 to co-ordinate security for Iraq’s construction projects, and $475m over two years in 2007 – the biggest single deal in Iraq, and their turnover in 2004 was £62 m; ArmorGroup International is London-based, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Tory defence secretary, is a Director - it protects a third of all non-military convoys in Iraq, and has contracts in Basra. The private security industry in Iraq is worth $100bn, according to Carolyn O’Hara, assistant editor of Foreign Policy magazine in Washington DC (New Statesman 27.08.07). Control Risks has contracts with UK and US agencies, including Foreign Office.

 

In Afghanistan, Dyn-Corp is protecting president Hamid Karzai; it also operates in Colombia and Bolivia and elsewhere in the “war on drugs”.

 

According to Ben Quinn (NS 180208) the amount of taxpayers’ money that goes on Private Military Security Companies has reached £200 million, and will increase to £250 m this year. Foreign Office spent £50 m last year on PMSCs, e.g. £24 m to Control Risks, £19 m to ArmorGroup (non-exec chairman since 2004 Malcolm Rifkind). Liberal Democrats point out that by comparison government spent £125 m on UNHCR work in Iraq. These mercenaries are not subject to British law, and perhaps not to any law, argue War on Want and CAAT.

 

Care International UK has also expressed concern. Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine talks of outsourcing leading to “the hollow army”, much as multinationals are “hollow companies” outsourcing the dirty work to poorly-paid contractors. (Not that mercenaries seem to be poorly-paid!).

 

Iraq War of 2003:

 

14th March data display by Simon Rogers of last 10 years in Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/mar/14/iraq-ten-years-visualised

 

14th March 2013: tenth anniversary of the 2003 invasion... Sami Ramadani has a powerful piece, Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/14/iraq-pain-2003-civil-war?INTCMP=SRCH

After 35 years of Saddamist dictatorship, 13 years of sanctions, and ten years on from the 2003 war – the country is staring into the abyss. Over a million died since 1991. 4 million became refugees, and a million have still to return. There are 1 million internal refugees. Explosions and shootings kill on a daily basis. Depleted uranium was sued, and the US may have used chemical weapons in Faluja. Lack of essential services. Lack of women’s rights. The occupation has used torture, sectarian death squads and elevated a corrupt ruling class that gets richer by the day. The US embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world... etc etc...

 

12th March 2013: Emma Sky (formerly governorate co-ordinator of Kirkuk for the Coalition Provisional Authority, 2003 – 4) notes six important lessons:

1. intervention requires legitimacy – this was disputed from the outset, and can only be understood against the backdrop of 9/11

2. interventions need limited, clear and realistic goals – the rationale shifted (WMD, regime change, democracy) and there was a mismatch between goals, plans, organisation and resources

3. the collapse of the state leads to communal violence [a point anarchists need to answer] – the coalition occupied without enough forces, disbanded the Iraqi security forces, de-Ba’athified comprehensively, rather than only remove those who had committed crimes against the people

4. an inclusive elite agreement is critical – but Shias were allowed to dominate, supported by Kurdish nationalists, and Iraqis in exile

5. elections do not necessarily bestow legitimacy – the new elites were more focused on capturing power than serving the people

6. interventions have unintended consequences – civil war and over 100,000 Iraqis killed

 

Note 21.12.08 from incomplete cutting from Guardian:

A brief note on the legality of the Iraq war: Bingham in recent lecture … claimed that Security Council did not sanction the American and British action in its autumn 2002 resolution – not only Goldsmith, and Straw but Prof. Christopher Greenwood (UK rep. on International Court of Justice) take contrary point of view… And when problem in Security Council is vetoes by China, Russia does this mean that ‘legal’ action is that sanctioned by them? (Hmph!) Also US has breached international law and has been involved in 40 military actions against sovereign states in the past 25 years.

 

February 2008: A nine-judge panel of law lords is being asked to order a public inquiry into the deaths of soldiers in Iraq (Clare Dyer, G 120208). Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke argue that: the state has a duty to safeguard life, which covers soldiers, who are “under the unique compulsory control of the state and have to obey orders.” (Rabinder Singh QC) Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies, it is argued, as it protects the right to life.

 

Court of Appeal ruled in 2006 that the government is not obliged to order an independent/public inquiry.

 

The mothers argue that Blair did not take sufficient steps to ensure the invasion of Iraq was lawful, and so exposed soldiers to the risk of death. They also want an explanation of the process that decided the war was legal, including the advice of the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. It is clear (from resignation letter of the FO’s deputy legal advisor, Elizabeth Wilmshurst) that Goldsmith changed his mind a number of times, whilst most advice the government had received was that the war would be illegal.

 

The lords (Bingham as senior law lord, with Hoffman, Hope, Scott, Rodger, Carswell, Brown, Mance, Lady Hale – 9 rather than the usual 5 because of the constitutional issues involved) will probably take six weeks to come to a decision.

 

Note: whilst admiring and supporting the mothers, and agreeing with them that there should be an inquiry, I am at a loss to follow the logic of this case: (i) the purpose of soldiering is to put lives at risk – even though those running wars may say they hope that no-one will be killed, this outcome is extremely unlikely!!! (ii) whether a war is legal or not is surely irrelevant: is the risk of being killed higher or lower in a legal than in an illegal war?  On the other hand (as Jill my wife has just argued) if the argument is that the war should not have happened at all (= what is meant by saying it was illegal), then the logic clearly is that their lives would not have been put at risk. True, but once the (illegal) war has started obviously this can no longer apply. And again, I cannot see that embarking on an illegal war is more risky than embarking on a legal one. I guess my pacifism and my cynicism are getting in the way: it would be nice to hope that we can put a stop to illegal wars… but then I have difficulty with the very notion of a legal war, since for me the right to life is paramount…

 

April 10th 2008: Richard Norton-Taylor reports (G): the law lords unanimously dismissed the claim that government must hold a public inquiry into the Iraq war. Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke, through their QCs Rabinder Singh and Michael Fordham, based their case on article 2 of European Human Rights Convention, on the right to life, and they had argued that the government had not exercised due diligence, thus risking their sons’ lives unduly. They also argued that the convention meant that there must be “independent judicial consideration of the government’s approach to the legality of the war”. Nine law lords ruled that the human rights convention does not apply to war. They also said that they could not conceive that sovereign states would have considered binding themselves to a public inquiry on the decision to go to war. Lady Hale did note that the Attorney General’s advice on the legality of the war in Iraq was ‘very far from clear and unambiguous’ She also said that a state which expects its soldiers to obey their orders even if they disagreed, must have a correlative duty to the soldiers to show that the orders are lawful…

 

Others have argued that the war was not legal: Burns Weston, Director of University of Iowa Center for Human Rights, Richard Perle, Kofi Annan and the UN, the International Commission of International Law Jurists – who wrote to Bush and Blair to this effect. More recently Admiral Sir Alan West, previously First Sea Lord

 

Costs of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars:

 

Since 2003, bill for both wars adds up to £10 bn. (G 110308). 2007 – 8 estimates are: Iraq £1,648 m, Afghanistan £1,649 m. increases over last year of 72% and 122% respectively.

 

Other observations on the wars:

 

See Dahr Jamail’s book The Will to resist, on soldiers who refuse to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Iraq: A brief note on the legality of the Iraq war: Bingham in recent lecture … claimed that Security Council did not sanction the American and British action in its autumn 2002 resolution – not only Goldsmith, and Straw but Prof. Christopher Greenwood (UK rep. on International Court of Justice) take contrary point of view… And when problem in Security Council is vetoes by China, Russia does this mean that ‘legal’ action is that sanctioned by them? (Hmph!) Also US has breached international law and has been involved in 40 military actions against sovereign states in the past 25 years. (Noted 211208 from incomplete cutting from G.)

 

Torture:

 

See Philippe Sands’ book Torture Team (Penguin). Several reports (3 in 3 years) indicate that there has been “force drift” i.e. where interrogators come to believe that some force/violence is good, then more will be even better – an observation made a long time ago by Sartre in his preface to Henri Alleg’s book (La Question) on torture in Algeria… Sleep deprivation whilst hooded and cuffed, stress positions etc. Court Martials found soldiers not guilty because the senior officer Col. Jorge Mendonca argued these techniques had been cleared by the chain of command. But in 2006 Supreme Court ruled that Geneva conventions still applied to the detainees at Guantanamo. One judge even said: violations of Common Article Three, part of the law of war and treaty ratified by the US, are considered ‘war crimes’ punishable as federal offences.

 

Climate change causing war:

- there is even the likelihood that climate change is provoking conflict: in Darfur, rainfall is down by up to 30% over 40 years, and the Sahara is advancing by over a mile a year (Julian Borger, Diplomatic Editor, Guardian, 23.06.07) – this is leading to tension between farmers and herders over disappearing pasture and evaporating water-holes. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says that such conflicts are likely to increase in the future. There are incipient conflicts over natural resources in Chad, and in Southern Africa as well. The UNEP report says that it is likely the causes of the Darfur conflict are to be found in climate change – though the killing started in 2003. Up to 500,000 have been killed in this war, which is usually portrayed as a conflict between Arabs and Africans.

 

War damages the natural environment:

 

The most striking examples are “agent orange” (defoliant, that causes deformed births, used in Vietnam), and the burning oil wells in Kuwait; but so does the arms trade: the processing of heavy metals at arms factories pollutes the soil and groundwater; some 30,000 tons of chemical weapons have to be destroyed in the US as part of an international treaty – but incinerating them is dangerous to the environment. However, in the US a group called Military Toxics Project has been set up to oppose dangers such as these, and there is some opposition in developing countries – where, of course, dumping by the over-developed countries takes place.  As noted in…, the cost of Trident is equivalent to the cost of reducing CO2 to required levels by 2030.

 

Nuclear proliferation:

- it is clear that now (2007) we live in a very different world with regard to nuclear weapons: there are a growing number of nuclear powers (see nuclear stockpiles above), and even “minor” powers such as Iran and North Korea are getting close to having nuclear weapons. We can also see - from the situation with regard to Iran - how much pressure it takes to dissuade a country from getting nuclear power (and possibly nuclear weapons) once it decides that is what it needs!

 

Legacy of colonialism:

- the legacy of colonialism is still being played out in wars in Africa and Asia: in the Congo the aftermath of the rapid withdrawal by the Belgians is still being felt; in other countries a minority that was favoured by the colonizers is still in conflict with others who feel they were excluded from power (Hutus and Tutsis for instance); and elsewhere the question of control over resources which originated in colonial days is still the source of conflict.. See: The anti-colonial movement (in preparation). However, it has been argued that more Africans have died of AIDS than of war in the 20th century…

 

- Book: Ghosts of Empire: Britain’s legacies in the modern world –Kwasi Kwarteng, Bloomsbury £9.99 (2013) – reviewed Linda Colley Sat Gdn 04.08.12. A refutation of such as Niall Ferguson – deals with Iraq, Sudan, Burma, Nigeria, Kashmir, and Hong Kong. ‘Modernity’ is a shifting entity, not easily defined – the same is true of empire (says Colley)

 

- Book: Britain’s Empire... Richard Gott – reviewed by Richard Drayton: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/07/britains-empire-richard-gott-review

And a fascinating short piece by Drayton on the neo-cons’ ‘Hobbesian’ vision of American power in the world – the aim is not just to conquer but to destroy so that the victim needs an authority figure to ‘put things right’: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/28/usa.iraq

 

New technology:  some would say that technology has made war “smarter” - e.g. cruise missiles that are guided to their target. However a lot of myths have been perpetrated about how smart this weaponry is. Nevertheless, some of the new weaponry has more devastating effects than ever, on civilians or ground troops:

         

          napalm (a sticky substance that burns into the flesh),

         

          cluster bombs: these release hundreds of “bomblets” with an explosive range of 10 metres, some of which (up to 25%) fail to explode, leaving danger for anyone who picks them up; they are especially attractive to children… They have been used in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. After only 34 days’ war (against Israel?) 89 cluster bomb sites were found and many more expected. Already there have been 4 dead and 21 injured: this could run into thousands (G 210806). Cluster bombs are not permitted to be used in urban areas. The British used them in the first 1991 Gulf War.

 

          The US has 370,000 M26 rockets, each with 644 bomblets, which scatter over 20,000 square metres. The US stopped exporting them to Israel in 1982 because they had been used on civilians. Exports were resumed in 1988. US military aid to Israel was $2.2 bn in 2005.

 

Des Brown the Defence Secretary announced early in 2007 that the British armed forces would be banned from using “dumb” cluster bombs, and would only deploy ones with a self-destruct mechanism. Last year the MoD described the CRV-7 rocket system as a cluster weapon. However, more recently, Margaret Beckett, then foreign secretary, said that it was not “dumb” because virtually all the bomblets explode on impact, and in July Bob Ainsworth, the armed forces minister, told MPs that it did not fall within the government’s understanding of a cluster munition. The argument goes that it has “too few submunitions” and a “direct fire capability” (since it is fired from a helicopter?). But others say that the weapon has 19 rockets in a pod and therefore 171 submunitions, and the MoD have admitted it has a 6% failure rate. A Commons foreign affairs committee report estimated that the M85 cluster bomblets, which are supposed to self-destruct, have a 10% failure rate. Groups opposed to cluster bombs say Britain has been the third largest user of them over the past 10 years. In February 2007, 46 countries, including Britain, called for a worldwide ban on these weapons. (Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian). Only Belgium has banned them.

 

However, May 2008 an agreement has been reached banning cluster bombs…

         

          landmines also are to be found scattered over territory after a war has finished, maiming and killing anyone who comes across them. They were still being laid in 2003 in Burma, Burundi, Columbia, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Philippines, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan and Nepal.

         

          “aerial” bombs can be exploded above troops (as in the first gulf war), - they burn above an area and suck out the oxygen, suffocating those underneath

 

- and some new technological developments raise ethical issues:

 

          robots: hundreds of research projects are underway at American universities and defence companies (New Statesman 22.06.06). So much is being invested, it is being called the “new Manhatten Project.” Project Alpha is developing robots for the US army, and one of its team leaders says that robots are so accurate that anyone who fired at them would be killed. They can respond automatically to gunshots they detect – without, of course, the moral scruple that might affect a human soldier. Nor would US personnel be put at risk. Some are questioning whether it is right to automate war in this way. It is also noticeable how the border between computer games and reality is being blurred. According to Pete Warren (Technology Guardian 26.10.06), 32 countries are working on the development of unscrewed combat systems, and the US has already got 20 “unmanned ground systems” that can be controlled from a laptop, and 2,500 uncrewed systems deployed around the world. UAVs (uncrewed aerial vehicle) have been used to detect the location of, and then guide missiles to take out mortars and their crews in Fallujah. In the Tora Bora mountains, when hunting for bin Laden, and where it was too dangerous for soldiers, Talon reconnaissance drones were used. These are small tanks with camera and sensing equipment, armed with anything from a sniper’s rifle to a rocket launcher. By 2015 the US wants to have a third of its fighting strength in the form of robots. This is part of a Future Combat Systems Project (FCS) costing $127bn.

 

spy systems: some are talking of developing spy systems and sensors that would “map a city and the activities in it, including inside buildings, to sort adversaries and their equipment from civilians and their equipment, including in crowds, and to spot snipers, suicide bombers or IEDs” (improvised explosive devices)… (Tony Tether, director of Darpa, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the US – New Statesman 22.06.06). Will this lead to “military omniscience”? Another method is to build a computer simulation of a target area: this has already been done with eight square miles of Jakarta, including 1.6 million buildings, the cellars, sewers, 109,000 vehicles and people and their movements... This information can then be used to “take out” targets more precisely – in theory. That is, provided you trust the judgements made as well as the equipment!!! And of course this kind of capability has implications for “homeland security.”

 

International Courts, Milosevic and former Yugoslavia….

 

International Organisations:

 

1. Agree to a large extent with Simon Jenkins (G, 300508): we used to think of UN etc with a sense of respect (especially for people such as Dag Hammerskold and Albert Schweitzer) – but now the people involved seem to expect a luxurious life-style, expenses, and impunity from punishment for committing crimes such as exploiting the victims of tragedies (atrocities against women and children committed by “blue-berets” in Africa). Examples: European Broadcasting Union (runs e.g. Eurovision Song Contest) has 400 staff in Switzerland, with no oversight; IOC and costs of running Olympic Games; FIFA; even Kofi Annan’s 2000 “poverty summit” – with lobsters and champagne…

 

But he goes on to say if you want something done get a nation to do it, not an inter-nation – witness the relative success of the Americans in Iraq, against the chaos of “some 30 nations” that intervened in Afghanistan. 

 

Organisations such as International Court in the Hague need accountability, but to whom?

 

ICC:

 

has recently started trial of Thomas Lubanga (G 260109, Chris McGreal) the Congolese militia leader. Charged with conscripting child soldiers. “ICC’s credibility also damaged by the first indictment handed down – against the Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony and the international dispute over the charging of Sudan’s leaders for killings in Darfur”… [not sure why either of these was damaging to ICC – but see notes in SM Ch 4 Section 4 re international courts]. Human rights groups have criticised prosecutors for limiting charges to child soldier recruitment when there were mass killings, torture, rape etc in the Ituri region of north-east Congo. This was battleground for fighting between Congolese forces and Rwandan and Ugandan militias and armies after their invasion of 1998.

 

 

2. John Laughland, author of “Travesty: the Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice, wrote (G280208):

 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Serbia was not responsible for the Srebrenica (in Bosnia) massacre in 1995 – though it did condemn Serbia for failing to prevent the massacre (a much lesser charge), by not using its influence over the Bosnian Serb army. The Bosnian Serbs were not under the control (or jurisdiction I presume) of Serbia or Yugoslavia (Belgrade). The court also ruled that Serbia was not obliged to pay reparations to Bosnia, and Yugoslavia had no troops in Bosnia. (Moreover, western officials fraternized with Bosnian Serbs who later committed atrocities: are they also responsible?)

 

This is crucial he says, because the west has tried to blame Milosevic for atrocities in Bosnia, and for genocide – which he says has not been proven.

The Kosovo war was fought because the west felt it had not intervened strongly enough against Yugoslavia over Bosnia. Moreover, as in Iraq, there was no UN approval for the Kosovo war. The court has now ruled that Yugoslavia was not responsible for the Srebrenica massacre, so “the main plank of the case for intervention has gone… After 2 years and 300 witnesses, the prosecution never managed to produce conclusive evidence against its star defendant” – NATO charges of genocide turned out to be war propaganda… (see below #Kosovo)

 

Laughland points out that it is crucial to distinguish between:

 

- the ICJ – set up on the basis of the UN Charter, after Nuremberg, it declares that war is illegal except in very restricted cases. States have no right to attack others, even on human rights claims. There are no war crimes without war, and war always makes things worse. It is not a criminal court and claims no jurisdiction over states, unlike the ICTY and the ICC.

 

- the International Criminal Court, on the other hand, and the bodies set up to deal with specific conflicts: ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) and the court for Rwanda, were set up to promote western interests, and are based on the doctrine of interventionism. Consequences: ICC is not investigating any of the following:

 

- after the 1991 Iraq war, the west bombed Iraq for 12 years “to protect the Shias and the Kurds”

 

- NATO bombed the Bosnian Serbs in 1995, and Yugoslavia in 1999 (see below #Kosovo)

 

- Iraq, Afghanistan

– though it is investigating local wars in Africa…

 

More on Kosovo:

 

Serb and pro-Serb demonstrators opposed to Kosovo gaining independence claim that “Kosovo is Serbia”. Noel Malcolm, author of Kosovo: A Short History says (G 260208): Serbs first settled in the Balkans in the early 7th century, their power base was outside Kosovo, which they captured in the early 13th century (so much for ‘Kosovo is the cradle of the Serbs’). The Serbs ruled Kosovo for 250 years, until the Ottoman takeover in the mid-15th century. Serbian forces took Kosovo (“liberated it” they would say) in 1912 – but the Serbian population was, they accept, less than 25%, whilst the majority were Albanian. The latter did not exactly welcome Serb rule. Kosovo was therefore occupied, until 1918, when it was incorporated into Yugoslavia (not into a Serbian state). Kosovo had a dual status until the break-up of Yugoslavia – it was called a part of Serbia, but it was also called a unit of the Yugoslav federation: it had its own parliament and government, and was represented at the federal level alongside Serbia. Kosovo is not, therefore Serbia, but an ex-Yugoslav state.

 

See above #international courts.

 

Libya: Marwan Bishara, author of ‘The Invisible Arab’ (Nation Books) argues that before western intervention in Libya 1,500 people died in the conflict – after, somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 died. He argues also that the uprisings (‘Arab Spring’) in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and the Yemen show that a non-violent road is better.

 

A War Powers Act?

 

The government is discussing a war powers act, like that in the US:  (views of Lord Guthrie, former chief of defence staff – (i) by Richard Norton-Taylor, Guardian 28.12.07. Also: (ii) article by George Monbiot, 01.12.07).

 

(i) Guthrie and Kevin Tebbitt, former permanent secretary at the MoD, were interviewed by Peter Hennessy, (Prof. at Queen Mary, UoL) on Radio 4’s Today programme. He opposes the proposal that some want included in the act, that parliament should decide when Britain goes to war.  Guthrie agrees there should, in principle, be a parliamentary debate – but in practice it would be very difficult, as it would remove the element of surprise for the enemy!!

 

There is a question about the meaning of “going to war” – especially since the last time Britain formally declared war was in 1942 against Siam (now Thailand) – “What we do [now] is slide into war, you cannot avoid that.”

 

The military, and British ministers, are frustrated by other European countries which have a greater parliamentary say in troop deployment, says Norton-Taylor.

 

Tebbitt says that our PM cannot deploy forces without a parliamentary majority, and so he/she is already accountable. (Eh?!)

 

(ii) Guthrie said that with such an act intelligence would have to be shared with MPs (Oh?!) – Tebbitt suggests a select committee could see the intelligence in private. Monbiot refers to the UN Charter:

 

- states must first try to resolve differences by peaceful means (art. 33)

- if these fail, they should refer the matter to the Security Council (art. 37)

- S.C. should then decide what action should be taken.

 

Launching a surprise war (not a battle…) is therefore against international law. See also the Nuremberg Tribunal: “to initiate a war of aggression.. is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

 

Monbiot also reminds us that Tebbitt was the one who prevented the Fraud Squad from investigating allegations of corruption against BAE, and that he tipped off the BAE Chairman about a confidential letter from the SFO, and he failed to tell his minister about the SFO’s warnings! During the Hutton enquiry he at first said that the decision to name Kelly was made in a “meeting chaired by the PM” – a crucial piece of evidence that he later retracted!!

 

 

References etc: see Peace and War notes Section 5.