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.
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:
climate change and war –
war and the natural environment
comparing war today with the
two world wars
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...
mercenaries (PMSCs - private
military security companies)
new technology (napalm, cluster bombs, mines, aerial bombs,
robots, spy systems)
refugees and other
consequences of war (poverty)
Dow,
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
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
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
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
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
- 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…
- 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.
At the end of May 2007 the
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
David Strahan (Guardian
Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex
Tillerson said he was looking forward “to the day when we can partner with
Even Alan Greenspan, former
head of the US Federal Reserve concedes that the
See: The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of
Petroleum Man, by David Strahan. Also: www.lastoilshock.com
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
In
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
Blackwater’s management has
deep ties to the Republican Party, and it provided personal security for Paul
Bremer, the American “proconsul” in
In
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
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
In
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
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!).
14th March data display by Simon Rogers of
last 10 years in
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
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
February 2008:
A nine-judge panel of law lords is being asked to order a public inquiry into
the deaths of soldiers in
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
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…
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
Since 2003, bill for both
wars adds up to £10 bn. (G 110308). 2007 – 8 estimates are:
Other observations on the wars:
See Dahr Jamail’s book The
Will to resist, on soldiers who refuse to fight in
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
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
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
- 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
- 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:
- Book:
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?
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…
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.
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.