Archive for February, 2007

World looks away as refugees flee Iraq

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

Iraq is experiencing the largest movement of civilians in the Middle East since the exodus of Palestinians after the creation of Israel, the United Nations says, but the rest of the world is failing to step up to the plate, the Financial Times reports.

 

Two million Iraqis have become refugees in other countries, with most heading to neighbouring Jordan and Syria, while another 1.8m have become displaced within their own country.

 

Assuming a total population of around 26m that is a “staggering” amount, says Gonzalo Vargas Llosa from the UNHCR refugee agency, and the numbers “are rising every day”.

 

Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, yesterday revealed plans for the US to allow 7,000 Iraqi refugees – who have already fled to neighbouring countries – to settle in the US over the next year. Until now the US has allowed only 463 Iraqi refugees into the country since the war began in 2003.

 

The announcement came after Ms Rice met António Guterres, the head of the UNHCR, who has recently returned from a tour of the Middle East where he had complained that the burden of the refugee crisis meant that “a very limited number of countries is paying a very heavy price”.

 

The UN last month issued a $60m appeal, warning that there was “currently no end in sight to the massive and escalating displacement in the face of extreme violence”. The US yesterday pledged $9m for a worldwide resettlement and relief programme but the UN effort remains seriously underfunded.

 

Without that money, the UN says, “UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies lack the resources to cope”, even as increasing numbers of people are cut off from social networks and struggling to subsist.

 

“Large numbers of Iraqi refugees are poor and live in low-income areas,” the appeal warned. “There are reports of women and young girls forced to resort to prostitution . . . and children forced into labour or other forms of exploitation in order to survive.”

 

A UN assessment in Syria found that 30 per cent of Iraqi children were not attending school and the appeal cited growing reports that Syria, Jordan and Lebanon had reached “saturation point”.

 

The UN on Tuesday said the number of Iraqis wanting to register with the UNHCR in Damascus and Amman had “dramatically increased over the past few days”. It added that many Iraqis were afraid of being deported under newly reinforced Syrian immigration regulations, despite Syrian government assurances that it would not force them across the border.

 

At the same time, most of the displaced inside Iraq “are now running out of resources”, Mr Vargas Llosa says, but security problems meant they were cut off from outside help.

 

“I am not sure if there is a crisis today in Africa where there are basically 4m displaced,” he said. “But the issue has not been given the prominence and visibility it deserves. It’s very important for the international community to recognise the enormity of the problem.”

 

Despite the renewed attention, the UN appeal remains mostly empty. It has received $6m from the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund, and a further $1m from the UN-managed International Trust Fund for Iraq.

 

But the only donor country to contribute directly has been Sweden, with $2m. Some others have pledged funds but the money has not yet arrived, while the UK, for example, has not even pledged. The UNHCR says it had to dig into its emergency reserve just to pay this month’s salaries for its Iraq operation staff.

 

The UN also wants rich countries to be more generous in offering resettlement. “This is not a solution for the vast majority,” says Mr Vargas Llosa, but “certainly you could resettle more than has been the case so far”.

 

In the meantime, the UN says Iraq’s neighbours – with outside help – must continue to offer social services. “We understand this is a great burden on them, but the fact is for many Iraqis there is no option but to cross borders,” it says. “They should be able to lead dignified lives in Jordan and Syria.”

 

Five-year ordeal of Guantanamo journalist

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

The International Federation of Journalists has backed new calls from Sudanese and Arab world journalists for the release of Sami al-Haj, a cameraman working for Al-Jazeera, who has been held for five years, tortured and accused of terrorism offences at the notorious Guantanamo detention centre in Cuba. He has never been charged or brought to trial.

“We understand that our colleague is in poor health as a result of his inhuman treatment,” said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. “It is time for this ordeal to end.”

The IFJ says that Sami al-Haj is being victimised for working for the Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera. He was captured by the Pakistani Army on the Afghan border in December 2001 then handed over to United States troops before being transferred to Guantanamo in June 2002.

According to his lawyers he was forced to confess alleged links between al-Jazeera and the terrorist group al-Qaeda. He has undergone regular torture, has been sexually assaulted and has been subject to more than 150 interrogation sessions.

“This case represents a singular injustice that casts a shadow over journalism worldwide,” said White. “It is a shocking and shameful case that makes a mockery of American democracy.” The IFJ is supporting new calls from journalists in the Sudan and around the Arab world for al-Haji’s release. The IFJ is backing appeals this week from its German affiliate the Deutsche Journalistinnen- und Journalisten-Union in ver.di to German Chancellor Angela Merkel to intervene in the case.

Sami al-Haj has been accused without proof of having interviewed Osama bin Laden and to have been involved in arms trafficking for Islamic terrorists is typical of the fate suffered by many of his fellow detainees. Al-Haj is the only confirmed journalist now imprisoned at Guantanamo.

The US alleges that he worked as a financial courier for Chechen rebels, and that he assisted al-Qaeda and extremist figures But he has been held on the basis of secret evidence; he has not been convicted or even charged with a crime. And until last year the military would not even acknowledge he was in custody.

Al-Haj’s lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, says there is no credible evidence against him. “There is absolutely zero evidence that he has any history in terrorism at all,” he says contending that al-Haj is a political prisoner and that the focus of US questioning has not been alleged terrorist activities but obtaining intelligence on Al-Jazeera and its staff.

Home Office deports 38 Kurds to Iraq

Wednesday, February 14th, 2007

The Home Office has been criticised for deporting 38 failed asylum-seekers to Iraq despite the escalating violence there, the Independent reports. The group was flown amid tight security by military aircraft from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire to Arbil in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq yesterday.

The 38, who boarded the flight in handcuffs, are believed to be the third batch of asylum-seekers to be sent to the area against their will. Although less troubled than the rest of Iraq, the region faces a threat from terrorism.

The Home Office says such removals are essential to “maintain the integrity” of the asylum system and that no one will be put at risk by being returned. But Dashty Jamal, of the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees, said: “We are very worried for the lives. We believe they are in danger.”

Within hours of their arrival in Iraq, a truck rigged with explosives blew up near a Baghdad college, killing 18 people. The previous day, bomb blasts ripped apart two crowded city markets. There has also been a wave of killings in Kirkuk, 60 miles from Arbil, over the past month.

A spokesman for Amnesty International said: “These forced removals are sending a wave of fear throughout the Iraqi community in the UK.

“They are putting people’s lives at risk. In post-conflict situations, people should only be returned if there is stability and a durable peace. Only a fantasist could say that of Iraq.”

Anna Reisenberger, the Refugee Council’s acting chief executive, said: “To return what amounts to a token number of asylum-seekers to a place where their safety cannot be guaranteed is alarming.”

Media Workers SCOTLAND

Tuesday, February 13th, 2007

A Scottish Media Workers Against the War campaign was launched at the Stop the War conference in Glasgow on Saturday. There was a great deal of interest and there are big plans to develop the campaign north of the border. All interested people please contact Bruce: brucek3@aol.com

US allegations against Iran “bizarre”

Monday, February 12th, 2007

Patrick Cockburn writes in the Independent: The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the “highest levels” of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defence officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.

“We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government,” said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq.

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children’s toys or to open garage doors.

Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when “shaped charges”, similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name – explosive formed penetrators – may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq.

In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations.

The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein’s elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.

On Iran, US media repeats Iraq mistakes

Monday, February 12th, 2007

It’s déjà vu all over again, write Weisbrot and Naiman at huffingtonpost.com: The front page headlines of the New York Times today (Saturday, February 10) bring back old memories: “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made By Iran, U.S. Says”, “Used Against U.S. Troops”, “Intelligence Data Points to Tehran as Supplying Roadside Weapon”

The article’s main allegations come from “People Without Names” or PWN, described as “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.” A “still classified American intelligence report that was prepared in 2006″ is also cited.

An “American intelligence assessment “is quoted as saying that “as part of its strategy in Iraq, Iran is implementing a deliberate, calibrated policy – approved by Supreme Leader Khamenei and carried out by the Quds Force – to provide explosives support and training to select Iraqi Shia militant groups to conduct attacks against coalition targets.”

While it is plausible that Iran might be providing weapons to its allies in Iraq, it is not so obvious that Iran actually has any incentive to support attacks on US troops – since Iran is allied with the Iraq’s Shiite government and wants it to succeed. A careful report in the Los Angeles Times indicated that top Iranian officials are not so eager for U.S. forces to withdraw (“Iraq Pullout Talk Makes Iran Uneasy,” Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2006.)

The New York Times article provides no evidence for its reported allegations that Iran is seeking to promote attacks on U.S. forces.

The 1900-word article offers no quotes from any experts who might question the allegations made by PWN, although there are many who would.

Some readers might remember the author of the article, Michael R. Gordon, from the reporting prior to the Iraq war. His most notorious contribution was an article of September 8, 2002 entitled “U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” co-authored with Judith Miller. It began:

“More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administrations officials said today. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.”

Vice-President Dick Cheney cited this September 8th, 2002 article the following Sunday on “Meet the Press,” to make his case that Iraq was a nuclear threat. The aluminum tubes were later determined to be unrelated to nuclear fuel production, and Iraq’s nuclear program to be non-existent.

The New York Times cited the September 8th, 2002 article and subsequent reporting on the aluminum tubes in its apology for the newspaper’s reporting leading up to the Iraq War.

It is not clear, however, how much the newspaper has learned from its mistakes.

[See also Juan Cole's demolition of the NYT's claims: "It is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration's talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here."]

Intelligence briefings to New York Times notch up tension over Iran

Monday, February 12th, 2007

On cue from the White House, the media are whipping up a panic about Iran, as Alexander Cockburn explains on Counterpunch: President Nixon, a very good poker player, once defined the art of brinkmanship as persuading your opponent that you are insane and, unless appeased by pledges of surrender, quite capable of blowing up the planet.

By these robust standards George Bush is doing a moderately competent job in suggesting that if balked by Iran on the matter of arming the Shi’a in Iraq or pursuing its nuclear program he’ll dump high explosive, maybe even a couple of nukes, on that country’s relevant research sites, or tell Israel to do the job for him.

In Washington there are plenty of rational people in Congress, think tanks and the Pentagon who think he’s capable of ordering an attack,– albeit not a nuclear one — with bombers carrying conventional explosive and with missiles from US ships in the Persian Gulf.

Colonel Sam Gardner, who’s taught at the National War College recently sketched out on this site the plan as it could unfold: already the second naval carrier group has been deployed to the Gulf area, joined by naval mine clearing ships. “As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.”

Gardiner cautioned that “It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.

“First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led_group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.”

As regards “the outrage stuff”, here on cue comes the New York Times’ Michael Gordon with a front page story today, February 10, headlined “Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says”, and beginning “The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran.”

It’s no doubt true that Iran has been arming the Shi’a. What Gordon fails to mention is that over 90 per sent of the IEDs used against US troops in Iraq have been detonated by the Sunni insurgents , who of course are not supplied by Iran. More generally, the prime point of interest of the intelligence briefings given to Gordon and other journalists is the timing. At any point in the past couple of years the US could have gone public with roughly the same accusations.

Shades of the Ho Chi Minh trail! Year after year first Johnson then Nixon would claim that the resistance in south Vietnam was not indigenous but created and armed by North Vietnam, backed by the Soviet Union and China–which these days has flourishing economic ties with Iran, particularly in the field of energy.

Another tripwire for escalation would be the UN Security Council Feb 21 deadline for Iran to suspend “all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA,” the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There’s certainly disquiet in Congress, particularly after Bush’s State of the Union address January 17 where he reprised his notorious “Axis of Evil” address of January 2002, identifying Iran as the number one troublemaker and fomenter of terror in the region.

“Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without Congressional approval?” the Virginia Democrat, Senator James Webb recently asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice said she’d get back to him.

The Bush administration is capable of almost any folly, but is it likely that it would bomb Iran’s nuclear research labs? Would it really prod Israel into taking on the job?

Israel of course has been making plenty of quite predictable hay out of President Ahmadinejad’s crack about how “the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.” Of course the let’s-stay- calm types say it was just a stale old one-liner from the Ayatollah Khomeini and please to note he used the word “regime”, not “Israel”. Plant that one in the graveyard of wimpy rationalizations. Along with the recent”holocaust conference”, it’s probably the biggest leg-up for Israeli bond drives since the Yom Kippur war. Prime minister Olmert quotes it on an almost daily basis, echoed by his rival, Netanyahu.

Aside from the rhetorical haymaking, the notion of Israel nuking Iran’s N-plants is very far-fetched. Indeed, the military wisdom here is that as a practical enterprise, it can’t, since among many technical limitations Israel’s bombers would require refueling over hostile territory.

Aside from this, Israel still won’t officially admit to having a nuclear arsenal. It would a stupefying jump, from that disingenuous posture to being the first power in the region to explode a nuclear device. The point of having a nuclear deterrent is to deter, not to use. Iran is well aware that in 1999 and 2004 Israelis bought Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles. As President Chirac asked in his recent press conference, what good it would do Iran to have a nuclear bomb, or even two. “Where would it fire that bomb? At Israel? It wouldn’t have traveled 200 meters through the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.”

(Reservations among Irael’s elites about attacks on Iran are the topic of an excellent piece by Gabriel Kolko on this site today.)

So the job of attacking would fall to the US Air force and US Navy and there are certainly generals, particularly in the Air Force, telling Bush it would be a snap, just as Curt LeMay, at that time head of the Strategic Air Command, told President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that SAC could “reduce the Soviet Union to a smouldering irradiated ruin in three hours”.

But Air Force credibility is low at the moment. LeMay’s heirs told Bush that “shock and awe” bombing in 2003 would prompt Saddam to run up the white flag. It didn’t. US ground forces carried the day–at least at the outset. But there aren’t any US ground forces available to invade a country many times bigger than Iraq, filled with a large population mostly loyal to the regime. After sorties against Iran with bombs and missiles what would the US do?

The problem is that brinkmanship suits everyone’s book. Ahmadinejad, facing serious political problems, can posture about standing up to the Great Satan. Olmert can say Ahmadinejad wants to finish off Israel and kill all the Jews. Bush sees Iran as a terrific way of changing the subject from the mess in Iraq and putting the Democrats on the spot.

The Democrats take the lead of their presidential hopefuls, who have no intention of being corralled by the Republicans as symps of holocaust deniers who want to destroy Israel. These days, to be a player, any candidate for the US presidency has to raise about $100 million, of which a large tranche will come from American Jews. Barack Obama and John Edwards call for swift withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. When it comes to Iran they roar in unison with Hillary Clinton that no option can be left off the table. In other words, if it comes to it, nuke ‘em .

Is there room for sanity here? The best hope will be for Iran to finish its testing cycle, declare mission accomplished and figure out some sort of face-saving halt in its program by February 21. Can we hope for prudence from the White House? Who knows? Bush is a nutty guy. It was his insistence on democratic elections in Iraq that put the Shi’a in control. Now he’s blaming Iran for trying to capitalize on the consequences. This is not a regime that thinks things through very sensibly.

“The media are denying our right to resist”

Wednesday, February 7th, 2007

Haifa Zangana, acclaimed Iraqi novelist and former prisoner of the Baath regime, chair of Iraqi Committee for National Media and Culture, gave the following talk to MWAW in London on February 5.

Since the first six months of the invasion we have had hardly any independent reporting in Iraq. At the beginning there was euphoria — some 260 publications sprang up. Under the sanctions no one had had access to publishing, even the official Baath newspaper “al Thawra” was cut from 24 pages to four.

So just looking at newspapers again was a real pleasure for Iraqis. People wanted a place to breathe again; after the Iraq-Iran and Gulf wars and sanctions, they were too exhausted for another war. People in general were ready for political resistance, not armed resistance — although the armed resistance was born in embryo immediately in the aftermath of the invasion. There was a feeling that things might get better.

People started organising political parties, women’s groups, student unions. The started demonstrating, particularly for the US army to leave the schools and colleges they had taken over to use as military bases during the invasion. That was how the Fallujah confrontation began — soldiers opened fire on such a demonstration and 17 people were killed.

Then Paul Bremer’s administration began closing newspapers for “inciting violence” — i.e. for opposing what’s called the political process. The assassinations began of anybody who criticised the occupation. That is why academics were targeted, and journalists. Over 150 journalists have died, including some of our most prominent women journalists.

It seems like there has been a systematic process of silencing the opposition. The Arab satellite stations al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya were closed down. The latest TV station offices in Baghdad to be closed is Al Sharqiya (based in the United Arab Emirates) for criticizing the Iraqi constitution. Only two remaining TV stations actually call the occupation an “occupation”: one is Al Baghdadiya, which broadcasts from Egypt, and one from a lorry that moves around constantly — just like the “weapons of mass destruction” that Iraq was supposed to have!

[For more detail on the Iraqi media, see Dahr Jamail's report here]

Who is targeting journalists and academics? Of course there are gangs. Kidnapping is an easy way to earn money. But this is only a small part of the violence. In the case of the academics and journalists, they are approached in the street, asked for their names, and then executed — in other words, they are targeted for who they are and what they say, not to make money.

So there are very few critical voices left in Iraq. Iraqis refuse to give interviews in Arabic — only to foreign-language media — so they can’t be so easily identified by the militias. There have been cases of people targeted immediately after they have said something on the TV or radio.

Occupation smears the resistance

The consequences for people’s lives are summed up by the fact that only 30% of children started primary school this year. This takes us back to the 1930s. Medical supplies are minimal. Women are losing all their rights — how can they compete with the militias for scarce jobs, for example? We have women members of parliament, they have not been elected but appointed by the sectarian and ethnic parties according to a specific quota. All of them represent their parties’ agenda, they hardly speak to highlight Iraqi women’s plight, most of them are covered in black from head to foot and wear black gloves, something unheard of in Iraqi society before the invasion.

In fact one of them doesn’t even speak, because she believes in Sawt Al Ma’ra A’wra — that a woman’s voice should not be heard in public, it is something to be ashamed of.
The occupation has been based on sectarianism from day one. Iraq became a black hole for corruption. When you shake hands with someone now you say I am a “Shiite” or a “Sunni”, or a “Kurd” — you have to if you want to get a job, official jobs are allocated according to the sectarian divide. And what about the occupation? The occupation is watching from a distance — who will be left standing when the fighting is over, so we can use them?

Whenever there is a successful attack on foreign troops by the resistance, however — and the Brookings Institute says there are 120 every day now — immediately there will be a huge car bomb in the middle of a crowded market in Baghdad. There is a definite sense of the occupation taking revenge — there is a definite connection in people’s minds.

We know from Vietnam and Algeria that this is counter-insurgency — you smear the reputation of the resistance.

The Zarqa massacre in January

Take the Zarqa massacre last week, near Najaf. Out of the blue we found out about a new sect, the Soldiers of Heaven (or Army of Heaven), which had never been heard of before. The US and the British committed a massacre, and they had to justify what happened — there were some 300 dead, including many women and children.

The story became more and more fantastic, like science fiction. These Soldiers of Heaven were supposed to have thousands of members and be heavily armed. Then the officials started claiming they were Saudis, Yemenis, Egyptians and Afghans. It was reported like this in the Guardian, the Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune.

[Here's how the Guardian reported it on its front page on January 29: "Iraqi troops backed by US helicopters and F-16 jets fought one of the fiercest battles since the end of the 2003 war yesterday… Iraqi officials said 250 members of a messianic Islamic group had been killed in a day of fighting..."

On January 30 it again described the confrontation with "mystery fighters", uncritically repeating the official explanation: "US and Iraqi forces had fought hundreds of fighters from an obscure Islamic splinter group suspected of planning attacks … A defence ministry spokesman said: "The victorious Iraqi forces, with US help, have smashed the group of terrorists who were planning to disrupt the holy day of Ashura.'"]

We rang people there and asked what really happened.

There were two tribes on their way to the Ashura festival in Nejaf. Two people were shot at a checkpoint — it happens in today’s Iraq, it’s a usual occurrence. Shooting broke out as people from the tribes retaliated. The Iraqi soldiers at the checkpoint called in US airstrikes. There was a huge massacre.

The Soldiers of Heaven is a tiny sect, a cult. He has no army of thousands. But it turns out its leader is anti-occupation and also asks what is happening to the oil wealth and why it is not going to the Iraqis. [Read alternative accounts of what really happened here, here and here, or informed but sceptical opinion here]

The role of the media

What really bothers me in all this is the elephant in the living room that nobody mentions — the resistance. The media say “insurgents”, “Baathists”, “terrorists” — but not resistance. They are denying our right to resist the occupation.

Sometimes I get angry about it. But they are bound to leave sooner or later.

What happens when the troops leave? Most Iraqis believe strongly that the minute the troops leave it will be alright. It’s like the troops arrived with a virus and they will take it away when they leave. Iraq has no history of civil war. Occupation is an industry. People provide uniforms, services etc. There is the growth of a class of Iraqis who feed on this, and therefore fuel the conflict.

The Independent’s correspondent Patrick Cockburn was one of the few to start talking about the “Sunni-Shia divide”. I didn’t like it. In fact I was shocked. If they want a civil war they’ll have to divide our bedrooms — we are very mixed. Baghdad itself is one-third Kurdish. Ordinary people don’t have the feeling that there is a civil war.

But it’s being encouraged. It’s convenient to have these labels. Read Paul Bremer’s book about the first year of the occupation — he loved reminding people about which sect or ethnicity they “belonged” to.

The source of the conflict isn’t a Sunni-Shia divide. We never had one. Resistance to the Baath was never sectarian. In the 1940s-50s when we fought the British it was never because they were Christian. It’s different from Northern Ireland — there was never any segregation in Iraq.

The majority of the resistance are former officers of the Iraqi army, which points to the possibility of a military regime. Also there are the jihadists, who we never used to have in Iraq, but with the occupation people are despairing and religion is very powerful: there might be an Islamist government.

But there is also political opposition, such as the Iraqi National Foundation Congress (which I support), formed in 2004 as an umbrella organisation of 22 parties and groups. This could become the political face of the resistance.

Gary Younge: Islamophobia is the new racism

Monday, February 5th, 2007

The Guardian’s correspondent Gary Younge gave this talk on “Islamophobia: The new racism” at a Media Workers Against the War public meeting in London on January 22.

I try to come back to Britain every few months. The last time I came was in October — I looked at the newspapers in Heathrow and thought I’d arrived back in the 1970s. It was just after Jack Straw had “expressed his concern” about the niqab. Not satisfied with bombing foreign countries and detaining people without due process, we were now going to tell people what to wear.

I was particularly struck by a quote I read a vox-pop in the Guardian. A 16-year-old student was asked what he thought about the niqab. He said: “I’ll go further than Jack Straw and say they need to take off their veils. You need to see people face to face. It’s weird not knowing who it is you’re passing in the street, especially late at night when someone might jump you.”

When I had left a few months earlier this whole project was about saving muslim women, “saving them from terrible muslim men making them walk behind them and wear the veil” and so on. But now the problem was Muslim women were going to jump out in their niqabs and mug you! This 16-year old’s life was endangered, apparently, by these niqab-wearing Muslim women.

Which is only slightly less bizarre than the case in Holland where, in the middle of the election campaign, the right-wing party that won the election suggested changing the constitution so that women would not be able to wear burkas. Now there are about 15 and 30 women in Holland who wear burkas. They could have sent them a letter individually!

You do not change your constitution because of what 15 or 30 women wear. If we’re going to do that then I would like all white men of a certain age to grow their hair, because every time I see a white guy with very short hair I get worried.

Jade Goody in a uniform

This time when I arrived in London it was strange. There was no longer this frenzy about the niqab and this weird consensus about who was the problem. But everybody was talking about racism. I arrived on the Saturday Jade Goody had been kicked out of the Big Brother house, Gordon Brown had waded in saying we’re a decent, tolerant group of people.

One of amazing things — I find this in the States as well — is the loss of innocence about racism: the powerful always seem to be able to find their innocence again in time for the next atrocious thing. So it was like the McPherson report had never happened. We were talking about racism as if it were something new.

And in all of this Jade Goody was perfect for this: she was a working class woman, uncouth, rude, ignorant, all the things that you can say about working class people. But nobody was going to talk about power, nobody was going to talk about systems.

And the truth is that Jade Goody in the BB house is not really the issue. But you put Jade Goody in uniform and you put her in immigration or in a police uniform and you give her the power to arrest, detain, shoot and kill — and that’s what we do, we send our Jade Goodies abroad to Iraq. (That’s not all the people in the army, but that’s certainly some of them if you look at the cases that have come up.) If you put them in a council then they can deny housing and healthcare and schools. So the real issue when we talk about Islamophobia and racism is power.

Ian Blair — get over it! Shake somebody else’s hand, it’s not a big deal. So often with these things these minor cultural things become these huge incidents because there’s nothing bigger to talk about. They’re not going to talk about power, about who has it and why and what we can do about it. And so it descends into this vicious, vile pettiness. It comes to something when you’re flying back to Bush’s America thinking: “Phew! That place is crazy!”

Racism of colour and creed

So instead the government and the establishment try to frame this discussion in terms of “essential British values”, as if there is something particular about Britain that somehow these people aren’t ready for. That there is an essential Britishness, somewhere in the ether there is an abstract, mythological Great British decency.

When it comes to race is, we’re coming down to the lowest common denominator, we’re getting worse and worse. Our racial discourse is degrading terribly rapidly.

Compared to what I read about Britain, when I do come back and I walk down Brick Lane and I see people with pierced belly buttons and in niqabs and black guys tap dancing and all the rest of it I’m thinking: where is this crisis? I’m expecting to see something terrible around every corner. You get this sense that Britain is on a precipice. In America they have a programme on CNN called something like “The Home Of Terror”, and it zooms in on the Houses of Parliament and Britain is now the nexus of international terrorism — if you believe CNN.

But the truth is that as far as I am aware it always has been that the crucial issue with Britain when it comes to things like integration is racism — it’s not Muslims, it’s not Islamophobia, it’s racism.

It’s peculiar: do you remember Ruth Kelly: “We want to have an honest and open discussion”? Whenever they want and honest and open discussion they want to talk shit about black people.

Nobody’s going to have an honest and open discussion about white people. So even though white people have most of the power and even though they are the people who start the wars and so on, that discussion is off the table.

And the truth is, all the great things we do have in this country — and I do still think that this is a brilliant country — are not there because of some innate sense of decency but because we fought for them. Notting Hill Carnival is a superb example — you cannot be a Tory leader now if you don’t go to Notting Hill Carnival. When they sold this country for the Olympics they said we’re a multiracial country, full of diversity and so on.

On the football terraces, in the cinemas, in theatres, on the streets of Brixton and Toxteth and Hownlsow and Bradford and Grunwick, and also on the streets of Nairobi and so on, we make that happen, black and white people fighting together. That’s what makes Britain the place that it is.

It didn’t come because people quite liked the idea: “Oh go on then, give us a chipati!” That’s not how antiracism happens, that’s not how the best of this country has happened. It’s happened because people have fought for it, both black and white.

But the manners and mannerisms of racism have changed. And in terms of the new racism it’s one of the things I want to concentrate on. It’s shifted. From race to religion, from colour to creed.

When I was growing up people used to say to Carribbeans: why can’t you be more like the Asians? They don’t want to sleep with our daughters, they don’t play their music loud, they don’t want to mix with us, they keep themselves to themselves, they work all hours — all these stereotypes would come out. And now 20 years on they are turning to the Asians and saying: why won’t you integrate with us? what’s wrong with our daughters? Why won’t you marry them? The whole parameters of racism have shifted and the way we have to fight it also.

I find it strange this squeamishness among some on the left about the involvement of religion in our politics. The Civil Rights Movement was run largely from the church. Now there were issues with that. But nobody called the 1963 march on Washington, where King made his “I have a dream” speech, no one called that the “march for Baptism”. People defend themselves where they are attacked, and if you’re attacked in your mosque, because of your religion, you will probably organise on a religious basis. That doesn’t mean that I have to be religious, that I have to refuse to shake people’s hands, but it means it is possible to create a coalition with people who are religious.

The whole emphasis has been not on racism, but on integration. “You people won’t integrate.” There are two things I find particularly weird about this. One of the people, Ruth Kelly, who has pursued this attack on fundamentalism is a member of Opus Dei. Is there no irony in this country?

Secondly, fundamentalism is a problem. I find religious fundamentalism a big problem. But the biggest problem I have with religious fundamentalism is the fundamentalism that is armed to the teeth and lives in the White House. Religious fundamentalism is not the preserve of Muslims and Islam.

Integration: it’s a weird issue. You want to ask integrate into what, and how, and who are you asking to integrate? Because the main people in Britain who have trouble integrating are white people. I don’t say that as a rhetorical device — it’s actually true. You don’t hear of black flight, or brown flight, or Asians or black people saying, oh dear, a white family’s moved in, I’m out of here. A Mori poll for Prospect last year found that 41% of whites compare to 26% of minorities wanted the races to live separately.

It’s also not true that the existence of non-white people causes racism, The most racist area of Britain is Devon and Cornwall according to a survey for the Observer in 2005, because it’s the absence of black people that allows these racist ideas to flourish.

So we have to be very clear. The biggest barrier to integration in this country is not the niqab, not the hejab, not the veil, it’s not language — it’s racism. I’m not saying that other things might not be issues at other time, although most of them frankly aren’t. But racism is the primary source.

So what are we going to do about it?

There are three things. First, we have to keep this in context. There is so little context provided for these things. I’ll give you and example. After the July 7 when they talked about home-grown terrorists, how can this be? The truth is Britain has been growing terrorists for years. We have an evening dedicated to a home-grown terrorist — it’s called Guy Fawkes night. So long as Britain has been going abroad and invading foreign countries there has been an element in Britain that has fought back on these shores in ways that are symmetrical, or parallel, to what is going on in those countries.

Second, and very important, we have to recognise the legitimate grievances of the white working class. Because that creates a pool of resentment. Often they do get left out because no one is talking about them. And some of the few people who are talking to them are the BNP. And they have a fundamentalism of their own — it’s called racial fundamentalism. White workers can look around them and see the problems that the have and they retreat into race and they attack the very people that they should be making common cause with to fight for the resources that they all need.

Finally, we have to stop this war. As long as this war is gong on — and every piece of intelligence supports this — there will be an increase in the kind of fundamentalism that makes all of our lives less secure.

In the USA there is a mood shift taking place. Over the past week or so the Democrats have wanted to do very little more than say please don’t do that [when Bush announced his troop "surge"]. The pressure has come from below from anti-war activists to force the Democrats to reassess what they need to do if they want to be re-elected.

Politics is about imagining other possibilities, and that is what we have to do right now. I was always under the impression that journalism was about talking truth to power, and not telling lies about the powers. And that is what an awful lot of British journalism has become.

Media briefing: Bush’s “surge” and Iraq

Sunday, February 4th, 2007

With speaker Haifa Zangana, Iraqi novelist and former prisoner of Saddam Hussein’s regime:
Monday February 5
6.30pm
National Union of Journalists
308 Grays Inn Road, London WC1
(150m south of Kings Cross)

This meeting will also be a chance to discuss in detail what MWAW should be doing over the next month.

Come and get involved! More details: tel. 07801 789 297