Is Cameron a loud mouth?

David Cameron is in trouble with the former Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, for being direct and clear in his speeches about foreign affairs.

First Cameron called Gaza an "open prison" and then he criticised elements of the Pakistan security services for aiding the UK's enemies in Afghanistan. Miliband described the PM as a "loud mouth" although he made no comment on the content of Cameron's speeches.

We know Miliband would never do such a thing. After all, his tour of duty was not known for either criticising the actions of the Israeli government, no matter how revolting, nor taking an open and honest stance on the Afghan situation - we didn't even need the recent leaks to know that.

Miliband's outburst attacking Cameron is in stark contrast to his mumbled and embarrassed comments during Israel's bombardment of Gaza that had to be wrung out of him, so reluctant was he to use the UK's clout for good.

During the Blair years the fact that business was always done behind closed doors was always made a virtue of so you'd see Blair claiming he was "influencing" Bush behind the scenes as the war machine pushed ever onwards unabated.

Various diplomats have rushed to Cameron's defence saying that direct language can be completely appropriate on the international stage, it's just we haven't seen much plain speaking for the last thirteen years. I think I agree.

For me a bit of honest speaking is just what we need to clear the air after years of manipulation and distrust. A large number of countries do not see the UK as an honest broker and that is unlikely to change if we continue with a Miliband style policy of half-truths, mumbling and blood.

Guest Post: was Churchill a hero?

The first of my guest posts this week is from Rob Ray who is international editor of Freedom anarchist newspaper and a member of the Black Flag magazine collective.

I've always had a bit of a thing about heroes where if I see one I always wonder what's behind those green curtains in the corner of the room. What dark little secrets are being quietly forgotten about while they strut their stuff for an awe-struck Dorothy and friends?

The reason I'm confiding this is twofold, first because the master of The Daily Maybe himself stoutly defended the boys featured in Band of Brothers to me the other day before asking for this missive, and second because I've recently been looking back through my own blog and remembered that I'd been meaning to look properly at a previous bit of rummaging I'd done around the life of Winston Churchill - that irascible grandaddy of heroes.

In particular a sideswipe I'd made about his relationship to India was something I wanted to look more closely at, as it was only the basics of something much more complicated, so for this blog I decided to go back to it.

Quit India

India in the 1940s was in something of an uproar. Ghandi was a powerful man and his independence movement, backed by an influential local bourgeoisie, was gaining a great deal of ground across the subcontinent. There was huge anger over the decision of governor-general Lord Linlithgow to unilaterally declare India for the Allies and in July 1942, after failed negotiations with the British representatives, a declaration of independence backed by the threat of mass disobedience was launched.

There are conflicting reports of what happened next. To listen to Churchill's reports to parliament, it would sound like a violent rebellion with little mandate broke out featuring a tiny minority of the population which was "repressed and punished with incredibly small loss of life."

To hear other voices however, the British Raj had unleashed a wave of brutality at the very thought of independence, for which Churchill was ultimately responsible as Prime Minister. For Indian histories, the tale is one of overwhelmingly non-violent protests, strikes and processions organised mostly by students, which became violent only after days of beatings, mass arrests and sackings.

With the excuse of pacifying "violent rebels" the British and their allies rounded up and jailed over 100,000 people, with thousands facing torture and public floggings being implemented across the country against any hint of dissent, be it violent or not. Churchill himself noted that a "small loss" amounting to least 500 people killed in the wave of terror they unleashed - while non-British estimates put the death toll in the thousands.

A particularly interesting take on this debate comes from Clive Branson, a British soldier who served in India at the time. His 1942 reports on the repression and on the subsequent man-made famine which followed (I'll come to this in a moment) suggest Churchill's line that it was a small minority with no mandate being put down by a loyal majority was disingenuous to say the least:

Millions upon millions in this country live on the borderline of starvation always. Their poverty is too dreadful to describe.... Year after year of living underfed, appallingly housed (if one can use the word to describe a tent-like structure made of rags, bits of matting - floor space 4ft by 8ft and maximum height 5ft - in which a whole family shelters in monsoon, cold and heat, the smallest children without clothes at all) and gaining a livelihood by scavenging, doing a sweeper's work in the filthiest places, etc.

Such communities are to be found outside every village or town. In speaking of them, one is not speaking of the slum dwellers whose standard of living is 'higher'. Millions upon millions of poorest peasantry - ill-fed, uneducated, downtrodden - patiently accepting their hideous lives only because they cannot see any way out. This immense abuse of all human decency by our British imperialists - all this is taken by Halifax (British appeasement Foreign Minister-GB) to mean that there is 'popular support for our way of governing India.

Using the economic threat of destitution and keeping a reserve workforce of the desperate to intimidate everyone else into silence should be very familiar to us even here in Britain - it doesn't imply popular support for your cause. Yet Churchill twisted a situation which should have been the shame of parliament into a confirmation of its nobility.

Churchill's Ireland

And this method of control and humiliation through want took a far more sinister turn shortly after the rebellion. In 1943, India experienced the worst famine of modern history with between three and four million people dying, four times the number who perished in the Irish famine. But what made this unforgiveable, and turned Churchill into one of India's most despised figures, was that like the Irish famine of the 19th century, this was a deliberate, man-made event. It was described at the time as the Bengali Holocaust, and again, Clive Branson illustrates why:

The endless view of plains, crops and small stations turned almost suddenly into one long trail of starving people. Men, women, children, babies, looked up into the passing carriage in their last hope for food... When we stopped, children swarmed round the carriage windows, repeating, hopelessly, Bukshish, sahib, with the monotony of a damaged gramophone... I saw women, almost fleshless skeletons, their clothes grey with dust, not walking, but foot steadying foot, as though not knowing where they went. As we pulled towards Calcutta, little children naked, with inflated bellies stuck on stick-like legs held up empty tins towards us...

Because the British refused to ration or expropriate food for the masses, instead following an ideological commitment to free markets and taking large quantities of food away for British troops fighting the Japanese, a situation where there was just enough corn and just under enough rice turned into a nightmare, compounded by the Japanese capture of Burma admittedly, but also worsened by the deliberate stifling of British shipping in the region.

Churchill himself was directly involved in the denial of food shipments, berating the Indian population for "breeding like rabbits and being paid a million a day by us for doing nothing by us about the war." (an attitude which so disturbed Indian viceroys dependent on regional industry to supply their troops they quietly censored many of his comments). Even winstonchurchill.org, as biased a site as you're likely to find on the subject, notes:

"It is true that Churchill opposed diverting food supplies and transports from other theaters to India to cover the shortfall: this was wartime."

In fact, wartime was not the issue. Britain was still at war in April 1944 (when the famine had been officially declared over) when he wrote in a secret letter to Roosevelt asking for aid in shipping Australian grain to India saying: "I am no longer justified in not asking for your help." He wasn't indeed. Within the decade, popular fury would have ended British rule in the subcontinent.

None of this, incidentally, made it into Churchill's six-volume history of the Second World War which claimed, outrageously, that Britain had "carried Hindustan through the war on her shoulders."

But then, if you're writing the first draft of history with yourself as the hero, you can afford to leave some of your notes behind that bulging green curtain.

Pieces of skin trump pieces of paper

The invasion of Iraq was wrong, whether or not it was illegal. The fact that the UN refused to endorse the war with a second, clearer, resolution was an inconvenience to those who were determined to destroy the country and one they retrospectively decided was no barrier as the first resolution that they had previously thought inadequate did in fact give them carte blanche to obliterate hundreds of thousands of lives.

By refusing to pass the second resolution the UN made it clear they did not endorse the war that we all knew was, by this time, inevitable. However, even if they had passed that resolution it would not have made the suffering any the less acute, nor the injustice any less bald.

Tony Blair is giving evidence to the inquiry tomorrow (Friday) and the Stop the War Coalition is organising a welcome party for him starting at 8 am.

Assemble at:

Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, Broad
Sanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE

Check out the website for their timetable of events although I'd recommend getting there early as the Metropolitan Police's idea of the right to peaceful protest and ours is not entirely contiguous.

Sadly this inquiry will bring no real reassessment of our foreign policy priorities from the government, opposition or the press, even as the Afghan 'President' cheerfully informs the world that he expects UK forces to stay in the country for another fifteen years.

This particular lie, that bit of spin, this specific distortion of the truth become the day to day fodder of a media that seems oblivious to the wider logic that set us on the course to war not on any given day but over decades. In my opinion we should be challenging the global imbalance of power and wealth in a system built on profit over need.

New airstrikes on Gaza

Today the Israeli state agreed to pay the UN $10 million compensation for damage done to its buildings during last year's bombardment of Gaza.

This time last year 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in a remorseless attack which also left much infrastructure in ruins. The blockade of Gaza has been designed to immiserate the Palestinians in the area and prevent reconstruction.

Tonight Israel launched new strikes killing at least one person. So far we have three air strikes and two missile attacks on the area apparently in response to mortar attacks which were in response to an air strike which was, no doubt, in response to something else in this continuing cycle.

Haaretz also reports that thousands of leaflets were dropped on the area which "featured a map, and warns Gazans that anyone within 300 meters of the security fence is endangering himself."

These attacks coincide with rioting at the Egyptian border (pictured) over the aid convoy led by George Galloway hoping to break the blockade. These riots resulted in a number of injuries, the death of an Egyptian soldier and their eventual entry into Gaza. Green Party councillor Peter Offord is part of that convoy, and whilst he has been through the mill somewhat I believe he's currently alright.

Let's hope this is not the beginning a repeat of the horrors of last year.

Walter Mosley on Afghanistan

I was pleasantly surprised when listening to Radio Four last night to discover Walter Mosley was being interviewed on Front Row (16 mins in). Whilst I've not read everything he's ever written that's largely because he writes faster than I read and so it will take longer than forever for me to catch up.

Anyway, during the interview he mentioned that he was for the Afghan war. He thought that since Obama was elected "Now we're trying to change, we're trying to do the right thing." He conceded that Obama was upping the troops presence but he said he'd be willing to "go along with him" on that one.

I have to say I was shocked. Not that someone could say that, of course there are plenty of people in favour of an Afghan surge, but that this passionate critic of capitalism and imperialism was willing to "go along" with the war.

However, he introduced a condition. He'd only support it if "he institutes the draft." The draft would mean that "all Americans would have to go off to fight, not just the poor ones who have to join the Army."

The interviewer, knowing Mosley, was surprised and so Mosley explained;

"Look, if a country's going to go to war, a country should believe in that war... If [all the 18-27 year olds] are drafted and their parents are still okay with it and want them to go to war, you know the voters, then fine!...

I think that if middle class men and women have their daughters about to be trundled off the Afghanistan they're going to think two, three, four, five times, but they're not going to worry when some poor black, Mexican or white kid gets sent over."

I guess that's one way of getting your point across, although I still wish he'd warned, at my age any sudden surprises could be my last.

Blackwater disgrace

The unchecked and arbitrary power of the privatised mercenaries in Iraq received another boost today as the Blackwater soldiers who massacred seventeen Iraqis in 2007 will not stand trial. A US dismissed the charges against the men;

on the grounds that the five had had their constitutional rights violated by the way confession statements they had made had been used by the prosecution.

The statements were made when the men were under threat of losing their jobs if they did not cooperate with investigators. The US government had promised that their statements would not be used against them in a criminal case.

The Guardian describes the incident in this way;

The incident began when a heavily armed Blackwater convoy moved into a busy square in Baghdad, after breaking an order to stay in the US-controlled green zone of the city, prosecutors allege. The five were accused of opening fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians, killing children, women and men attempting to flee in their cars. One victim was alleged to have been shot in the chest while standing with his hands in the air.

The men do not deny their role in the incident but claim they killed the men, women and children because they felt they were under enemy fire. I guess we'll never know.

What would an ethical foreign policy look like?

Robin Cook did us a favour when he came up with the phrase 'ethical foreign policy', even if he wasn't always able to live up to that exacting standard when foreign secretary.

It seemed to sum up for many of us what we wanted to see when it came to international relations. A step away from prioritising business interests and our relationships with more powerful nations and moving towards doing the right thing because it's right rather than the pragmatic thing that we're able to put a progressive spin to.

But, it seems to me, that there is no easy path to take when trying to decide what's a truly ethical foreign policy. It's worth grappling with some of the contradictions and problems in order to help clarify what it is we really want.

For example, we could take a completely non-interventionist position, as some nations do. That would mean we could keep our hands clean but at the cost of never acting to improve the world.

Would that policy extend to aid and trade relationships? Having worked in international development I know there are plenty of grey areas where you need to weigh up exactly whether the 'help' you are giving is really helpful, and where it is, to whom?

I take it as a given that military strikes and occupations of other people's countries would take no part in that policy, and arms sales would go too. However, should that be treated as a principle? The ability of the weak to be able to militarily defend themselves against the strong is not an irrelevance in many parts of the world, a genuinely pacifist foreign policy would certainly claim the moral high ground, which is quite a good spot to be able to see all the horror and murder going on in the rest of the globe.

Then again if we simply say that it's the way previous governments have used force and have been complicit in violence that has been the problem and we'd know better, wouldn't we be laying a trap for ourselves? Risking the slippery slope into liberal interventionism and before you know it we're propping up dictatorships to prevent civil wars or arming semi-democracies in the hope that they might see there way to cleaning up their act.

We can back pro-democracy movements, the fight for independent trade unions, women's liberation and a host of other life and death causes - and as a movement the left must be internationalist in its outlook. Does that mean we think the government should be shipping anti-aircraft missiles to the Kurds or printing presses to Zimbabwe's MDC?

The answer can be yes, but if it is we should carefully think about what the implications of such acts would be. Personally I don't have any bullets that I can spare to pop in a jiffy bag and send to a freedom fighter, even if I wanted to, but there are differences between our solidarity and demands as a political current in the UK and precisely what we'd see the government do if we had more influence with it.

Having said all that I don't want to imply everything is a grey area and, even if I accept sometimes bad things need to be done to produce a good result, I can't ignore that the means are things in themselves as well as the ends. The responsibility to choose ethical methods to achieve ethical outcomes is a heavy one.

There are no subtleties or up sides to nuclear explosions that can make owning weapons of genocide acceptable. Arming oppressive regimes to repress their own people in the name of our 'war on drugs' or 'war on terror' is not right no matter how you squint at it.

Lines exist, but even when they are blurred it doesn't mean not taking a position on what we want to see happen, only recognising the complexities on how we lend a helping hand - if at all.

Thoughts on the Christmas terror flight

Another quick catch up post really, but the attempted terrorist attack on an airliner on Christmas Day has attracted so much international press that it's difficult to ignore. However, my thoughts are mainly in a jumble about the whole thing so rather than take time might a cogent think piece I thought I'd make a list of 'things what occur to me'.

• Fail to blow up a plane, you get wall to wall coverage for your cause in every nation on Earth. Actually blow up dozens or even hundreds in Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan and you're lucky if you get into the inside pages once let alone over and over again. It's obviously news but the response feels disproportionate.
  
  
• What would the world be like if we rewarded non-violent protest with this kind of media coverage? Does the international media actually, inadvertently, make violence more attractive than democratic avenues? The media's approach is certainly what leads Al Quaida to see airplanes as their targets of choice over other possibilities.
  
  
• Despite protestations to the contrary the bomber's failure is down to security precautions working. The fact that he had to resort to complex equipment that let him down is entirely down to the fact he had to circumvent airport security checks. No system can prevent people who want to blow up planes trying to do so, but the current system did prevent the bomber using a weapon that would have actually achieved the job.
  
  
• The bomber's motivation was religious. Any involvement he'd ever had with any national liberation struggle (if any) came directly from his religious convictions he'd held from an early age. His prosperous upbringing insulated him from real hardship and allowed him travel and get a decent education - it's difficult to this young man as a victim driven to extremes rather than a zealot whose personal beliefs led him to the conclusion that the murder of many innocent people was a worthy act.
  
  
• Terror attacks equal excuses to bomb. This time the US have been given the green light to openly make attacks in Yemen for the first time. CNN, Guardian.
  
  
• Prior to this the US has been active in the Yemen and this has been a contributory factor in these events.
  
  
• These events have also raised, once again, the specter of torturing suspects. The Republicans don't even want to learn apparently. Guardian.
  

We Wee Where We Want

The student who had the poor judgement to get drunk and wee on a war memorial has been sentenced to 250 hours of community service - which is a lot.

If he'd had the good sense to go in a graveyard and pee on the gravestones out of sight like everyone else he'd have had no bother. However, is it just me or is this new?

I don't advocate the application of fresh urine to war memorials under any circumstances, my preference is for people to keep their bits and pieces tucked away in their pants, but in England I think it's fair to say it's common practice for drunk people to piss in public.

It's horrible and I don't like it, but it is pretty common place and you don't have the courts filled with these weak bladdered drunkards.

It feels like he's being made an example of, not least because he's being pilloried in the press, and I'm not sure I like it.

Afghan corruption is life and death

I've only just seen this but The Sunday Times had an in depth story by the exceptionally fine journalist Christina Lamb on Afghanistan. It includes revelations about the recent shooting of five British soldiers that made my blood run cold;

The 25-year-old, an unmarried man called Gulbuddin, was part of a 15-strong team that manned a police station in the Nad Ali district, in the heart of Helmand’s poppy-farming lands.

Embedded with the Afghan police were two trainers from the Royal Military Police and a protection force of 14 soldiers from Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, the Grenadier Guards.

The Taliban subsequently claimed Gulbuddin as one of theirs. Senior sources say local intelligence shows the claim is false, however. In addition, witnesses contacted by The Sunday Times say other factors lay behind the massacre.

According to two Afghans who knew him, Gulbuddin had complained of being brutally beaten, sodomised and sexually abused by a senior Afghan officer. A policeman named Ajmal, a friend of the gunman, said Gulbuddin had been constantly tortured. “He was being used for sexual purposes,” said Ajmal.

Another policeman, Kharullah, who was injured in the shooting, said: “Gulbuddin was beaten many times and that’s why he got angry. One day when he was patrolling with British soldiers, he swore he was going to kill him.”

When Gulbuddin opened fire with a machinegun, his target was his alleged abuser. According to the Afghan sources, the five British soldiers were killed simply because they were present and considered to be the man’s protectors.

The allied task to prop up this corrupt regime is not simply one where we are making the best out of a bad situation but one where we are actively protecting rapists, ballot-riggers and reactionaries.

Far from being killed by the Taliban it appears that these British servicemen were in fact killed by a police officer that we'd severely let down in the most horrendous way. I've no doubt that they did not deserve to be killed, just as Gulbuddin did not deserve to be raped and beaten by a superior officer protected by a ring of British bayonets.

Speaking on Question Time last week Sir Ian Blair had said the problem was that the police officers were being recruited "off the streets" (i.e. they come from Afghanistan) when in fact the main problem is that the regime the police serve is itself corrupt to the very top.

Report: Strong demo against the war

I attended the anti-war demonstration today in London calling on our government to withdraw the troops from Afghanistan.

It seemed well attended and lively, and although I don't really bother much with the speeches at the end, Green Party member Farid Bakht spoke very well from the platform I thought. I'm sure others spoke well too but I was off for a sit down and a natter with pals I hadn't seen for a while.

This report on Channel Four News is probably the best mainstream coverage I've seen of an anti-war demo to date and it shows how important it is to reach out to those serving in the armed forces as part of our struggle for a truly ethical foreign policy.

Red Letter Dai

It's always nice to get feedback and so when someone as prestigious as MP Dai Davis writes in to the Morning Star to agree with something I wrote there it warms the cockles of my heart. Here's my citation in full;

I agree with Jim Jepps (M Star October 13) that President Obama merited the Nobel peace prize.

I have submitted an early day motion in Parliament that warmly welcomes the award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.

It also welcomes his announcement on September 17 that the United States was cancelling the deployment of missile defence technology in Poland and the Czech Republic and the positive response from the government of the Russian Federation.

It also recognises the historic UN security council session that committed all member states to resolve to "seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons."

Dai Davies MP
House of Commons
Westminster

Thanks Dai.

One thing though, when I say things like "He did not deserve the prize... But we should not allow any cynicism at Obama's achievements to date to obscure the fact that the prize is being used to promote peace rather than reward it." It does tend to imply that I don't think he merited the award.

However, pedantry aside, the EDM is a good one (here) which does exactly what I'm advocating - using the Peace Prize to promote peace by holding Obama to its aspirations regardless of what we might think of his achievements to date.

What's even more interesting is the list of signatories so far. Anyone who can get Bob Spink (UKIP), Peter Bottomly (Tory) and Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) to put their names to the same document has some very special powers indeed. Kudos to Mr Davies and keep up the good work.

Daily Sport - what a stunna!

You may be aware of a publication called the Daily Sport. It's soft core porn in a newspaper format, for those who wish to pretend not to know. Anyhow, it's not a paper with much of a distinguished journalistic or campaigning history and is the kind of publication that those of us on the left eschew with distaste and alarm.

It's also the most 'read' paper by British soldiers posted abroad who find it's lack of in depth studies of Shakespearean theater and absence of exposés of the insurance industry refreshing after a hard day out on patrol, which makes the fact that the Sunday Sport has launched a Bring Our Boys Home Now! campaign absolutely outstanding.

The Sport hopes to collect 10,000 signatures on its petition for withdrawal from Afghanistan and they couch their explanation for the campaign in terms that are tailor made to appeal to squaddies. In other words they are reaching into places that anti-war activists could never hope to reach and on a scale that it would be impossible to emulate.

Would it not be churlish to refuse to support this worthy campaign?

Of course, I'm not expecting to see them follow this campaign with one against the objectification of women but well done all the same. I wonder if we'll see the editor invited to the next Stop the War Coalition AGM?

Only stupid immigrants need apply

So anti-immigration Minister Phil Woolas has announced his new points system for migrant workers.

No surprises to see that the new system is intended to make the life of migrant workers more difficult and essentially legitimises the propaganda of the racists. "Qualifying for citizenship will become harder, and applicants will be judged by various factors, including their ability to speak English."

When interviewed on Radio Four the Minister said that;

"We think it's right to say if we are asking the new citizen, as incidentally other countries around the world do, to have an oath of allegiance to that country, that it's right to try to define in some objective terms what that means. And clearly an acceptance of the democratic rule of law and the principle behind that we think is important and we think it's fair to ask that."

But, when it was pointed out that demonstrating was not illegal, Woolas suggested that an applicant could also lose points not just for breaking the law – but also for engaging in certain activities that were legal.

Sarah Montague, the presenter, asked: "Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport, 'You can have one, and when you've got one you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then don't'?"

Woolas replied: "In essence, yes. In essence we are saying that the test that applies to the citizen should be broader than the test that applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that's a fair point of view, to say that if you want to come to our country and settle, you should show that adherence."

You see he knows protesting is meant to be illegal, but he'd forgotten it wasn't actually against the law. As an aside I can't help reading the words "show that adherence" without assuming he said it in a Dalek voice. <> I could be wrong of course.

So it appears that if you want our freedoms you must not rock the boat, like going on political protests, because protesting against the government is anti-British and does not accept the "democratic rule of law". Leaving aside the fact that chilling phrase I think Mr Woolas is making two very basic errors here.

First of all it is not anti-British to oppose foreign policy disasters. Protest is one of the reasons why democracies are more effective than dictatorships, because the people can assist the government by letting them know when they're being wankers. It's helpful and gives the government an opportunity to correct their mistakes rather than repeating them over and over again.

I'm not saying they'll take that opportunity but it creates that possibility.

Secondly, he confuses the government with the people, which is possibly connected to his understanding of democracy as a place where everyone does what the government tells them to do.

More British people protested against the Iraq invasion than protested against anything else in the entirety of human history. If there's one sort of demonstration that definitely *is* British, it's an anti-war one. We should be giving immigrants extra points for dissent not taking them away.

Signing a petition - that's one point.
Going on a demo - that's two.
Go on strike - that's twenty.
Occupy Phil Woolas' office and you're made a member of the Royal family.

After all, how else are we to instill British values in those guests new to our country? They might not know that you're *supposed* to oppose the government, they might not know it's the *duty* of every citizen to speak out for what they believe in.

Phil Woolas is trying to undermine the British way of life by making us all good little boys and girls who just do what they're told without making a fuss. That's not our way and never has been. Woolas wants deference but frankly the age is more suited to defiance.

Red pencil: Afghanistan

You know, I always fancied being an editor. Just to try my hand I've taken this article from today's Guardian and applied a light editorial touch. In black is the original, as printed, and in white my editions - simply highlight them with your mouse to see my contributions. You'll get the best effect if you check it out space by space rather than all in one go.

Miliband looks beyond the war in Afghanistan into the abyss
Richard Norton-Taylor

With British soldiers and Afghan civilians being killed at the highest rate since the war against our former allies the Taliban started eight years ago, David Miliband, the hapless foreign secretary, will say tomorrow that more effort must be made to promote the political and economic development of Afghanistan in between bombing it back into the stone age.

In a speech at Nato headquarters in a secret volcano in Brussels, Miliband will stress the need for a comprehensive strategy beyond the fighting by mainly US, Afghan and British soldiers in southern Afghanistan as that clearly isn't working.

His intervention comes at a time of concern within the government at the impact on public opinion of the rising number of British deaths because public opinion matters, deaths don't. Ministers and defence chiefs have warned there will be more casualties as British and US troops mount extremely offensive operations in an attempt to provide more death and security for the Afghan presidential elections next month.

The incumbent puppet, Hamid Karzai, is expected to win, though privately both US and British officials are concerned about his dependence on corrupt warlords who pay scant regard to basic human rights but you can't fight a war without the Pentagon can you?.

Miliband is expected to emphasise the need for development aid to be channelled to economic and welfare programmes to help kill ordinary Afghans. Military action must be complemented by measures to improve the way the remaining Afghans are governed, Miliband is expected to say.

The coming months are regarded as crucial if Nato-led forces are to force the Taliban and any other Afghans who are in the way to retreat and lead to a humiliating reconciliation process involving at least some of their leaders to negotiate an inclusive agreement involving Pashtuns and with the blessing of Pakistan or else.

Whitehall officials said tonight that Miliband would go easy on European allies, most of whom have sensibly refused to allow their soldiers to be deployed for combat in a war that can't be won.

I enjoyed that. The whole process has reminded me of that excellent poem, the woman who wasn't there (I think that's what it was called). By the way, no offense to the journalist in question, he's actually one of the better ones.

William Hague and gun boat diplomacy

Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness does not just have one of the coolest blog names you could possibly imagine he/she has also written a very useful post on Conservative foreign policy.

William Hague's latest speech gives a good indication of how the Tories are attempting to style themselves as a mixture of economic pragmatism and social liberalism.

For example, Hague said that the Conservatives would stick to existing commitments in Afghanistan but would "renounce the interventionism which Labour has practised during its time in office." He went on to denounce "the proselytising style favoured by David Miliband and other government figures [which] will be replaced by respectful engagement."

Which, to me at least, reads as distancing himself from everything that's now universally regarded as a foreign policy failure (even when the Tories supported it at the time) whilst not rocking the Afghan boat.

More than a little shade of Obama there, which is a clever move as Labour is utterly contaminated by it's behaviour during the Bush years. Whilst Labour will have to justify their foreign policy disasters for years Hague does a convincing impression of someone who has learned from mistakes he had nothing to do with and certainly did not vote for. Oh no.

However, there's nothing here that goes beyond good spin on a realpolitik forced on any government in an age of economic crisis and the growing power of non-Western states. For example Hague's speech was "predicated on financial constraints which the UK will experience during the next number of years. "

So he's committing not to fight new wars that we can't afford to fight anyway. All credit to him for dressing it up as respect for other cultures, not everyone would have thought of that.

When Hague says he wants to "develop a "sustained dialogue and close understanding with China", which would involve raising human rights but not allow the issue to cloud relations" he's essentially restating the current policy, frowning about human rights for the benefit of the UK press whilst pressing ahead with unhindered trade relations.

And again Hague wants to "Work with Muslim countries even if they do not have democratic and liberal values that are taken for granted in the west." Same policy on Saudi Arabia then. No surprises here, but thanks for the warning.

It seems that this time we're not going to be Bush's attack dog, we'll be Obama's fancy poodle. Plus ca change.

How many aircraft carriers are too many?

Just to highlight the difference between Labour's Keynesian approach and the ethical alternatives (aka The Green New Deal) we have this latest big spending commitment.

No doubt the jobs are more than welcome and the support of industry and the Scottish economy is, it seems to me, very important. What is less welcome is how that money is being spent. That's right the UK's largest ever warships are under construction. Complete waste of an opportunity, and money.
The Princess Royal was giving the nobility's nod of approval today to the creation of these aircraft carriers, whose capability to enforce British foreign policy around the globe will be lethal and unprecedented.

I wonder whether this is a coincidence that the story comes out (the hook they've chosen is 'cutting' the first piece of steel, what?) at precisely the time that chopper-gate has meant the Prime Minister is under pressure to satisfy the army's insatiable desire for more equipment.

Who knows what those pesky Afghans are gonna say with one of these behemoth aircraft carriers charging at them. I suspect it may be an expression of surprise if they're on the Afghan plains.

This spending could have secured manufacturing jobs that promoted social good not human destruction. However, synchronicity only gets you so far because, whilst the news may or may not help dig the PM out of one hole, it does look rather bad when you consider that the world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is laying off workers in the UK citing the fact that the government (both national and local) has obstructed the developments of new windfarm site.

The spending priorities of murder over sustainable energy is everything you need to know about this government. Thankfully people are fighting back.

Vestas workers on the Isle of White went into occupation of their factory yesterday fighting to save the planet and their livelihoods. Earlier today there was a London demonstration in their support and solidarity messages have been coming in from far and wide. It is these workers who are on the front line of the war we should be waging, that against the environmental catastrophe we're storing for our own and future generations.

I'm sure there will be many who see the sick priorities that whilst this government has plenty of money for its Asian adventures climate change is coming a very poor last place.

Afghanistan: Bring them all home

Just a quick snippet on the video released by the Taliban of US soldier Private Bowe Bergdahl.

I'm not sure I have any particular revulsion at the way the Taliban are parading this captured soldier, although I certainly do hope that they treat him properly and release him without injury as all prisoners of war should be treated with respect, fed, watered and definitely not tortured (like in Guantanamo or Abu Graib).

It's more the response from the US armed forces themselves that I find interesting. According to the BBC "Capt Jon Stock, condemned the use of the video."

"The use of the soldier for propaganda purposes we view as against international law"

Well hold on. Who established this practice of parading prisoners for propaganda purposes? If the US regards this sort of thing as against international law why has it consistently allowed footage and stills of captured troops to be released to the media? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander surely?

Admittedly when we pioneered the practice it was to persuade the home population of the rights of our various invasions rather than to try to demoralise an invading force but none the less the US (and its allies) have been more than happy with the 'parading' of captured enemy combatants whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I hope this soldier is returned fit and well to his family soon and, in fact, that all Western soldiers are returned to their loved ones through the mechanism of a full and complete military withdrawal from the region.

If 18 is too young to die don't send them to war

There are lots of reasons to be opposed to the war in Afghanistan but British casualties isn't one of them. If the cause is right, if this war is just then we have to accept that some of our troops will die. We'd all hope those casualties would be kept to the absolute minimum but we should be hardened to the fact that if it's right to go to war then we have to take the tragically rough with the smooth.

If we're prepared to kill, or rather have someone kill for us, then we must also accept that some of 'our people' might be killed too. When British troops fought in Europe during the Second World War every casualty was a tragedy but there was never a time that people thought the cost was too high. Apart from fascist sympathisers obviously.

But whilst some seem to be saying that now British casualties are increasing (which they would do during a massive offensive) where were those voices when it was innocent Afghans feeling the brunt of our war? Take Razia (below) seen here in Bagram airbase where allied forces are kindly giving her medical attention.


After all, she needs it because she received such severe burns when her home was attacked with our rockets containing white phosphorous. I guess that's what you get if you live in what The Sun calls 'The Badlands'.

What's the mission that justifies this carnage? Does anyone even know? Are we making the world safe from terrorists? If so we're failing as the level of terrorism today is far higher now than before the invasion. Mind you Al Quaida's left Afghanistan, they're all in Pakistan and Iraq now - mission accomplished!

Are we ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban scourge? Well, no. They appear more fighting fit than they were a few years ago and, more importantly, they now operate beyond the borders of the country.

Perhaps we're instituting democracy. If so other countries better watch out because once we've democratised Afghanistan flat I guess we'll be coming for them next. Of course, Afghanistan did have a fledgling democracy once, but then that was before thirty years of invasion and war obliterated the country. Never mind, they now have a President who rules several square acres of land in Kabul and surrounds himself with foreign mercenaries to ensure he's not whacked by the grateful citizenry of his country.

Maybe we're fighting the war on drugs. If so it's a shame we invaded in the first place as the Taliban used to be very anti-drugs and wouldn't tolerate it's presence. Nowadays it's their main cash crop and Afghanistan is a major league supplier of opium based dazes to the world. The pre-Obama American forces had been pressing for aerial crop spraying to eradicate the drugs - but seeing as we can't tell the difference between drugs and beans I suspect all this will do is further impoverish some of the poorest people on the planet.

Whatever reason we're there for I think it's fair to say that unless you know what you are doing. and why, having extra helicopters is pointless. They don't know what they're achieving but the government do know that they are killing Afghans in their missions and they have no real way of knowing the difference between a Taliban and a local who thinks a bunch of murderous Europeans shouldn't be wandering round in his backgarden. Which he shouldn't.

Can a war be winnable if we don't actually have any firm objectives? There is no evidence that the life of Afghans is better now than it was before and that truly is saying something. Maybe it's just a question of face now. If we aren't seen to have done something, anything, with the military presence then all those deaths, all that oppression, all those lies will have been for nothing.

Well, maybe they were.


Oh, I forgot. The real reason we're in Afghanistan is to liberate the women. One burned child at a time. I think this video on women and Afghanistan is worth watching if you're wondering whether that's been a success or not;

Operation Panchai Palang: seeds of conflict

The Ministry of Defence was pleased as punch when it announced it had made a record haul of 1.3 tonnes of poppy seeds in Southern Afghanistan. Announcing Operation Panther's Claw a run away success they estimated the operation had cost the Taliban something like $400 million.

Last week The Sun was in paroxysms of delight over the operation, drooling over how many troops and helicopters were involved in the operation known locally as Operation Panchai Palang (Panther's Claw). They describe how the 'hero' troops had fought off the enemy in the 'bad lands' where they had made the seizure.

Scotland on Sunday talked to one soldier who said "We had dominated an area which normally belongs to the enemy. That gives the guys a high." The Daily Star crowed that the Taliban had been "crushed" and "Lieutenant Colonel Nick Richardson, spokesman for Task Force Helmand, said it showed the link between the insurgency and opium drug production."

According to the Guardian the army were so proud of their success they took the press to "the site where the seizure was made, an abandoned market and petrol station that was still coming under sustained enemy fire when the reporters arrived."

Alas, there was a hitch. They'd seized 1.3 tonnes of mung beans, part of the staple diet of the Afghan people. For a while the top brass tried to deny it claiming the beans were a strain of "super poppy", snigger, but eventually they had to give in and with a pouty face said they'd give the beans back. Let's hope they haven't killed the owner in the meantime.

Now, just a few points I'd like to make.

The market clearly wasn't abandoned until British troops arrived guns blazing. At the very minimum it was well stocked with mung beans that local people might have had some use for. Now, whilst the troops might feel brilliant about "dominating" the area how might the Afghans feel about it?

Foreign troops fly in with over whelming force, kill some local people, take their food, shut down their market and then gloat about how amazing it all makes them feel. This is a blow against the Taliban? I think not, rather the operation has been an extremely effective Taliban recruiting tool. Hearts and minds people, hearts - and - minds.

I've advocated it before so wont bang on but we should be buying the opium (when it actually is opium) not seizing it and burning it.

Firstly that would prevent us destroying people's 'legitimate' livelihoods and undermining the formal economy, as in this case. Secondly it would put the Taliban, rather than the occupation force, in opposition to the local population's attempts to build a viable economy. Thirdly it's a win / win situation where both sides of the deal get something genuinely socially constructive. Fourthly, the attempt to control the Afghan people by foreign fighters is not a tool for democracy but one that suppresses their freedom and it must stop.

I don't want to tell the army their job but... scratch that... I really *do* want to tell them their job. You're supposed to be there to free the people not "crush" them. Either buck up or ship out, preferably both.