If you've found your way here as the result of some fluke of interwebnettery you should be aware that this is simply a blog for testing out template edits. If for some reason you're actually interested in what I have to say, your better of checking out my blog-proper. That is all.

Josh: One in three blames women for being raped

"Are men wearing tight jeans and being perhaps a bit too forward responsible for being forcibly sodomized with a broomstick?"

NavBar

Anybody got any idea what's up with the NavBar? Surely it should all be black? Almost there apart from that.

Logotastical, Part 2.

Logotastical

A possible new logo. Comments welcomed. (First thoughts: it's too small.)

Testing 1, 2, 3...

This is a blog for roadtesting new layouts for my blog-proper. Any comments/suggestions/tips/hints on what is very much a work in progress gratefully received.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Stating the Obvious

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran courted controversy last week when he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Surprisingly, given how far Ahmadinejad is from my positions on most matters, we actually agree here. I too would like to see Israel wiped from the map. My ambitions, however, are not limited to Israel. I'd also like to see Iran wiped from the map and for that matter, Iraq, the US, the UK and every other nation state on the planet.

The nation state is arguably the hegemonic institution of modernity. Cutting across religious, idelogical, cultural and linguistic barriers the state has forced its way into almost every corner of the globe, controlling the lives of literally billions of people, errecting articifical boundaries between peoples and leading to hugely destructive wars.

The experiences of Russia in 1917 demonstrate the folly of trying to utilise the state (in whatever form) as part of a revolutionary project. It is not an impartial arbiter between competing interests as the Liberals would have it, nor the mere product of economic relations as in Marxist theory. Rather, the state represents a tool of control (by means of both hard and soft power, with the balance between the two determined by the particular historical and social conditions of specific states) in the hands of a ruling elite and can be nothing else.

Some contend that Israel's existence is predicated on the supression, expulsion or outright murder of the indigenous population and hence that existence is uniquely illegitimate. While this asessment of Israeli history is essentially accurate (there is a tendency amongst some supporters of the Palestinian cause to pretend that the issue is entirely one-sided, it isn't, but this takes nothing from the fact that a historic and ongoing injustice has been done to the Palestinians), I question the suggestuion that the situation is in any way unique. Compare, for instance, the experience of North America which witnessed the reduction of its indigenous population from 12 million in 1,500 in 1500 to perhaps 237,000 in 1900. No doubt there are similar skeletons in the cupboard of most, if not all, settler states. Why single Israel out for particular ire? The two-state solution is not the answer, but in lieu of a global anarchist revolution, it's about the best option available at the moment.

Testing Satire

After the tube bombings in July, many Londoners decided to stop using the tube and cycle to work. It seems, however, that even cyclists are not safe from the scourge of international terrorism, which now takes on a new form: the seemingly innocent pedestrian.

This worrying development emerged in yesterday's Sunday Times which reported that 34-year-old "property developer" Sally Cameron had been detained for several hours under anti-terrorism legislation after she was caught walking on a cycle-path in Dundee.

In a shocking example of the complacency which has permeated the highest echelons of the British legal system the prosecutor fiscal's office declined to prosecute Cameron despite the fact that, by its own admission, "the evidence is sufficient to justify bringing [her] before the court on this criminal charge."

One couldn't hope for a clearer example of why the proposed Terrorism Bill is so important. For too long the police have countered the terrorist threat to our precious bodily fluids with one leg tied behind their back. No longer can we allow this to continue. The Safety Elephant is pointing the way to the future. Let us follow his lead.

Protecting Our Precious Bodily Fluids

It's possible that I might have mentioned anti-terrorism legislation once or twice. I might even have implied that perhaps I didn't think that the laws we've got got had been implemented in an entirely satisfactory manner and that some of the proposals for further legislation were just a little authoritarian. At least, I think I said something like that. Certainly sounds like me. Strangely enough the Government looks like it's going to ignore my concerns and go ahead with the legislation anyway. Which seems to be how we got here...

All this very important precious bodily fluid protecting legislation was being debated in Parliament on October 13 when the discussion turned to the government's proposal that 15 organisations be proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. Among these groups is the Islamic Jihad Union (hereafter IJU) and this is where things get interesting (or they do if your me).

Various MPs expressed concerns about the proposed ban on the organisation, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price, for instance, pointed out that the hundreds of civillians massacred at Andijan in May "were killed not by the Islamic Jihad Union but by the brutality of the Karimov regime that it is trying to overthrow," He asked, not unreasonably in my opinion, "Should we not tread very carefully before proscribing an organisation that has less blood on its hands than a Government with whom we still maintain diplomatic relations?"

Seeking to defend Government policy Home Office Minister Hazel Blears (of ethnic rebranding fame) set out the case for the prosecution:

There is a range of activities that all these organisations will be undertaking. We have attempted in the explanatory memoranda to outline, as far as we can, the activities that have taken place. As for the Islamic Jihad Union, in March 2004 there was an explosion in Uzbekistan that killed nine people who were involved in the construction of portable improvised explosive devices. Over the following three days, there was a series of shoot-outs and suicide bombings that were carried out in Tashkent, Bokhara and Uzbekistan, leaving about 25 dead and 35 wounded. I also asked about the impact on British interests to satisfy myself that the order was an appropriate way forward.

Note the careful wording. She never says that the bombing was carried out by the IJU, just that it happened. Any other conclusions you draw are entirely your own. This presumably reflects the fact that evidence backing up IJU culpability is at best limited.

In fact, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and vociferous critic of the Karimov regime, Craig Murray suggests that the bombings may not have happened at all, at least not the way Blears alleges:

As Britain's ambassador, I visited the site of each of the bombings within a few hours - or, in one case, minutes - of the alleged explosion.

The physical evidence on the ground did not coincide with the official explanation. For example, each suicide bomber was alleged to be using explosives equivalent to 2kg of TNT. But nowhere, not even at the site of an alleged car bomb, was there a crater, or even a crack in a paving stone. In one small triangular courtyard area a bomb had allegedly killed six policemen. But windows on all sides, at between 10 and 30 metres from the alleged blast, were not damaged; nor was a tree in the middle of the yard. The body of one of the alleged suicide bombers was unmarked, save for a small burn about the size of a walnut on her stomach.

A full account of my investigations of these bombings is to appear in my forthcoming book: one reason, perhaps, why the Foreign Office will seek to block its publication. There is no more reason to believe this version of events in March 2004 than to believe the Uzbek government's version of the Andijan massacre in May this year. What is more, as ambassador I sent back the details of my investigation to London, and the Joint Terrorism Assessment Centre (Jtac) agreed with my view that there were serious flaws in the Uzbek government account - agreeing with my view that the US was wrong to accept it. I concluded then, and still believe now, that these events were a series of extrajudicial killings covered by a highly controlled and limited agent-provocateur operation.

Even if Murray is very wrong - a possibility I grant, although I trust him more than I do the present Government - it should be clear that the picture is not as black and white as Blears' suggests. One might be forgiven for asking then where Blears gets her information from.

The Minister insists, "The information that we receive is from our own security and intelligence services." Murray interjects, however,

There was no intelligence material from UK sources on the above events. The UK has no intelligence assets in central Asia. We are dependent on information given to us by the United States' CIA and NSA. There was information from the NSA. We had NSA communications intercepts of senior al-Qaida figures asking each other if anyone knew what was happening in Tashkent (no one did). Despite the only intelligence we had indicating plainly that al-Qaida was not involved, Colin Powell immediately went on the record in Washington to support the US's ally, stating specifically that Uzbekistan was under attack from Islamist militant forces linked to al-Qaida. Almost certainly MI6 and MI5 happily accept this nonsense, as it suits their own agenda. But if they pretend that they have independent information, that is a lie.

The UK, presumably, has also received information from Uzbek authorities, although I guess any such flow is likely to have dried up in the past few months. Any information garnered this way will of course be tainted by the dictates of authoritarian governance and the distortions which result from the gathering of intelligence by torture. In short it's chronically unreliable.

Terrorism is a real threat. The terrorist attacks in London and in Bali in September underline that fact. It's difficult to see, however, how basing our response on bad intelligence and authoritarian propoganda makes us any safer. Then again, reading over that last line again I'm reminded of the role of intelligence and propaganda in build-up to the war in Iraq. If nothing else, they are consistent.

Test

Open Letter to the Anti-Occupation Movement

(Reprinted for testing purposes.)

It is becomingly increasingly clear to all but the most ideologically blinkered that the occupation of Iraq has been a disaster. The Lancet estimated that the death toll amongst Iraqis since the invasion was in the order of 100,000, perhaps higher. Amongst the occupying forces, the US has now lost more than 1,400 soldiers and the UK almost 90. This doesn’t even mention the hundreds of thousands who have been injured and rendered homeless or forced to flee from their homes. Despite all of this, the occupation continues at the time of writing and looks set to do so for the continuing future. If we are serious about bringing this state of affairs to an end we have a duty to consider the strategies we have been pursuing and if we find them lacking to institute a change in strategic direction. This easy is an attempt to suggest one possible such strategic direction in the hope of generating debate.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 there was a massive level of anti-war activity, reaching its apotheosis in February of that year with 1.5 million people on the streets of London and millions more in simultaneous protests across the world. Activist and author Milan Rai suggests that the anti-war movement scared the government sufficiently that they seriously considered pulling British troops out of the planned invasion. Today, although the violence continues there is a far lower level of activity. The protests on March 19 this year will no doubt be large compared with those around other issues, but will have little if any effect on those in power and pass off largely unknown by the vast majority of the population. If we wish to influence the elites currently running the occupation than we must seek to raise the costs of that policy so that they exceed the benefits, something we are at the moment unable to do.

Those costs which have been imposed on the occupation have been almost exclusively at the hands of the armed insurgency. This is surely obvious to anybody, regardless of their opinions on some or all of the groups who have taken up arms against the occupation. It is worth noting here that the resistance is not a homogenous group as some insinuate, but rather an assortment of groups of groups with few if any links, some of whom are openly hostile to each other. The divided nature of this group will no doubt affect its effectiveness, particularly if some groups continue their apparent strategy of targeting Iraqis from other ethnic groups. Whether the insurgency can force the US out remains to be seen, but it is certainly not a given.

One of the most important elements in any strategy for the liberation of Iraq on the part of western activists is the development and dissemination of serious, useful analysis. In the run up to the war the Stop the War Coalition and many other groups focused on simplistic sloganeering which ensured a broad-based movement, but left people unprepared to deal with the radically different political situation which came with the consolidation of the occupation and the emergence of armed resistance. Unfortunately the Stop the War Coalition continues in this vein, limiting itself to demanding that the troops be brought home, but offering little on why this should happen. Fortunately other groups and individuals are moving in to fill this group, Iraq Occupation Focus and Rahul Mahajan being two who spring to mind.

Perhaps the most important task of activists at the present time is outreach. Polls suggest that a majority of the population broadly agree with us and my own experience in campaigning seems to back that up. Despite this our ability to attract and mobilise those people has been more limited. There are, of course, real questions about how we go about doing this. Public meetings are a potentially useful tool, but often attract those who are already converts to the cause. In my opinion, Nottingham Stop the War is on the right lines here, with a regular stall in the city’s Old Market Square on Saturday’s and a roving stall moving through the likes of Ilkeston, Mansfield and Kirby-in-Ashfield. These distribute flyers, allow activists to engage with normal people and also make their presence known to a potential audience of thousands. Nottingham Stop the War has also sought to develop its links with local trade unions with some success, an effort which could perhaps be extended to churches and religious groups, if not further.

On a more practical level, activists could, and in my opinion should, target firms profiting from the occupation. Voices UK organised an event along these protests during September last year. Dressing up as fat-cats and pigs they toured the offices of firms such as AMEC and Bechtel. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), few of these firms have much of a presence outside of London, but some, such as Shell and HSBC are virtually ubiquitous and easy to get at, while others such as AMEC are possibilities, but would require a little more research.

The tactics which could be employed in this regard are numerous and varied. No doubt pickets and protests would be utilised initially, but we should seek to use all means at our disposal. Easily organised letter writing campaigns to the company itself or local papers could potentially generate positive results. Boycotts are another possibility, but would probably have to be co-ordinated nationally. More militant tactics such as property destruction should not be dismissed and have been utilised with some success by animal liberation campaigners. We should seek to learn from such groups, but the negative publicity that they have attracted, arguably to the detriment of their cause, should also be borne in mind.

This approach should be coupled with the targeting of any and all representatives of the British state with particular emphasis on Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. This could include protests outside barracks and recruitments centres or against visiting government ministers, all of which has happened at one point or another in and around Nottingham. The question of recruitment is a particularly important one, with reports suggesting that there has been a major fall in army recruitment recently, apparently as a result of the chaos in Iraq. This is something we should seek to encourage as far as possible.

Another tactic which should not be forgotten is the targeting of pro-war MPs. This has been something which various groups have engaged in and should continue, regardless of the party from which they come. There is obviously much more which could be said here about the strategy to be followed by anti-war groups as we head towards a General Election. My own views on elections would stretch to an essay in themselves and so I will simply comment that we should seek to ensure the issue of the occupation is at the forefront during the campaign and I believe that there should be at least one and ideally a series of events, protests or stunts on the day of the election itself.

One issue which has largely been ignored by anti-occupation activists has been the question of whether or not we should support the trade unions emerging in Iraq. It is worth interjecting at this point that I reject the flawed analysis of many Trotskyists and fellow-travellers which seems to equate a tool for the defence of working class interests (i.e. trade unions) with a potential revolutionary agent (i.e. the working class in toto). Nevertheless economic exploitation of Iraqi resources lies at the heart of the occupiers’ project and unions are a potentially important source of resistance to this. Many union leaders have thrown their hat in with the occupation and I do not wish to suggest that we should support any organisation uncritically. No doubt there is a potential debate as to how far this support should go and this is a debate which must be had urgently.

Some have sought to set support for unions against support for the resistance. In my opinion this is a largely artificial, meaningless dichotomy flowing from mistaken analysis. Given that the resistance is a diverse assortment of groups with differing aims and sometimes violent divisions to suggest that we could or should support it as a whole strikes me as a silly proposition. More concretely there is a consequentialist case to be made for supporting trade unions. It is far from clear what we can actually do to “support” armed resistance movements in Iraq and it seems that such support amongst British activists doesn’t seem to go beyond vacuous rhetoric, which is meaningless to the Iraqi people and of no consequence to our leaders. By contrast there is the possibility of fundraising for Iraqi unions and for solidarising with them, particularly if and when they come under attack from the occupying forces (as has happened on a number of occasions).

No doubt there is a great deal which this essay misses out. I have merely sketched out the bare bones of an anti-occupation strategy and it is for the movement as a whole to fill in the details if they think it is accurate. If not (and no doubt there will be much that some or many will disagree with) then I urge people not to dismiss what I have written, but instead to engage with and improve upon it. The occupation is now almost two years old, Iraqis continue to die on a daily basis. Insofar as we have failed to prevent this state of affairs from continuing, their blood is on our hands. For their sakes, and for our own decency, we owe it to them to do better.