'Bush off' warmongers
Thursday [November 20] saw the largest ever week-day demonstration London has ever seen. Something like 150,000 marched through the streets protesting at George Bush's state visit to the UK.
The feeling on the streets was electric, cramped, angry and determined. The mix of people from school kids bunking off, Muslims, old campaigners and "Middle Englanders" — every part of society seemed to be represented on this fantastic day.
I spent my time helping the Socialist Alliance, first we ran out of our hundreds of placards, then we ran out of thousands of badges and then we ran out of Socialist Alliance leaflets — and still people wanted more!
At the rally in Trafalgar Square, thousands of people crammed in tight to see the toppling of a George Bush statue and hear speeches like that of veteran anti-war campaigner Ron Kovic.
This day was a culmination of a week of protest across the country, for instance in Colchester, where I live, Tuesday saw a serious and respectable vigil outside the town hall and Wednesday a far more exciting protest called by school students — which had aimed to blockade the High Street traffic, if it hadn't been gridlocked anyway!
The anti-war movement in Britain has proved it's still here, it's still angry and we still don't believe Bush and Blair's war lies.
Jim Jepps
Colchester Essex, UK
Solution to waste crisis
There is a solution to Sydney's waste crisis — and it isn't overturning the recent Land and Environment Court ruling against the establishment of a massive waste transfer station at Clyde, as the NSW Government is currently attempting to do.
NSW MPs of all persuasions are being urged to oppose the Clyde Waste Transfer Terminal (Special Provisions) Bill 2003, which [Premier Bob] Carr is trying to push through parliament in defiance of Justice Neal Bignold's considered opinion ruling against the proposed development.
There is an alternative.
An integrated and comprehensive waste elimination strategy, "Zero Waste in 10 Years", has been developed and refined over the past decade — since a "waste crisis" was first declared in 1992 — by the state's peak environment groups. It is well suited (in fact designed) to deal with the waste crisis in NSW.
The Carr government has failed to seriously pursue waste minimisation and avoidance techniques to significantly reduce the amount of waste generated by Sydney-siders. Mr Carr now prefers to abandon the central pillar of the "ALP NSW Government Waste Minimisation and Recycling Strategy", which states: "Labor opposes the transfer of Sydney's garbage to rural areas."
It instead champions the cause of waste disposal giant Collex by ensuring the massive waste transfer station at Clyde goes ahead despite its rejection by the Land and Environment Court, and dump Sydney's waste in an enormous abandoned open-cut mine at Woodlawn, south of Goulburn.
Peter Hopper
Zero Waste Network
Action and reaction
"British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking of the latest bombings in Istanbul, said that the fanatics of terror showed themselves to be callous, brutal murderers of the innocent." — ABC AM November 21.
A few days earlier, the United States launched a rain of air attacks on civilian areas in Iraq, including the use of 500kg bombs and the total destruction of a mansion said to be owned by a resistance leader.
Not a word of criticism from any world leader for this atrocity. As Sir Isaac Newton said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".
Col Friel
Alawa NT
Facts
I refer to the article on Israel's apartheid wall by Ahmed Nimer (Green Left Weekly, #562). It is only when you do some research on your own that you begin to see the well-established machine of outright lies and slander in connection with Palestine.
For instance, Zionists all over never tire of harping on former Israeli PM Barak's "generous offer of peace" to Arafat.
Israeli writer Tanya Reinhart in her book Israel/Palestine quotes US President Bill Clinton's assistant on Arab-Israeli affairs to reveal that there was little direct negotiation between Barak and Arafat and that Barak always stopped short of making a clear declaration.
No commitment to removing settlements, no clear promise on Jerusalem and the demand to give up on the right of return of the refugees. The one undisputed proposal of Barak was to "straighten" the map to include three large settlements and the land in between inside Israel, while the Palestinians in the connecting areas could "vote for the Palestinian state", and verbal trickery to actually propose neighbouring village of Abu Dis instead of Jerusalem as capital to the Palestinians.
Any one interested in countering Zionist lies and slander should read Reinhart's book. And finally, the Zionists cannot raise their familiar war cry of "anti-Semitism" against her. They can probably borrow the Nazi charge of "self hatred" to counter the facts revealed by her.
Narendra Mohan Kommalapati
Canberra
US-style democracy in Iraq
Another two Black Hawk Helicopters down. Another 17 dead US soldiers. And what is the response of the US administration? They want to replace one US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council with a larger body, whose members would also be subject to US veto. Those Iraqis who oppose the US occupation of Iraq or who support a Muslim clerical state would be excluded from the new assembly.
Bush and his advisers just don't get it. You can't invade a country; kill and maim tens of thousands of people; impose a military occupation; announce a new free market economy; institute a new secular political system of your own making; and then hand over power to an assembly over which you can veto the members. Not if you want to call it a democracy!
The invaders of Iraq don't want to allow the Iraqi people to determine their own future because they might choose a form of government that is counter to the interests of the US.
After the military conquest of Saddam Hussein, the US announced that they would not allow a Muslim clerical state in Iraq. They excluded all elements of the former Baath Party from participating in the new regime. They disbanded the army and gave their imprimatur to a free market economy where there would be no limit to foreign ownership. The only exception to this was oil. The US needed to control this vital resource in order to pay US companies who were handed reconstruction projects on a platter. All of this was done without an election.
The people of Iraq have already been excluded from the major decisions about their future. Any constitution developed in the next 12 months will be one that satisfies the occupying forces. The US is acting as a dictator in Iraq, and no amount of juggling of the political deckchairs is going to give their proposals legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi resistance.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
'Brothers in war'
I came across the GLW site while looking for places that are not afraid to voice their opinions about the injustices in this world.
I'm the co-writer of an anti-war song called "Brothers in war", written by eight individuals from completely different parts of the world. The song is a journey through several diverse musical cultures and I thought that it might be of interest to your site.
It is available for free download here: <http://www.mp3.com/shadowbox>.
We would love to get the word out for this song, hoping that it not only inspires people but it also reminds people that no matter where we're from, we're still all connected as human beings. The band Pieces of East recently won two Austin Music Awards, one for best world band.
Feedback/comments/help would be greatly appreciated.
Anuj Timblo
<http://www.piecesofeast.com>
Bush's political suicide in Iraq
In recent weeks, Iraq has been in focus due to a number of shocking events, including the deadly explosion in the Italian military police headquarters in Nasiriya.
The ongoing attacks on the Coalition forces gained such a momentum that the Bush administration was obviously forced to endure some undesirable changes in its foreign policy towards Iraq.
Washington's first reaction to the attacks came from the US top administrator in Iraq; Paul Bremer who had been hastily summoned to the White House for emergency consultations, called urgently for immediate actions to stop the growing turmoil in Iraq.
This was of course followed by some other statements. President Bush and the US secretary of state, Colin Powell after a series of pre-planned discussions behind the closed doors, in an obvious shift from their previous positions announced that the US was seeking for ways to accelerate the transfer of political power to the Iraqi people.
In the meantime, they emphasized that the Pentagon had no immediate plans to withdraw its troops from Iraq despite the US new policy towards the matter. Perhaps, all these developments would suffice to provide a real image from the troubled country and display the terrible quagmire into which the Bush administration is going to be engulfed.
At present, it seems, there are some options open to the US government in Iraq:
- An immediate and full withdrawal from the war-torn country -Full and unconditional hand-over of power to the UN;
- Preservation of the status quo at any price; or
- Strengthening of the existing Governing Council through the gradual transfer of power to it
No need to say each of these alternatives would produce different consequences for the United States.
The first alternative, which has been ruled out totally by the White House in recent days, may be considered as the worst possibility for the Bush administration, because it would cast serious doubts on the US capability and superiority both among its friends and foes.
Psychologically, the US sudden and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, as an obvious defeat would possibly result in the weakening of the links between the United States and its close allies on one hand, and it might encourage the rivals on the other hand. In addition, the US immediate withdrawal would create a political and military vacuum that might be filled by some Saddam loyalists or religious extremists such as the Shiites and Taliban forces.
This would in turn discredit President Bush's "war on terror" in a serious way.
The second option, which seems to have been also refuted by the US policy-makers, is perhaps the best choice open to the United States, because in this way the possible chaos and anarchy in terms of the power vacuum can be avoided.
However, under existing conditions, it would be extremely optimistic to expect the United States to bow completely to the UN resolutions, for it views the UN in its own way.
Although the Bush administration has always claimed to be committed to the UN decisions, but in practice it has tried to make an instrumental use of it in different ways.
For example, in the case of Iraq, the US has made every effort to ease the burden of the occupation by internationalising the crisis; it has tried to persuade its allies to send more troops to Iraq through the UN and under the US leadership.
Of course, it should be mentioned that the US efforts have been seriously foiled so far by the deterioration of the security conditions in Iraq due to the growing attacks on the coalition forces. Japan's recent decision to delay the sending of troops to Iraq after the death of the Italian forces, is indeed the best evidence for the failure of the US attempts.
The third option would be doubtlessly the most destructive choice for the United States, because it would sink the Bush administration more and more into the foregoing quagmire.
It seems, under the existing circumstances, even the most conservative circles in the United States would find it unwise to preserve the present horrible situation at any price.
In fact, the recent developments, particularly the US government's new policy to speed up the transfer of power to Iraqis, clearly indicates that even the Republican hawks in Washington have somehow realised the seriousness of the situation in Iraq.
As for the last option, there is indeed enough evidence, which shows that the US policy-makers have preferred this choice to the others.
Generally speaking, this alternative should be regarded as an extremely risky choice for two reasons: first, the existing Iraqi Governing Council has been in general unable to win the Iraqi people's sympathy; some Iraqis even view it as a US puppet. That is why, it seems quite unlikely that the Governing Council will manage to stop the violence or even reduce the momentum of the attacks.
Second, this option due to its vagueness and flexibility may easily slide into the other choices and lead to the same results.
For example, the ambiguity or the unreasonable length of the timetable for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people can produce severe consequences for the United States.
It should be mentioned that these defects could be distinguished easily in the USA's new policy towards Iraq. In fact, some key questions, such as what power, at what time, to whom and how is going to be transferred, are not clearly answered at all in the American plan.
It seems that the Bush administration's new policy towards Iraq is nothing but an attempt to escape from the quagmire by dividing the Iraqi people and involving them in a kind of civil war. After all, as it was said before President Bush is pursuing a very dangerous policy in Iraq, which might turn into a political suicide at any time.
Nasser Frounchi
Iran
From Green Left Weekly, November 26, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.