Dave Anderson, LFIQ Chair tables Commons motion in defence of Iraqi trade unions

EDM 1689 reads as follows:

Iraqi Trade Unions

That this House supports the independent and democratic Iraqi trade union movement, mainly centred around the newly merged Iraqi Workers Federation (IWF) and the Kurdish trade unions, which play an important role in re-building of its devastated national economy and consolidating the current political process in order to create a democratic, united and federal state after years of repression and hardship at the hands of the deposed dictatorship of Saddam; is,
therefore, deeply disturbed that on 8 August 2005 the Iraqi council of ministers issued Decree 8750 which declared that union finances would be taken over by the government and that a new law on trade unionism would be developed by the government, without mentioning freedom of association which is a basic human right and one of the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) or the involvement of the Iraqi trade union movement; is further disturbed at recent reports that the government has replaced the leadership of the independent engineers' union with its own appointees in a prima facie breach of freedom of association; welcomes the decision of professional organisations to create with the IWF an umbrella organisation to oppose Decree 8750; further congratulates the TUC for initiating global protests against Decree 8750 and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions for supporting the IWF's complaint formally requesting that the ILO intervene directly with the Iraqi government; and supports the IWF and others in all available democratic means to stop this undemocratic practice against Iraqi workers.

Dave Anderson
Joan Ruddock
Dai Harvard
Rob Marris
Sharon Hodgson
Peter Bottomley
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
George Howarth
Bob Spink

Differing Signals As Iraq Stares Into Abyss

The International Crisis Group suggests that although the sectarian violence may die down in the short term, the structural dynamic still indicates that civil war is likely. CNN has interviewed the Iraqi national security adviser who remains more optimistic. However, at least one Iraqi blogger suggests that the reported violence may have been exaggerated. (David Spector)

The stakes are very high

Jabbar Hasan Director Of The Iraqi Community Association In London tells the Mirror his views of the current situation in Iraq.

I think all Iraqis were guilty of wishful thinking when they denied the danger of sectarian conflict. We have just seen an act of terrorism timed and planned to spin Iraq into civil war.

It is up to community leaders and politicians to get a grip of the situation, but Saddam's Ba'athist party members, jihadists and foreign powers are all interested in destabilising the situation further.

In a civil war the only winners will those who are against the rebuilding of Iraq.

The implications for the Middle East of civil war are very serious. Oil prices are likely to shoot up and the world economy will be affected.

War will destroy democracy in Iraq and regional leaders will use this as an excuse to abandon democracy, claiming it does not suit their society. The stakes are very high.

Co-ordinating Committee of Iraqi Democratic Forces public meeting Saturday 24th February

Public Meeting

To Defeat Terrorism and Sectarian Sedition and Consolidate Iraqi National Unity

Organised by: Co-ordinating Committee of Iraqi Democratic Forces (UK)
Saturday, 25 February 2006, 7.00 p.m, The Polish Centre, Malinowa Room,
2nd Floor, 238-246 King Street, London W6 0RF

(Nearest underground: Hammersmith or Ravenscourt Park)

** Speakers will include representatives of Iraqi political groups in Britain. The meeting is open to all members of the Iraqi community, as well as British friends and the media.

Our homeland Iraq is going through extremely difficult days and a deep political crisis as a result of the repercussions of the criminal bomb attack on holy shrines in Samarra. Maintaining Iraq's unity, securing our people's future and rebuilding the country require speeding up the formation of a national unity government, to be able to end the political impasse, foil sectarian sedition and achieve a democratic Iraq that enjoys stability, harmony and peace.

More condemnations of attack and some cautious optimism

Both the United Nations envoy to Iraq, Ahraf Qazi, and the European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana have condemned the shrine bombing and subsequent sectarian violence. The former is inviting political, religious and civil leaders to discussions aimed at easing tensions. And Baghdad Blogger suggests cautious optimism. (David Spector)

IWF condemns shrine outrage

The enemies of our country have committed another evil and criminal act in Samarra north of Baghdad against one of the world’s most sacred sites for Muslims. A gang of extremist bombers attacked the holiest shrines, the burial place of Imams Ali Al-Hadi and Hassan Al-Askari and destroyed its magnificent golden dome. The perpetrators of this vile act had one motive. They are targeting Iraq’s national unity and its sovereign integrity. They are seeking to ignite civil war. They want to destroy Iraq and its people. They must not be allowed to succeed in this nihilistic scheme.

The Iraqi Workers Federation (IWF) while strongly condemns this criminal act and calls on our people to stand hand in hand to stop the enemies of Iraq of achieving their aim of creating sectarian strife. We must work together in a determined manner to eliminate extremism and march to build a democratic, federal and fully sovereign Iraq.

IWF
London Office

Calls for unity after Golden Mosque Bombing

The Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari has argued that insurgents are trying everything to foment civil war and sectarian violence. President Talabani will be calling for a joint demonstration of Shiites and Sunni Muslims to show unity. (David Spector)

The need for unity

The Times Leader argues that Iraq is not, though, at a stage where it can afford the luxury of lethargy. A government should be established by the middle of next month. It could then consider amendments to the constitution to reassure Sunnis further. If that were to take place, and it is not an impractical possibility, then the overwhelming bulk of Iraqis would be willingly bound into a democratic, federal and pluralist political order. This is a plausible prospect that many critics have long dismissed as impossible. It would not, alas, eliminate overnight tragedies such as car bombings or the desecration of a shrine. It would, however, allow the fanatics to be marginalised and, in time, to be defeated. (Gary Kent)

Sharia and Women’s rights

Isobel Coleman argues in an article in Foreign Affairs in January that Although questions of implementation remain, the new Iraqi constitution makes Islam the law of the land. This need not mean trouble for Iraqi women, however. Sharia is open to a wide range of interpretations, some quite egalitarian. If Washington still hopes for a liberal order in Iraq, it should start working with progressive Muslim scholars to advance women's rights through religious channels. She concludes that the resurgence of Islamic law in Iraq need not be a disaster for women. Although it may well mean a short-term setback in certain rights enjoyed under Saddam, in the long run, Iraqis may manage to build a more equitable society that accommodates both Islamic principles and a modern role for women. This outcome is far from guaranteed, but it is also not too much to hope for. (David Spector)

Solidarity Day with NGOs to Abolish Decree 8750

Solidarity Day with NGOs to Abolish Decree 8750

The "Co-ordinating Committee for the NGOs Conference" has considered the 6th of February a day of solidarity for abolishing the government Decree 8750, issued on 8 August 2005. The Committee, that includes the Iraqi Council for Peace and Solidarity and the Unions and Associations Co-ordinating Committee, held meetings yesterday at the headquarters of both the Engineers Association and the Peace Council. Banners were also raised at the buildings of all unions and vocational organisations. The "Co-ordinating Committee for the NGOs Conference" had issued an Urgent Appeal, addressed to the President, the government, the parliament and the leaders of political parties. It was distributed to the local, Arab and international media.

The following is the text of this Urgent Appeal:

NO to Government Interference in the Affairs of NGOs

The right of civil peaceful association and participation in setting up voluntary and non-profitable non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is one of the principles of human rights that have been internationally endorsed and stipulated by the UN Charter, as well as being endorsed by Iraq. It is one of the most important principles for building a free democratic society, where these organisations constitute a counter weight and lobbies parallel to the government and acting as a "fifth power".

The work of these organisations is therefore a fundamental right that should not be constrained by laws and regulations of a totalitarian nature or by government decrees that deprive them of an adequate measure of independence. This independence distinguishes these organisations from those associated with the government. The relationship with NGOs should be one of a monitoring nature, with a special independent law regulating their existence and relations with the government and other bodies. They constitute a legal, independent and distinct subject of rights and duties, so that they can exercise their powers in an independent manner without any governmental or party interference. If disagreements or disputes arise, they should be resolved only through the judicial system.

Despite the existence of vocational organisations that had their own inner norms and regulations, a large number of civil initiatives were launched after the regime's fall in Iraq, the disappearance of personality cult, and the demise of monitoring and domination previously exercised by the Bath party's Vocational Bureau. Those civil initiatives were aimed at grouping citizens concerned with human rights, civil society affairs and charity work. The proliferation of such organisations may have been at the expense of quality, but they can develop, with time, into specialized fields of work. The CPA attempted to regulate the work of these organisations through its Order No. 45 in 2004, amended later through Order No. 61. In accordance with Order No.100, the Ministry of Planning was then authorised to regulate the work of NGOs. This authority was transferred to the Council of Minister's Office, and finally to the Ministry of Civil Society.

Decree No. 8750, issued by the Council of Ministers on 8 August 2005, gave the Ministry of Civil Society and to a Government Committee made up of a number of ministries, extensive powers to interfere in the affairs of NGOs. It went as far as freezing the assets of NGOs and annulling the work of some of them using flimsy pretexts. Finally came the decision taken by the Minister of Justice to dissolve the council of the Lawyers Syndicate without any judicial decision or legal basis. It was simply blunt government interference in the affairs of these organisations.

We, the undersigned, representatives of vocational organisations and NGOs, expressing the free will and desire of hundreds of thousands of members of these organisations, while declaring our total rejection of this government interference that contradicts the most basic democratic and legal concepts, as well as contradicting what has been endorsed by the permanent constitution, call for speedy action to annul these unjust decrees and decisions which are reminiscent of the practices of the dictatorial regime, aimed at interfering and controlling these organisations. Such a policy is not consistent with the pledges made by the political parties and forces, and with the future of the new Iraq.

Signed by:

1- Teachers Union 2- Doctors Union 3- Lawyers Syndicate 4- Iraqi Industries Federation 5- Pharmacists Union 6- Agricultural Engineers Union 7- Iraqi Democratic Youth Federation 8- National Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Iraq 9- Union of Technical Engineering Professions 10- Iraqi Workers Federation 11- Iraqi Writers Federation 12- Brotherhood and Peace Movement 13- Veterinary Doctors Union 14- Dentists Union 15- Geologists Union 16- Iraqi Women's League 17- General Co-operative Union 18- Independent Woman Voice Organisation 19- Central Council of Baghdad Sheikhs and Tribes 20- Iraqi Journalists Union 21- Economists Association 22- Association of Health Profession Employees 23- Iraqi Artists Union 24- Iraqi Engineers Association 25- Union of Iraqi Importers and Exporters 26- Iraqi Society for Supporting Families of Martyrs and Disappeared 27- Democratic Human Rights Organisation 28- Women Committee of Iraq's Teachers 29- Rafidain Women Alliance 30- Arab Forum for Human Development 31- New Iraq Society for Humanitarian Aid 32- General Federation of Peasants Associations 33- League of Al-Sadr City Tribes 34- Arab-Kurdish Friendship Society 35- Union of Engineering Professions 36- Iraqi Foundation

John Reid pleads for understanding

Here is a speech by Defence Secretary John Reid in which he makes what I think are reasonable points. BBC Radio Scotland interviewed me about the speech and I argued that the death of distance in communications can mean that distorted snapshots of what’s happening in Iraq can often beat the good news. As for the alleged abuse by British squaddies of Iraqis, I argued that the British Army should always have a morally superior stance to terrorists. My main aim was to alert Radio Scotland listeners to our work in helping build solidarity with the Iraqi labour movement.

Gary Kent

A speech by John Reid MP Secretary of State for Defence to Kings College London 20/02/06

I believe that the job of soldiering has seen four significant and unprecedented changes in recent years.

And I believe that these changes have made life hugely more difficult for the men and women who do the job. Moreover, I think we all need to see – and urgently – a greater understanding of this in public, political and media discussion.

Let me outline what I think these changes are, before explaining why I think it is so vital that they are understood.

Context: Civilians have less direct experience and understanding of military life

First of all, our context is that the level of understanding about what soldiers do has fallen amongst our civilian population over time.

The last conscript left the British armed forces 45 years ago.

There is an argument that even since then - despite seeing and reading more than ever about the work of the services - the public have a continually looser grasp of what it means to be a soldier in this new security environment than was the case a generation ago.

People then had direct personal experience of the role of the armed forces. Amongst people ten years my senior almost all men had at least a first hand experience of service life through national service; and for my father’s and grandfather’s generations, most had seen active service and combat.

Our Armed Forces - have the power and respect to help overcome this lack of direct experience. They are held in high regard. They have the potential to explain to civilians the differences and advances to people’s lives that the military has made.

But this is an issue in which all of us have a role, in helping to overcome the barrier which separates military from civilian life. I will not dwell on that today but will return to in more detail on another occasion. Suffice it to say that it forms the context which makes it even more difficult to comprehend the great changes which are taking place in today’s military struggles.

Change 1 The enemy are unconstrained

The first of these great changes is in the type of enemy we face today. The enemy our parents and grandparents faced in the 1st and 2nd World Wars wore a different uniform to theirs, but had aims and by and large had conduct - they could understand. The enemy fought much as we fought; his forces were structured in much the same way. And, by and large, they accepted the same conventions. Today’s most dangerous enemy, the terrorist, does not.

Here let me stress that our enemy is not Islam. Indeed in military and civil interventions in Kosovo, Bosnia, the recent Pakistan earthquake and in Afghanistan, UK armed forces have time and again risked themselves to save Muslims lives. They have fought for what is right and opposed what is wrong irrespective of religion. In the long struggle against terrorism, what we combat is not a religion; it is a twisted evil using religion as cover.

We do all of this today against an enemy unrecognisable from the past, indeed unprecedented. It is the unconstrained terrorist.

We face an adversary:
which revels in mass murder;
which sets out to cause the greatest pain it can to innocent people;
which is entirely unconstrained by any law;
which sees all civilians, including women and children not as non-combatants but as easy targets;
which sees terror as a key part of its arsenal, and
which both glorifies and operates suicide bombers.

It is an enemy, unfettered by any sense of morality – indeed it is spurred on by a perverse perception of morality to achieve ever-greater extent of human massacre. It is thus driven to take innocent people as prisoners and degrade them, humiliate them, even ritually murder them on camera for the purpose of terrorising others – methods which we could not conceive being used even a short time ago.

Where we intrinsically value life, they do not. And worse of all - these are not isolated aberrations, condemned or punished when discovered by their superiors. They are the systematic tools of terror.

In our history we have faced enemies before which have embraced some of these methods. Never, though, have we faced an enemy that embraced them all on such a scale.

This unconstrained enemy believes this puts our own forces at a disadvantage, both in the battles on the ground, and in the battle for ideas in which we are also engaged.

And that brings us to a second changed aspect of this struggle. Our adversary will try to achieve his aims by using our very freedoms against us. It sees the free western media as a virtual battleground in itself – where the swaying of public opinion away from support for our campaigns, can be the path to a swift victory; a quick way of undermining our public morale. Endurance, said Napoleon, is more important than even courage in a struggle. And it is morale which underpins endurance. That is why undermining our morale is so important to the enemy.

The strategic goal of the act of terrorism is fear, directed at breaking the will of their opponent. To a terrorist, the news reporting of an incident is nothing more than a method of amplifying and transmitting that fear. I fully accept that this is a difficult bind for a free media in a democratic country whose news values are driven by commercial competition in an international market. But, be in no doubt, terrorists want to use our democratic freedom of speech to destroy our will to fight for our democratic values.

There would be no free media in a world run by Al Quaeda, but they are happy to issue press releases and videos to independent news organisations in the hope they broadcast their messages.

There is no curtailment of systematic violence against civilians by Al Quaeda; quite the opposite. But they and their apologists will be the first to complain and exploit isolated unlawful acts by those ranged against them. In this life and death struggle they want both of their hands free and both of our hands tied behind our back.

The terrorists have become adept at using the media to their ends. It is the media’s responsibility to ensure that in reporting the facts, which it can and must do, it does not fall victim to this campaign.

Responsible news organisations battle with this dilemma daily. We should never forget, either, that many journalists have died at the hands of the terrorists for trying to report these facts too.

On all these fronts one could argue that our forces are fighting at a disadvantage. Yet this so-called disadvantage is often what we are fighting for. It is the rule of law and the virtue of freedom of expression versus barbarism.

It is a “disadvantage” we neither renounce nor reject, since it is based on our own morality, legality, our democracy, our own sense of proportion, our own hard-won ideals of decency and behaviour.

And these changes –including the unconstrained nature of the terrorist enemy - will be overcome slowly by victory in the battle of ideas – it will take time but like the battle against Nazism or the struggle with Communism it can and will be won.

Neither of these two changes has been sudden. They did not happen overnight. Instead they have been slow, and subtle. But for all that they have been very real.

Change 3 technological and communications revolution

But something else has changed and is still changing fast, and it is this third issue that I want to concentrate on - the technology revolution and in particular the changes in communications and information technology.

We live and fight in the age of the internet and of satellite communications. These developments have seen a seismic shift not only on the tactical battlefield but also in the way operations are conducted strategically.

Satellite images are vital targeting information for the military, and the next they might be at the centre of global debate about the legitimacy of that action. And this has had significant military consequences:
It has made many tactical actions strategic:

As General Rupert Smith the British commander of UN protection force in Bosnia from 1995 has observed “small tactical actions have unforeseen consequences at the strategic level” “political factors are being included at ever lower levels in the military command hierarchy… in conducting their business the generals, colonels, captains and occasionally corporals have a political effect, it is they who deal with the local leaders and with other agencies, both military and political, be they governmental or non governmental, the fire department or the police, UNHCR or Human Rights Watch, or the media” (R Smith “Wars in our time – World defence Systems 3/2/2001)
New technology has so compressed command hierarchies
that the old divisions between the so called “levels of war” - grand strategic, military strategic, operational and tactical - are breaking down. This makes political military command and control hierarchy flatter.

And most significantly technology has enabled, for the first time, real-time media scrutiny of war, on a scale and a level of intrusiveness inconceivable only a few decades ago.

Indeed military academics now argue that this presence of “the international media (accredited and otherwise) with very sophisticated means of communication, introduces another real time debate that does not merely enable political involvement in the conduct of the campaign, but insists on it” (Dr Paul Cornish Carrington Chair in International Security, Chatham House in “Cry Havoc and let slip the managers of war” 2006)

Clausewitz diversion

Now those of us with even a passing familiarity with Clausewitz should not be surprised at this, since, contrary to assumptions, he never argued that political discourse is suspended when war breaks out, but that it continues to shape and constrain the conduct of warfare.

However, when he described war as “simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means” he did draw a divide between politics and policy on the one hand and matters military on the other by saying “Policy of course will not extend its influence to operational details. Political considerations do not determine the posting of guards or the employment of patrols”. He was right in his time. But I don’t believe he could have imagined an era when technology had gone so far in breaking down this division, and these very issues would have been beamed into living rooms across the globe live on television within seconds and analysed within minutes.
One observer, with one videophone, or today even one mobile phone, standing in one square metre of a vast and hugely complex theatre of operations can convey an oversimplified and sometimes misleading picture with an impact that is incalculable.

And unlike the changes I have already outlined – civilian culture, an unconstrained enemy and their will to use our freedoms against us - I contend this is something we are going to have to live with. This technological genie cannot be returned to its bottle.

The actions of our armed forces, at home and abroad, have never been under greater scrutiny than they are today. Our forces are operating – in this treacherous new environment – under a microscope and that microscope is here to stay.

And this is why I believe British troops are now forced to operate on what I call “an uneven playing field of scrutiny”.

Real time analysis of our forces’ actions down to the level of a single private soldier, whilst the enemy which refuses any scrutiny at all and endeavours to exploit our highly prized free media against us.

There is now asymmetric – uneven - scrutiny of warfare. And it is unlikely to go away so long as we fight terrorists who oppose our democratic way of life.

This is a matter of crucial importance. Given the importance of morale in sustaining military campaigns, it follows that democracies themselves are open to a constant threat to national morale – with our enemies seeking to portray every isolated blemish as a general picture – while they themselves systematically and deliberately commit the most heinous of crimes.

The answer? We all need to get smarter and understand this new battlespace better. I hope this speech helps stimulate an ongoing debate and discussion amongst you and among commentators and the public.

What adds to asymmetry –changing law practice

It is this uneven battlefield of one-sided scrutiny which has done so much to encourage the perception among our troops that they are increasingly constrained while the enemy is freer than ever to perpetrate the most inhumane practices and crimes.

Nowhere more so than in the fields of standards and legal constraints. British forces act within the law. The terrorists do not. It is important for the country to realise the lengths to which our armed forces go to stay within the law.

We require them to expose themselves to greater risk and danger by working to a set of rules and principles that our enemies will never adhere to. Wherever in the world they go, our forces are subject to military law and, therefore, English criminal law. And they respect the Geneva Conventions. Not just because we expect them to, but because treating people fairly –even the enemy- is the bedrock of our society.

Our commitment to the rule of law is seen by some as a tactical weakness, and in isolation that may be understandable.

But whatever the short-term tactical drawbacks I believe it is a strategic strength.

It is often these very principles that we are fighting to defend. Simply bending the rules or avoiding them altogether is not an option. That is one of the things that so offends our military when they hear commentators suggest that soldiers are acting illegally on a grand scale.

It is the very exceptional nature of the offences which make them headlines. But wouldn’t it be nice, wouldn’t it be fair, if the contribution of the 100,000 good and brave acts and beliefs were given equal prominence to the offences of the few. Then our screens would be full, night after night, with examples of the freedoms gained, the lives enhanced, the good done by our forces. Night after night. Boring maybe, but better and more balanced.

Soldiers know, the hard way, the lengths we go to conduct ourselves within the law in exceptionally difficult and dangerous circumstances - circumstances which their critics will never experience or even begin to understand.
This takes us into an important theoretical debate about legality in war which has not had much airing in our national debate .
Michael Ignatieff has argued that “The Decisive restraint on inhuman practice on the battlefield lies within the warrior himself, in his conception of what is honourable or dishonourable for a man to do with weapons” (The Warriors Honour 1998)

I agree. The British army is a superb and deeply ethical professional body precisely because it seeks to inject morality – right and wrong - into the harsh reality of warfare, which is the least conductive of moral environments now with an uneven battlefield.

Of course the legal profession would argue that the fundamentals of law under which our people operate have changed little. That may be true from a technical perspective.

But from the soldiers perspective, the framework and the context in which they are fighting have changed.

Firstly, the changes I have already mentioned. Then they hear and read a great deal about the Human Rights Act and other international legislation – usually in sensationalist terms. And they believe that there has been an exponential growth in the numbers of lawyers actively looking for cases to bring against British troops by promising potential clients significant compensation payments.

And, of course, the conduct of the enemy, in systematically rejecting any previously accepted constraints, conventions or standards in combat, makes this contrast all the more sharp.

And so, soldiers on the ground perceive the situation to have changed – something the legal profession can’t always grasp the significance of because they have no experience of being in those situations.

We ask an enormous amount of our troops; that the most junior faces risks, dangers, threats unimaginable to most of us; that our officers take calculated risks, and make immediate life and death decisions upon which literally thousands of lives may depend.

Our legal culture, just like our civilian culture would do well to ponder these circumstances at length in this changing world. That’s why I am so glad that the Attorney General and others have made the effort to visit operational theatres - precisely in order to better understand these circumstances and these feelings.

That is crucially important. Because human rights legislation that has improved lives in so many areas has also sometimes become the convenient banner under which some who are fundamentally opposed to our Armed Forces, or to the government of the day, or to a particular military conflict, have chosen to march.

They give the impression that they have no regard for, and even less understanding of, the difficulties faced by individual soldiers.

So let us understand that soldiers have been left confused and unsettled by the perception that human rights lawyers and international bodies such as the International Criminal Court are waiting in the wings to step in and act against them.

Let us understand that perception, even if we disagree with it. And let us re-assure them. Let us make it plain that the reality is that they operate under British law. That if they are accused of breaking that law they are innocent until proved otherwise. If, and only if, those charges are proved can they expect to be punished. But that’s a decision that would be made in a British Court – not the ICC.

However hard some may try to misrepresent these sentiments, none of this can or should be read as a call for British forces to operate outside the law. I know that soldiers themselves understand better than any of us the importance of being seen to operate legally by the local population on the ground – their safety, and that of their comrades, often depends on it.

But there needs to be a clearer understanding that British criminal and military law is robust and effective. It is these laws under which soldiers operate.

Equally, let us lay to rest the accusation that senior military figures or politicians are somehow allowing soldiers to face charges they shouldn’t for reasons of political correctness. I hope that my comments today illustrate that suggestion is both ridiculous and offensive.

In fact the opposite is true. The Chiefs and I are determined to explain, re-assure and to protect the men and women who serve this country so bravely and so well.

Conclusion

That’s one of the reasons why I am making these points here today.

Firstly because I was to reassure people like you, those interested and support of our Armed Forces that I, and all the Service Chiefs, absolutely understand your concerns.

Also because I am a Secretary of State who believes that we, the politicians and the public, owe it to our troops to shield them from unjustified criticism, and to help explain the special role of the military to our increasingly civilian society. Along with all of you and the Service Chiefs, I am determined to do just that.

And I make the case also, because I am a British citizen, who believes that when our troops are in mortal combat they deserve the support of the whole nation.

For all these reasons I want to see a greater level of understanding of the realities of modern conflict and the people we send into it in the British public debate. We expect our people to uphold the highest standards of behaviour, and when they fail we will act, quite rightly.

But they also have the right to expect everyone else, whose safety is dependent upon them, to consider the environment in which they are operating before we pass judgement from the safety of a television studio, from the green benches of Parliament or from the comfort of an armchair.

Today our troops face an unprecedented and unparalleled challenge that requires them to respond in heroic fashion. I ask that the increasing number of us who do not come from military backgrounds take time to learn a little of the fantastic job they do on all our behalf.

I ask that we try to imagine what it must be like on the battlefield, so we may all be a little slower to condemn and a lot quicker to understand what I believe is the best fighting force in the world.

LFIQ Message to Labour Students Conference in Leeds on 19th February

LFIQ Director Gary Kent will tell delegates that Labour Students and the broader student movement can do much to help lift the isolation of progressive Iraqi forces such as the trade unions and student unions from the rest of the world. Saddam ruthlessly excluded Iraq from the rest of the international community. This means that students and teachers are often decades behind in educational terms.

Labour Students could spearhead campaigns at a local and national level to make direct contacts with students and educationalists in Iraq, perhaps starting with Iraqi Kurdistan. An increasing number of trade unions is being imaginative and determined in their solidarity efforts and the student movement can seek to work with unions such as Unison and the TUC to provide material and moral support for our comrades in Iraq.

Books to Iraq provides an example of what can be done.

It doesn’t matter in this respect whether you backed or opposed the invasion. History will judge that debate but history will be very unkind to those who refuse to lift a finger to help the beleaguered labour and student organisations in Iraq. Solidarity is an essential principle of socialist groups and this is more urgent than ever in Iraq if left-wing forces are to have a say in the future of that country and thereby in promoting democratisation and peace in the wider Middle East.

Journey to Erbil

Michael Totten travels to Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan with some lovely pictures too.

The reality of life in Iraq

Normblog carries a superb letter from a reader in the Daily Telegraph which goes to prove the old adage that just because something appears in the Daily Telegraph does not mean it is not true.

Gary Kent

During the past few weeks, I have done some careful research into what is happening in Iraq.

I have discovered that 47 countries have re-established their embassies there. The current Iraq government employs 1.2 million Iraqis. More than 3,100 schools have been renovated and 364 are being rehabilitated, with 263 under construction. Twenty universities and 46 institutes are operating. Some 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary schools by the end of 2005.
The Iraqi police force has more than 55,000 fully trained and equipped officers and there are five police academies producing 3,500 new officers every eight weeks.

There are at least 1,190,000 mobile-phone subscribers. There is a fully independent media network of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations. Much normal life is going on, although we rarely hear about it.

Making plans

Iraqi officials outline major oil and electricity plans. (David Spector)

Signs of cautious optimism on Iraqi economy

A major Emerging Market investor perceives an upturn in Iraqi fortunes. (David Spector)

Jeff Weintraub on what Iraqis think

The American socialist Jeff Weintraub offers an analysis which differs from his compatriot Michael Moore. Jeff examines polling data on what Iraqis think and concludes that these figures do offer one more reality check for those opponents of the war who have claimed to be acting on behalf of the wishes and well-being of Iraqis. (David Spector)

Contribution by LFIQ Director Gary Kent to LFIQ meeting at Commons

You don't have to go back on opposing or supporting the war to understand that things have changed in Iraq. Against the odds, brave comrades are setting up a new trade union movement.

A healthy labour movement in Britain would make it a key task to provide maximum solidarity to its sisters and brothers in Iraq who face a serious threat to their independence from the Iraqi Government as well as from terrorism.

It's high time that the British left and unions followed the example of unions such as Unison, the FBU and the RMT in doing all they can to build solidarity with Iraqi unions. The FBU has provided fire fighting equipment. Unison is providing training. The TUC is running a solidarity fund and hosting trips by visiting delegations.

As time goes by and the security situation allows, we should be seeing more such exchanges. We need to find ways of twinning and running human scale solidarity operations that personalise the effort.

We need to be more imaginative. I would highlight the Books to Iraq initiative too.

Yet too many on the left are sitting on their hands in the mistaken belief that supporting Iraqi labour helps Bush.

It's reasonable for people to say that one would not have started from here but the fall of Saddam's despised dictatorship has allowed progressive forces in Iraq a chance to rebuild the labour movement which was once one of the most powerful in the region.

The Iraqi Communist Party rightly chides the international left on this issue and says: "We have to note, with regret, that the Iraqi democratic forces have not received, in their difficult struggle, effective solidarity and support from international forces of the left. As a result, most of the latter have unfortunately been rendered observers of events, rather than exerting positive influence on the ongoing struggle over the future course of developments in Iraq, especially in supporting the struggle for a democratic prospect, at a time when the Iraqi patriotic and democratic forces are in urgent need for such concrete and multifarious support and solidarity."

Worse still are those parts of the left which practice a form of the anti-imperialism of fools and support, sometimes explicitly, the "resistance" in Iraq.

The stakes are very high. Increased power for the labour movement in Iraq, as well as other parts of civil society increases the possibility that Iraq can succeed with its democratic experiment and expel extremism from the body politic. The rise of a non-sectarian politics can maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq.

A democracy in Iraq could begin to change the face of the region as a whole and thereby begin to unravel the base of the jihadist ideologies and movements which wish to foment conflict between the world of Islam and others.

Iraqi Community Association contribution to LFIQ meeting at Commons

Labour Friends of Iraq
House of Commons Meeting
Tuesday 14 February 2006

My contribution will focus on Democracy and the Civil Society in Iraq. I will review the subject via two aspects:

• The role of the civil society organisation in Iraq, and
• The democratic process as reflected within the Iraqi Community in Britain

The work of non-governmental organisations in Iraq is not new. Historically this took the form of a charitable work, mainly under the jurisdiction of the religious establishment, whether Muslims or Christians.

“Charity” is an inherent concept within all religious philosophies.

The functions of these charities were to provide a variety of services, help and aid to the needy people. They were “givers” rather than active participants in the political and social changes that were taking place during the first quarter of the 20th century.

Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups. (LSE Website)

From this perspective we can assume that the civil society organisations started to emerge in Iraq in the thirties of the 20th century with the establishment of political parties, trade unions, professional organisations, students and gender organisations, market and trade organisation, etc. This collection of parties and organisations became very active participants in the events and the socio/political arena leading to the revolution of 14 July 1958.

The civil society organisations, so vital for the democratic process, and for building democracy in Iraq, are the conduit for people expressed their hope for a better future, debate what that future should be. Dramatically they were suppressed, together with the democratic movement, in the bloody Ba’athist coup de tar of February 1963, and again by the Ba’athist in the seventies.

In fact the whole society was repressed, at every level and every sector. The social order was deformed and militarised.

The war with Iran and the invasion of Kuwait and the destruction that followed created new conditions and new needs for the role for the civil society organisations in the healing of wounds and the reconstruction of the country. However, Saddam and his regime were bent on punishing the Iraqi people. They only allowed to operate those international organisation that they could use for propaganda purposes.

The situation in Iraqi Kurdistan was different. The “safe haven” saw an emergence of hundreds of organisations.

Similarly, the fall of Saddam saw an emergence of civil society organisations throughout Iraq as an objective reality, a reaction to proceeding conditions and a result of the emerging freedom and the environment of reconstruction.

From the first weeks of the collapse of the regime such organisations as emergency providers, human rights, women, youth, development, protection of the environment and so on, as well as trade unions and professional organisations were formed or re-formed in Iraq. A coordinating network, which included international and national organisations was also formed, NCCI. (NGO’s Coordinating Committee in Iraq).

The work of the civil society organisations was organised in Iraqi Kurdistion through Law 15 on 2001. Paul Bremer issued his own law on 28 June 2004 requiring all organisations to register with the Ministry of Planning which later was moved to the State Ministry for the Civil Society Affairs.

The gained freedom of association is by no means safe from attack. We are all aware of the kidnapping and the murder of Margaret Hassan who worked for CARE Iraq and the kidnapping of the Italian humanitarian activists, which are only examples of the daily danger facing all activists, Iraqis and international.

In parallel with the terrorist attacks and the difficult security conditions, there is also a danger from “state attack”. We sqw signs of interference in the affairs of some trade unions, including dissolving some of them.

Late last year the government froze the bank assets of all NGO’s and this year the State Ministry for the Civil Society Affairs issued a draft legislation to replace Bremer’s. The new law, if passed by the new Parliament would give the minister sweeping powers and may contradict international treaties.

In Britain

In Britain, the emergence of community organisations was the result of an objective reality with the increase in the number of Iraqis of all shades and backgrounds in the eighties. Whilst there had always been Iraqi organisations here, but they were, nevertheless, either religious (Christian, Jewish) or nationalist, which extend beyond the boundaries of Iraq, or students organisations.

The Iraqi Community Association was the first Iraqi-wide, non sectarian organisation to be formed in 1987, soon to be followed by many local and national organisations as well as professional, gender, cultural and others. The Forum for Iraqi Community organisation has more than 16 organisations in its membership including the Iraqi Community Association, the Kurdish Cultural Centre, the Iraqi Women’s League, the Committee For Support of Democracy in Iraq, Chaldo-Assyrian Community, Liberal Faylee Kurds Organisation, The Mandaean Association, the Kurdish Association, academics, writers, journalists, youth, students and so on.

All those organisations, and others like them, can be reviewed as an extension to the Iraqi civil society, demonstrated their full involvement in the Iraqi affairs particularly in matters relating to the consolidation of democracy and the development of Iraq.

We witnessed, however, some incidents which show lack of transparency, to say the least, by the Iraqi government or Iraqi agencies in dealing with the community affairs here. I would take only two examples.

In the last election on 15/12/2005, the appointment of the main officers was conducted in Baghdad without consultation with the community or its organisations. They in turn appointed others in secrecy until the pressure was mounted on them when they paid lip service to what would be termed “transparency”. There were irregularities in the process and the procedures including the pressure put on new appointee from Iraqi and others here to such a degree that they eventually resigned. Ten organisations signed a statement on 09/12/2006 denouncing these procedures.

The other incident is more recent and, to me, is evident of the sincerity, or lack of sincerity in dealing with the civil society organisations. A conference called the “First Conference of the Iraqi Community in Europe” was held in Manchester, under the auspices of the Iraqi Minister of Immigration and Migration, on 15-16/01/2006. None of the major organisations knew about this conference until 09/01/2006.

A small group of us met the Minister from Iraq with some of her team and it transpired that they agreed this conference with an Iraqi visiting Baghdad last year. Again under pressure, they invited more people from organisations originally excluded.

We still believe that this conference can not be representative of the community. Such a conference would require wider consultation and greater preparation.

It is now our task to activate the committee selected at the conference and consist of the Iraqi Community Association, the Kurdish Cultural Centre, the Committee for Support of Democracy in Iraq, Chaldo-Assyrian Community, Liberal Faylee Kurds Organisation, The Mandaean Association, the Iraqi Welfare Organisations, Al-Kho’ee Centre and Dar Al-Islam.

It is important to stress that our objection is not for the people involved but the process itself. These might be small incidents but they could lead to bigger things, eroding the process toward consolidation democracy. We must act to stop them now.

Noaman Muna
Member, Iraqi Community Association
Chairman, Iraqi Al-Amal Association

Gordon Brown on the challenge of international terrorism

In a wide-ranging and innovative speech, Gordon Brown says that addressing the reality, causes and roots of international terrorism is one of the greatest new challenge of our times.

Of course all the great challenges of globalisation are important, but upon meeting and overcoming the challenge of global terrorism all else we value depends.

He says that global terrorism must be fought both nationally and globally - so we will have to work to root out terrorism and its causes globally and we will have to do so in circumstances where the instruments of terror operate locally, nationally and globally, and make use of continually evolving technology. He believes that we face enemies that not only have a hatred of the policies we pursue, but a hatred of our very existence. And between justice and evil, humanity and barbarism, no one should be impartial neutral or disengaged but engaged resolute and solid for justice.

He compares this to the Cold War period which was fought with not only weapons that were military or intelligence based; it was fought through newspapers, journals, culture, the arts, literature. It was fought not just through governments but through foundations, trusts, civil society and civic organisations.

And it is by power of argument, by debate and by dialogue that we will, in the long term, expose and defeat this extremist threat and we will have to argue not just against terrorism and terrorists but openly argue against the violent perversion of a peaceful religious faith.

Indeed, the very existence of the internet and the exchange of ideas across it means that instead of relying on old methods of censorship it is not only right now but necessary to take these ideas head on - a global battle for hearts and minds, and that will mean debate, discussion and dialogue through media, culture, arts, and literature. And not so much through governments, as through civil society and civic culture - in partnership with moderate Muslims and moderates everywhere - as globally we seek to isolate extremists from moderates.

I would only add that a stronger Iraqi labour movment and civic society could do much to stabilise democracy in Iraq and undermine terrorism.

Gary Kent

Speech by the Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), London

13 February 2006

Check Against Delivery

On July 7th and after the British people stood as one, our emergency services, our police, our security services, our armed forces, the pride of our country.
With Britain led by London standing firm and steadfast in the face of violence, our very calmness reverberated around the world.

Though trains and buses were destroyed, our national resolve - the spirit of Britain - was indestructible. And though lives were ended, our belief in our common destiny shone through. As British-born suicide bombers maimed and killed fellow British citizens on our own streets, the worst of Britain was put to shame by the best of Britain.

To quote George Orwell, writing in the thirties, at democracy's darkest hour in Europe, when the threat was fascism, "the thing that I saw in your face no power can disinherit, no bomb that ever burst shatters the crystal spirit".
As July 7th solemnly and starkly reminds us, the first responsibility of a government is to protect its citizens, keep people safe and ensure their security.

And as Chancellor I have found that an increasingly important part of the role of a Finance Minister is to address issues of international terrorism. For as I have seen since September 11th and more recently after July 7th assumptions we took for granted have been turned on their head.

In effect the Treasury itself had to become a department for security. For as Chancellor I have found myself immersed in measures designed to cut off the sources of terrorist finance. And I have discovered that this will require an international operation using modern methods of forensic accounting as imaginative and pathbreaking in our times as the achievement of the enigma codebreakers at Bletchley Park more than half a century ago.

And I have found that it is not just the Treasury that is a department of security. So too is almost every other department.

We used to think national security was about Home Office policy, international security about defence policy and foreign affairs. Now we find that national and international action for security is inextricably linked and security issues dominate decisions in transport, energy, immigration and extend to social security and health, and of course in the Treasury so that coordinating the way we address international terrorism will be a central feature of the coming spending review.

The reason is clear. Addressing the reality, causes and roots of international terrorism is one of the greatest new challenge of our times.
Of course all the great challenges of globalisation are important, but upon meeting and overcoming the challenge of global terrorism all else we value depends.

So it is right to begin a series of speeches I make about how the Britain of the future will meet and master the global challenges ahead by addressing this question: pre-eminent to our foreign, defence and law and order policies; at the core of the very security and safety of our country; and vital to the prosperity and future of our country.

I want a Britain now and in the future that, fully aware of the increased threats the world faces, plays its full part in the defeat of global terrorist violence. I want to see a Britain that, because of both its international actions and its domestic vigilance, is more secure, more safe, more strong.

So I want to speak today about a Britain ever stronger in its security, finding even greater strength in our shared resolve as a nation to defeat terrorist violence and to isolate extremism wherever we confront it and whatever its source.

And I am determined that by agreeing a long view in our present public expenditure review we ensure: first, a robust security response which protects both the safety and liberties of our citizens; second, a determination to tackle terrorism internationally and nationally; and third, to tackle not just terrorism but the roots of terrorism - the extremism which seeks to justify it and the grievances that fuel it, fund it and give it cause - by ensuring that legitimate political concerns, such as the future of the Middle East, are addressed politically and without resort to violence - an integrated approach that will require the strength and resolution to make difficult long term choices and follow them through to ensure the police, armed forces and security services have the necessary support to address the demands of a changing world.
For nine years as Chancellor my aim has been a Britain strong in our stability. In the years ahead I want a Britain both strong in stability and strong in security, so that it can be said not just that our national stability is safe in our hands, but that our national security is safe in our hands.

While we stood as one on and after July 7th there is a danger that in the aftermath of a terrorist incident as time passes, people's sense of the scale of the threat dims, that people's guard starts to drop, their vigilance lessens and their commitment to the tough and necessary security measures - all too clear on the morning after - weakens.

And there is also a danger that we fail to stand back and reflect and to make the long-term cool headed assessment we need to have about the likely repetition of such events and to decide what, for the long term, needs to be done to strengthen our security.

Of course, we do not yet have the advantage of great historical distance from the events of September 11th or July 7th - and the fresh insights that can come from this - yet I believe that our duty looking forward is obvious for all to see.
After July 7th we asked anew whether we had in place sufficient security - national and international - to prevent future incidents. We asked why young British citizens had decided to bomb and maim their fellow British citizens.
We asked anew whether we had done enough to encourage and support the integration of people of different ethnicities and faiths into our country and suddenly dry debates about citizenship and Britishness had both a meaning and urgency for our times and for our generation. I want us today to remember why we thought it so important after July 7th to address these issues, and not only address but resolve these issues for the long term.

July 7th brought home to us that we are addressing both a global phenomenon and a national one. I want to remind the country that the terrorist threat has not diminished and will not diminish until we defeat it.

And I want to suggest today that global terrorism must be fought both nationally and globally - so we will have to work to root out terrorism and its causes globally and we will have to do so in circumstances where the instruments of terror operate locally, nationally and globally, and make use of continually evolving technology.

Just as we must enhance the global response to terrorist violence, so too we must enhance the domestic response to threats to national security.
While we share one world - and we must act together globally - so much more we share one country, and must act together nationally.

There is a British way of achieving this best, seeking and building a unified national consensus around a framework that is tough in ensuring security but also by being tough in ensuring proper accountability as we sustain public support for the action that must be taken.

The changed global context

I start with how July 7th has brought home to us how the nature of the threat to our security has changed - and in three dramatic ways.

First, the global threat of terrorism. While the last thirty years have seen Britain having to cope with terrorism in Northern Ireland, recent terrorist plots are of a different scale: global conspiracies driven by extremist ideology to cause mass casualties with no warning – often involving suicide bombings and with the potential threat of chemical biological radiological and nuclear weapons. These are good reasons for defining Al Qaeda as the first truly global terrorist threat. Let us be clear: we face enemies that not only have a hatred of the policies we pursue, but a hatred of our very existence. And between justice and evil, humanity and barbarism, no one should be impartial neutral or disengaged but engaged resolute and solid for justice.

Second, the canvas on which terror operates does indeed cross continents. In recent years Al Qaeda and groups inspired by them have attacked over 25 countries, killed thousands of people - many of them Muslims - and have networks across almost all countries through which they seek to seduce thousands of fellow travellers.

As the security service puts it, "many of these networks are loose-knit, operating without a conventional structure and with connections across the world, bound by shared extremist views or experiences. Whilst some of these networks are centrally guided by Al Qaeda, others are autonomous, but both work to carry out terrorist attacks, and are influenced by radical propaganda shared over the internet."

There is a paradox about globalisation: the very opportunities it offers - the free movement of money, people, goods and information - are harnessed by terrorists and organised criminals, so that we have a situation where today "money is raised in one country, used for training in the second, for procurement in a third and terrorist acts in a fourth", a global threat for which there is no real precedent - enemies that do not need great armies to put lives at risk, enemies without even a formal chain of command but can inspire imitators in the heart of our communities.

And while the July 7th attacks showed young British citizens may also resort to violence with little or no warning, a threat all the more serious because it has been the least visible, let us be in no doubt that three attack plans threatening Britain have been thwarted since July 21st and it is now known that North African exile groups inspired by Al Qaeda were responsible for the Madrid attack.

A third reason why the nature of the threat is different is in technology itself, that terrorists no longer need to expose themselves by meeting together or be associated with a particular community. We know that internet and mobile telephony will be enhanced over the next few years when communications providers will transmit voices over the internet. And when suicide bombers have connections with other countries and can, in theory, use the internet or be instructed through mobile phones, we know that defeating violent extremists will require a unique combination of methods - from security measures founded on real time intelligence to argument and debate - and cannot be achieved through action in one country alone or even one continent, but only globally.
July 7th has rightly led to the moderate majority in the Muslim community standing up to terrorists and supporters of terrorism who advocate violence and murder. And recent studies show the pathway to violence often starts with contact with extreme material or extremist clerics - through the internet or videotapes from abroad - paving the way for later direct contact with - and sometimes visits to - with terrorist organisations and camps.

So we must take steps to isolate extremists from the moderate majority. To root out terrorism we are rightly investing in increased military and security forces, and policing. And after yesterday’s photographs let us remember it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure discipline at all times and to root out indiscipline.

But, from 1945, the Cold War was fought with not only weapons that were military or intelligence based; it was fought through newspapers, journals, culture, the arts, literature. It was fought not just through governments but through foundations, trusts, civil society and civic organisations. Indeed we talked of a cultural Cold War - a Cold War of ideas and values - and one which the best ideas and values eventually triumphed.

And it is by power of argument, by debate and by dialogue that we will, in the long term, expose and defeat this extremist threat and we will have to argue not just against terrorism and terrorists but openly argue against the violent perversion of a peaceful religious faith.

Indeed, the very existence of the internet and the exchange of ideas across it means that instead of relying on old methods of censorship it is not only right now but necessary to take these ideas head on - a global battle for hearts and minds, and that will mean debate, discussion and dialogue through media, culture, arts, and literature. And not so much through governments, as through civil society and civic culture - in partnership with moderate Muslims and moderates everywhere - as globally we seek to isolate extremists from moderates.

We should also work with our allies and international organisations for reform and democracy; encourage interfaith cooperation such as the conferences we are involved in with Muslim thinkers; and in particular link young people here with young people in other countries.

Alongside Tony Blair and Jack Straw I have to underpin the Middle East political road map with an economic road map and will continue to visit the region to push it forward. And, as we all tackle injustices that breed resentment, we must show by the empowerment of poor countries through debt relief, aid, and support for education healthcare and economic development that globalisation comes to be seen not as a cause of injustice and poverty but a force for social justice on a global scale.

Security

While our long-term aim must be to prevent the indoctrination of future generations of terrorists, our immediate priority is how to protect our citizens against the threat we face now. Since September 11th, many of Al Qaeda's leaders have been killed or captured, and its bases closed down. Afghanistan has been delivered from Taleban rule, Iraq from Saddam Hussein - with democratic elections now held in both countries. And more than ever we now know the names, the faces, the methods, the operational strategies of violent extremists as we seek to ensure there is no place on earth which will remain hidden, dark or distant enough to be their hiding place for ever.

But to take the right security and policing measures it is important to understand in specific detail how different these conspiracies and networks are from the past - like the investigation into the ricin chemical plot in Britain its significance is that it had to span 26 countries and that the 12 indicted had, between them, 120 assumed identities. And the scale of July 7th investigations has been such that 50 physical sites have had to be searched - it took two weeks before one bomb facility could be entered, 11,000 statements have been taken and 24,000 physical exhibits logged – all amounting to some 12,000 leads to follow-up.

What do we conclude from the scale and complexity of all this?

Resources

First, the starting point is a strong front line of domestic defence, fully trained and equipped troops and forces, to build on the world-class capacity of the Met, the police and the security and intelligence agencies, enhancing our front line forces - police fire emergency and medical services with equipment and training and also exercises to prepare for the worst - the very things which helped in equipping the emergency services for the heroic efforts we saw in July.

I can confirm that, since September 11th, as part of the overall increase in police numbers and funding - nearly 16,000 more officers nationally and 6,000 more in the Met - dedicated anti-terrorist resources will have doubled.
I can tell you that, by 2008, a further £75 million will be added to the Met's counter-terrorism capability and a further £135 million for regional intelligence and investigation - in total investing £230 million more nationwide.
By 2008 the size of the security service will have nearly doubled. In total we will invest £2 billion a year on counter-terrorism and resilience - twice what we did before September 11th.

And we need to continue to build on the strategy for our armed forces set out in July 2004 to develop our military capabilities in the fight against terrorism with the ability to mount operations across the world and our capacity to prevent failed states and stabilise lawless areas and support nation building - a strategy evident in our current operations in Afghanistan, where we are working together with America, and with NATO and the un to build a new democratic government.

A priority for the Spending Review will be to examine our future security needs for intelligence gathering and policing. We will review the strategic allocation of resources to meet changing requirements - for example, detecting explosives in crowded places; and, building on strong existing structures, we will examine the case for a single security budget, assessing also how in this new world we secure the best coordination in delivery and accountability - including the appointment of the relevant committees and their investigative power: at all points building trust in a tough security regime through necessary accountability.

Terrorist financing

Second, we need not only to deny a safe haven to terrorists, but ensure there is no hiding place for those who finance terrorism.

Money underpins international terrorism. Let me give the example of UK members of Al Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic fighting group, a group whose assets we froze last week. Our information is that documents and money were transferred from Britain to support training and attacks in Afghanistan and elsewhere through a sophisticated network including a charity and four UK property companies. And this was a network which under further investigation included an individual found guilty in Morocco of involvement in a suicide attack which killed 41 people. Once again showing the global nature of the terrorist threat.

In total I can state that, since 2001, we have frozen assets of terrorists of nearly £80 million - including for over 100 organisations with links to Al Qaeda.

In 2005 under the British presidency the EU brought in new agreements on international money laundering controls. 2005 also established the Lander review into the system of suspicious activity reports, to be completed in March. I have just returned from the G8 Finance Ministers meeting in Moscow where we reaffirmed that the international community will continue to be vigilant in the future too.

And today I am announcing, for Britain, new measures.

First, preventing terrorist financing, where we will consult on protecting wire transfers and charities from being abused - in the same way that we acted to freeze the bank account at Finsbury Park mosque and prevent Abu Hamza abusing the mosque's legitimate status as a charity. And to ensure continued action internationally, I can confirm that at tomorrow's summit In Cape Town, Britain will formally seek the chair of the worldwide Financial Action Task Force.
Next, identifying suspicious transactions - where I want to work even more closely with the financial sector. So I am today agreeing new guidance to give clearer strategic advice to banks on what to target, so they can fulfil their responsibilities; and am setting up a new forum with them to discuss how we can achieve more together to identify, root out, and prevent the use of financial networks to advance terrorism.

And then, disrupting terrorist activity - where with new multilateral arrangements to better join-up enforcement we will strengthen our pre-emptive asset freezing regime. And we will review again in a year's time whether we need to go still further either with new legislation or a single asset freezing office.

Borders

Next, we need the best and strongest border controls and resilience to attack - enhancing protective security around our critical national infrastructure and our citizens as they go about their daily lives. This means constantly reviewing how we best safeguard our buildings and our national infrastructure - roads, railways, tunnels, bridges, water systems and utilities.

The commitment we have made to extra spending means we now have 50 per cent more border guards and security officers than in 2000. And now, rightly, many are based not in Britain, but abroad - every year we successfully stop more than 40,000 suspicious people before they even board a boat, plane or train.

But we must match our investment in people, with the laws and technology needed to respond to the new threats.

Last year Project Semaphore electronically checked the details of six million passengers - helping our border and security staff to build a picture of suspicious activity and leading to the arrest of 140 suspects.

The next step is to electronically and biometrically screen all passengers as they check in - so terrorist suspects can be identified and stopped before they board planes, trains and boats to Britain.

There are already biometrics in visas from high-risk countries, now being extended to all countries where we require visas. The next step is the introduction of biometrics into the new generation of passports.
Both the UN and G8 have called for biometrics to be introduced to travel documents to help in the fight against terrorism. We have come to see that a common theme to the planning and execution of global terrorist attacks is the bypassing of border controls by using multiple identities. This was a central lesson from the findings of the independent 9/11 Commission in America, who have since introduced of biometrics at us borders. The UN has issued a blueprint for the worldwide integration of biometrics into travel documents. Forty countries around the world intend to introduce biometric passports by the end of the year.

The UK will move towards an integrated electronic border security system, linking biometric passports and visas with electronic checks on entry and exit - helping us track and intercept terrorists and criminals, seeking to prevent them, stop illegal immigration and increasing the safety of all legitimate travellers. But at the same time - by providing one secure method of proving your identity - making the necessary security checks easier for all of us as we travel abroad for our work and leisure.

And as part of the Spending Review we will take any further steps necessary to ensure Britain's borders are secure.

Identity

Fourth, the requirements for security in identity. There is a common thread running through the new security challenges – and that is the growing importance, and the obvious vulnerability, of identity. The risk to me and you as individuals is that our identities are stolen for terrorist or other reasons and used against us and what we stand for. The risk is also that, using false identities or without proper investigation of who they are, people enter and abuse our country.

This matters in Britain when we know that as many as one in four criminals use false identities and that as many as one in five companies could be hit by identity fraud.

The economic and social cost of identity fraud is into the billions of pounds and growing, with a new estimate from the Home Office of £1.7 billion.
Just as we have been facing new threats and evolving new responses in national and international security, analogous developments in the private sector - in banking and finance - to ensure the protection of consumers identities show both the need for and the opportunity to change.
Already we have moved on from signatures to requiring, as from tomorrow, a PIN for all debit and credit card transactions. And by 2010, according to the forecasts of Bill Gates, people will, through biometrics, access their phone, email, computer, and bank - through a fingerprint touch of a screen anywhere in the world.

Already one million people have bought and use an IBM laptop which uses fingerprint recognition to control access - and for the future, manufacturers are looking at the same fingerpint recognition technology to make mobile phones and MP3 players worthless if stolen. Today Californian supermarket shoppers are paying with a finger-scan at the checkout; new schemes mean people can pay for their goods just by placing their finger on a scanner and without having to carry a card; and Japanese cash machines are asking for a finger-scan rather than a PIN.

The reason is simple: they are more secure against fraud and theft. And across the world in very different cultures most people seem happy to use biometric schemes when they see direct value in greater security, greater convenience, and lower cost.

So it is likely in future that a supermarket or bank may hold your biometrics, but at the moment those charged with the protection of your security - indeed the people who can actually protect your security - do not. As a customer you would, under the private sector initiatives being developed, have biometrics stored, but as citizen you would not.

So the issue is not whether advances in biometrics are being put to use - identity information about us to protect our security is being given voluntarily to credit card and computer companies to safeguard access to finance and computers and now being used also for employment and employee recognition. For example, biometrics are increasingly being used to control access to buildings with particular needs for security. And with passports now requiring biometrics, a necessity people understand, 80 per cent of the adult population will have to register their biometrics to ensure our borders are secure and so they can travel freely across the world. In each case safeguards must be built in to protect misuse of information.

So the question is whether we move to the next stage - to extend this system from the private sector and the borders to a national biometric scheme including an identity card.

And would most people not agree that if there are acceptable safeguards to protect civil liberties in these areas, there are advantages in a national identity scheme that could not just help us disrupt terrorists and criminals travelling on forged or stolen identities - but, more fundamentally, protect each citizen’s identity and prevent it being forged or stolen?

The advantages are clear. An identity scheme will not just make the necessary security checks easier for all of us as we travel abroad for our work and leisure, but prevent people already in the country exploiting your identity or mine, and using multiple identities for terrorist, criminal or other purposes. One of the central features of terrorists' activity is their use of multiple identities to avoid laying tracks or patterns for us to spot. One September 11th hijacker used 30 false identities to obtain credit cards and one quarter of a million dollars of debt. Since then, the problem has worsened: over the last few years, the major terrorist suspects arrested typically had up to 50 identities each.
If people cannot so easily operate under multiple identities we can potentially disrupt the modus operandi of terrorists or criminals that rely on multiple or false identities. The key point is that, if someone is in our country and is travelling on multiple identities or running bank accounts in multiple names, we should be in a position to pick this up early. The front line experience of both Sir Ian Blair, Chief of the Metropolitan Police, and Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of the Security Service, have led them to say that a national biometric scheme would help them do their job and make reliance on multiple identities very difficult.

But the key point is that we should do all in our power to prevent you or I having our identity stolen or abused, and to ensure that, for each of us, our identity is secure and protected. Some have suggested the use of biometrics in identity cards in Britain is a fundamental and unacceptable "change of relationship between state and individual.” In the past securing your identity rested on you being given a National Insurance number, on being required to have a birth certificate, being required to fill in the census, and, for travel abroad, being obliged to hold a passport. So the question is not whether we have a national register identity - we have had so for years - but whether we are prepared to consider the most up to date and the most secure means to protect our identity from being stolen.

I believe it is possible in this new world of terrorist threats to build a national consensus around our proposals by showing that there are proper safeguards and proper accountability. In addition to the Data Protection Act an Independent Commissioner should have oversight of the database and how it is used - testing it against data protection laws, ensuring individuals will have the right to see the information held on them and with, in the British way, proper accountability to Parliament, including reports published and laid before Parliament. And it may be right also to consider for the future whether the Commissioner should report to Parliament, taking an overarching look across both the public and private uses of biometrics, so ensuring the proper safeguards.

The legislation coming before the Commons today already builds in important safeguards. Private companies will not be able to see the national database, nor will government departments in their routine business - only for the prevention of crime or the protection of national security. Only if they are accredited and if they have the person's consent will government departments and private companies be entitled to ask to check that person's identity against the database.

And the British way is to write in not just safeguards for the individual but to ensure accountability to Parliament, with the limits to use of the data enshrined in Parliamentary legislation - and a requirement that there can be no additions to the information held or extensions to how the database is used without returning to Parliament for approval. As Charles Clarke has said, any decision on moving from a voluntary to compulsory scheme will require explicit approval of Parliament through primary legislation.

Mechanics matter too. Building a national scheme will take years, but that is hardly a good argument for not starting now. It will be important to build upon our current proposals in two ways. First, I believe that a joint private public partnership in investigating the next stage - involving banks, financial institutions, computer companies, employers generally - can both contribute to the general security efforts of all and release substantial savings in a potential scheme. So I propose a forum of private and public sectors to examine for not just fraud but security a joint project to release the best technology and value for money. On this basis we will report regularly to Parliament on costs as well as benefits.

Second, as part of our public expenditure review, we should take the measures necessary now to bridge the gap before a complete national scheme is in place: including improving the quality of our databases together with their transparency and accountability - making it easier to intercept terrorists and criminals and to spot fraud while also ensuring people have trust in how the necessary information is protected.

Opponents of the identity scheme like to suggest that its motivation is to enhance the power of the state. In fact it starts from the rights of the individual, the right to have your identity protected and secure and to achieve that, the right to have the most modern and secure way of doing so and - as I suggest - the right to have this done so with safeguards for individuals and the accountability of the state.

Police and court powers

Fifth, the powers available to the police and the courts. When terrorists seek to launch attacks designed to cause mass casualties with no warning, and when they operate in networks spanning the globe, it is clear that the challenge of global and technologically sophisticated terrorism cannot easily be met by the policing methods of the 1990s.

As my earlier examples - from the ricin case and July 7th – show, tackling the threat we face is increasingly complex. Terrorist investigations will span many countries and different jurisdictions with different rules of engagement. This calls for better coordination between police and justice systems around the world - including on extradition.

Remember our concern when, after July, it was thought that one of the suspects who fled to Italy might not be returned quickly for investigation and trial. In the end this was resolved - and yet if the situation had been reversed, it would probably have taken a year for someone to be returned from Britain to Italy in similar circumstances. The fact that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris metro bombings in 1993, was able to exploit our judicial system to delay extradition for ten years is completely unacceptable. Again, this case has finally been resolved - and we are considering setting a maximum time limit for all future extradition cases involving terrorism.

I myself first came across the scale and complexity of investigations required when I was as a Treasury Minister addressing the issuing of banning order for financial transactions of terrorists. But the police investigation - as the July 7th investigation shows - of potential terrorist activity is even more complex than that.

When a site cannot be entered for days or weeks, when a series of computer encryptions takes weeks to decipher, when a multiplicity of internet e-mail and telephone contacts needs to be investigate across national borders, when thousands of feet of video footage have to be viewed, and all of these across dozens of countries and often all continents involving all the new technologies, it is obvious to me that police investigations need more time.

But, of course, there is another aspect of the new terrorism which I have also had to consider: the need to act early to prevent possible terrorist incidents and what that means for arrests and charging.

It is obvious that where there is a threat of mass casualties in circumstances where there is no attempt at a warning the police have an extra duty to take preventive action and to intervene early. They cannot wait for the details of a conspiracy to come to fruition.

Obviously, early intervention carries with it serious implications: there is less accumulation of evidence at the point of arrest than in the days when police could more reasonably wait for the near-to-final details of a conspiracy to materialise. It is then a race against the clock to confirm that the threat was real, and then to gain enough evidence to convict - rather than have to release people about whom there are still grave concerns back into the community.
Otherwise we will continue to face the unacceptable risk that, as the independent terrorism reviewer Lord Carlile puts it: "I am satisfied beyond doubt that there have been situations in which significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts have gone unprosecuted as a result of the time limitations placed on the control authorities following arrest."

In other words: not only were terrorists not brought to justice - more importantly they had to be released and so remain a threat.

Very few cases currently run to 14 days and we would expect an even smaller proportion to run beyond that. We are rightly proud of civil liberties. No one should be held arbitrarily without safeguards and the longer the detention the more concerns there may be about arbitrary treatment.

But the safeguards lie not in measures that make it impossible for police to complete an investigation into terrorist activities - something which would in the end harm all our civil liberties - but in ensuring that the civil liberties of a person detained are protected by our tradition of impartial judicial oversight.
And I believe that the right balance between the obvious and changed requirements for the national security of our country and our people and the civil liberties of the individual is to give the power to hold people beyond 14 days, but to require that the extension be with the explicit approval of a senior judge.

I believe that this is at the heart of how we balance for the modern world the needs of security with an affirmation of individual liberties. We do so by measures which ensure accountability and by proper oversight.

The current legislation makes it clear that the judge can agree any extension only if he is satisfied that continued detention is necessary and that the investigation is being carried out as quickly as possible. Those detained must also be able to make written representations to the judge to contest their continued detention. If the judge is not satisfied at any stage of the process, the person must be released.

Indeed it may be possible that in subsequent legislation Parliament may be prepared to consider going beyond 28 days in circumstances where oversight is proven to work. And it may be at that time that to ensure even greater accountability we might consider not just that a senior judge approve continued detention every seven days and that there be a right of appeal to high court, but also we could give the Independent Reviewer the power to look at and to report on any case which goes beyond 28 days without charges.

I believe that it is strong oversight of the process that should ensure that no one is detained any longer than absolutely necessary - and of course the Independent Reviewer of our terrorism legislation has the overall capacity to monitor the use of this power and report any concerns.

It is difficult for opponents to suggest that the terrorist threat has not changed. It is difficult also for them to say that this change is not serious enough to justify change in our laws. The question is how in making our changes to accommodate new times, we ensure proper oversight and accountability, and so get the balance right between the civil liberties of the individual and the security needs of all individuals.

By preserving the primacy of the courts backed up by rights of appeal and thus proper oversight and, in the end, Parliamentary accountability we can achieve a settlement that ensures the right balance between our liberties and our security - properly fulfilling our traditions of civil liberties while acting decisively in the security interests of the country.

Glorification

Let me turn to the way we deal with people and organisations that encourage or glorify terrorism. The UN recognised the importance of this issue in a unanimous Security Council resolution last September - drawing attention to the problem of groups or individuals glorifying terrorism. Of course anyone who calls for specific actions leading to murder can and should be prosecuted under existing law - as Abu Hamza was - but we need look no further than the incidents in London with posters glorifying terrorism - which shocked the country - to see that the authorities might benefit from a clearer framework to intervene quickly when boundaries are crossed.

I think most people would agree that no one should be able to publicly celebrate and glorify what happened in London in July and walk away from the consequences, nor should they be able to form organisations to celebrate and glorify atrocities only to escape censure simply by adding a disclaimer that from the act of glorification it should not be assumed that anyone will emulate them. Indeed, if we withdraw glorification from the definition of indirect incitement or from the grounds for proscribing organisations this would send a signal that we could not reach a consensus on how serious this issue is.

None of this threatens our unshakeable commitment to freedom of speech; nor is it in any way whatever aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Britain - indeed I want to pay tribute to the way many organisations within the Muslim community condemned the protests.

Integration

We have had a great deal of success - especially since July - forging a common front against terrorism. And we should build on this - so we tackle together not just terrorism, but the roots of terrorism - the extremism which seeks to justify it, and the grievances that give it an audience.

In particular we must ensure that young Muslims have a voice in this debate and all the decisions that affect them.

It is a problem for the whole of society that British Muslims are twice as likely to be jobless, twice as likely to be on low incomes, twice as likely to live in a deprived area. I have called for a greater focus on tackling these inequalities, driving up the educational attainment of pupils from ethnic minorities and a more comprehensive new deal effort - including confronting the fact that language can be a barrier to economic opportunity as well as social integration.
But the partnership we need is not only to tackle social and economic inequalities but also to expose the extremism which condones or encourages violence in place of dialogue and debate.

We should work to involve all parts of the British Muslim faith in ensuring that young Muslims have access to authoritative interpreters of Islam of their own generation and outlook. But the challenge of integration is one which if we are to succeed must draw in the whole of society.

Britishness

I have suggested that we do more to value the ideals of Britishness – our commitment to liberty, responsibility and fairness - and its symbols and institutions and in particular I suggest today we recognise and show we value the contribution of our police, emergency and security services, our military and our armed forces and the contribution of all those who fought in the great wars of the last century.

Far from failing to teach history on these great times of conflict and courage we must do more to remember them so that they will never be forgotten.
In Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday "we remember the fallen" - and it is right and fitting to honour them.

So, after approval from Her Majesty the Queen I can announce that the Treasury will allocate £1.5 million from the proceeds from the coin celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar to help fund the memorial in Staffordshire for the men and women in our armed forces who have given their lives.

The national Veterans’ Day is designed to thank today's generation of ex-servicemen and women for their service to our country. I propose ceremonies in every constituency and locality of the country to mark national Veterans’ Day - where we present veterans with veterans medals at local ceremonies and we will consult with veterans’ groups in taking this forward. Today the Defence Secretary is announcing that we will extend veterans badges to all those who served until 1960 including all who did national service.

And to involve young people more in celebrating the contribution of our armed forces - he and I would like to pilot an expansion of our cadet forces, especially in state schools. So we have asked Ian Russell to fundraise with the private sector, with funding matched by the government.

And we should ask young people to play a leading role in future Veterans’ Day celebrations - in particular volunteering to tape and video the memories of veterans for a veterans archive - led by a prominent national figure and supported by government and hopefully lottery funding - so that we have a local and national record of pride and achievement that measures up to the contribution our armed forces have made.

I started by saying that on July 7th the British people stood as one. The victims of that day will never be forgotten. Accordingly the Treasury stands ready to play a part in funding a memorial that victims families may consider fitting.

Conclusion

The global terrorist threat is such that we cannot afford not to be vigilant at all times.

I have suggested how this global terrorist problem must be fought globally - with all the means at our disposal: military, security, intelligence, economic and culture.

We will not yield, relax, rest, become complacent or lower our guard but will use every means, every necessary resource - all methods of diplomacy, all means of intelligence, all tools of law, policing and our security and military forces.

At no point should any serious decision-maker be soft or posture on security matters and refuse to acknowledge the new world we are in. Instead we must be tough-minded, long-termist and solid in our resolution. We should remember July 7th and July 21st, September 11th, the Bali bombings, the Spanish atrocities and terrorist acts killing innocent people across every continent.

Because July 7th reminded us that we must find strength not just in shared vigilance, but in the strength of an indomitable common purpose, it is right to re-emphasise and strengthen the responsibilities each and all of us owe our country as British citizens. By being tough on security, with strengthened resources and powers, and tough on accountability, with safeguards for individuals and oversight through Parliament, we can make Britain safer and more secure while affirming our very British commitment to the liberties of the individual and showing we will never sacrifice the very values terrorism wishes to destroy.

And around this I believe it s our responsibility to build a strong unified national consensus which reflects a modern patriotic purpose that - every day and without fail, we will do what is right to protect the security and liberties of our citizens and country, and in the face of global terrorism we will prevail.

Iraq in pictures

A fascinating glimpse of life in Iraq.

Hat Tip: Normblog

Iranian Bus workers dispute - Protest Wednesday 15 February 2006

An international day of protest has been organised for Wednesday 15th February 2006. The TUC and the International Transport Workers Federation has asked UK affiliates to protest at the Iranian embassy (16 Princes Gate, London SW7 1PT) from 11am on Wednesday 15th February. If you can attend please bring your union banners, flags etc.

(Hat Tip Matewan/Harry's Place)

Commons meeting on democratic consolidation in Iraq

Labour Friends of Iraq (LFIQ) briefing/seminar on Democratic Consolidation in
Iraq and support for Grassroots Iraq

Tuesday 14th February
6-8pm
House of Commons

Chair: Dave Anderson MP (Chair LFIQ)

Speakers

Abdullah Muhsin: International Representative, Iraqi Workers Federation (IWF)
Kevin Curran: Co-ordinator, Food Service Workers' Alliance for Growth,
International Union of Foodworkers (IUF)
Speaker from Iraqi Community Association (ICA)
Gary Kent: Director LFIQ

There will be plenty of time for questions and discussion. The meeting
is timed to discuss the position of progressive forces in Iraq following the elections and the current moves to form a government as well as to discuss the need to support the Iraqi labour movement which is battling for its independence.

Please e mail LFIQ for details at info@labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk

Whispers of the end game in Iraq?

The UN Iraq envoy Ashraf Jehangir Qazi has denounced political violence in any form saying it was a major impediment to achieving national unity and stability whilst U.S. officials have met
figures from some Sunni Arab insurgent groups but have so far not received any commitment for them to lay down their arms. (David Spector)

Forming a new government

This report examines the process of forming a new Iraqi Government. (David Spector)

Dirty litle secret

Jonathan Todd gives a personal view on nuclear power, what President Roosevelt called the west’s dirty little secret – oil - and democratisation in the Middle East

Tony Blair’s Government last week announced an Energy Review, with speculation that this will result in a new generation of British nuclear power plants attracting much ire, not least within Blair’s own party. This anger is misplaced. Not only should the green lobby leave behind their CND inherited prejudice against nuclear and recognise how nuclear can help tackle climate change but if we are interested in reinventing Robin Cook’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ then we ought to also acknowledge the contribution that nuclear can make to improving British energy security.

Nye Bevan famously said that unilateral nuclear disarmament would send him as Foreign Secretary ‘naked into the UN Conference Chamber’. Without enhanced energy security today’s Foreign Secretary risks having ever more naked dependency on Middle Eastern gas and oil undermine efforts to support democratisation of this region. These efforts will count for little while the west’s ‘dirty little secret’, as President Roosevelt put it, persists – that is to say turning a blind eye to whatever happens inside petro-states so long as gas and oil supply is guaranteed. By reducing energy dependency on the Middle East British nuclear new build can contribute to putting this ‘dirty little secret’ behind us.

Condoleezza Rice has conceded the limitations of this ‘secret’ and wants to chart ‘a different course’ by ‘supporting democratic aspirations’. Yet, these efforts will be compromised so long as US energy imports from the Middle East rise, while domestic reserves are running out and extraction of those that remain, such as in the arctic wildlife reserve, is controversial. UK reserves are equally sparse, with the country becoming a net importer of gas in 2004 and on course to become one of oil by 2010. The importance of these commodities is reflected in price rises since 2003 – oil up by 90 per cent and gas up by 55 per cent. The staggering economic rise of China and India will only increase demand for these notoriously scarce commodities, forcing prices higher and with them the value of the diplomatic bargaining chips in the hands of petro-states.

We might seek to reduce the value of the chips in Middle Eastern hands by finding alternative sources of gas and oil. Russia is willing to use its gas reserves, as cutting supply to Ukraine and the accusation from Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili that Russia was responsible for the sabotage of gas pipelines and electricity-transmission stations serving his country illustrate, as a means of drawing the countries of the former Soviet Union closer into the undemocratic orbit of Moscow. This week gunmen in Nigeria's turbulent Niger delta attacked offices belonging to an Italian multinational in the latest attack on the country's oil industry. Turning to Russia or Nigeria risks creation of further ‘dirty little secrets’, which already exist in the Caucasus. The west pays lip service to a peaceful transition to democracy in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, though, will pay homage to the present tyrannies while the oil flows.

The west cannot turn from the Middle East to another region without similarly complicating democratisation efforts, nor can the UK hope to significantly dent Middle East dependency through renewable energy alone. The British Government only foresees 15.5 per cent of energy coming from renewable sources by 2015/16. In contrast, it is predicted that ten new nuclear power stations would produce in 25 years time about half current UK energy requirements. Environmentalists who oppose nuclear new build would do well to remember that the country with the most nuclear power stations in Europe, France, is also the European country with the lowest emissions. In the absence of nuclear new build the best that renewables can hope to do is make up the short fall in energy output created by the decomissioning of current nuclear plants. Renewables need to be combinded with nuclear new build, as well as investment in new, carbon-free, clean coal plants. These changes to the supply of UK energy ought to be combinded with efforts to reduce demand – previous such efforts were so pitiful that residential emissions remain at 1990 levels.

If the Energy Review arrives at this package of policies the UK may, at least slightly, reduce Middle East dependency. We should not lose sight of the prize this contains. “At a stroke”, argues Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, “western countries could end the hypocrisy that currently affects their relations with authoritarian regimes in the region. Pressure would mount for political reforms, and human rights abuses would no longer be ignored. Saudi Arabia, yet alone the smaller countries, would start to look like Brazil – important, but not so important as to merit exceptional treatment”.

Until we arrive at this situation we will struggle to make good the end of support for democratisation, which Paul Berman, author of the hugely influential Terror and Liberalism (2003), powerfully encapsulates by saying, "freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others". Many in Blair's party would do well to join him in championing this objective and accepting the potential contribution of nuclear towards this. Sadly, anti-Americanism may prevent the former and hangovers from CND days the latter.

The state of the Iraqi economy

The Iraq Directory carries an interview with Sinan Mohammed Rida Al-Shabibi, the governor of the Central Bank of Iraq. He discusses debt, inflation and concludes on an optimistic note - We have very good talents. The only problem with the Iraqis is that they were not exposed to the world because of the war, [U.N.] sanctions and the policies of the [Saddam Hussein] regime. (David Spector)

Najaf

Najaf, one of the holiest sites in the world now considered one of the safest places in Iraq. (David Spector)

Solidarity with Iranian bus drivers

See the International Transport Workers Federation for the latest and please help them support independent trade unions in Iran.

Iraqi Oil

War on Want has published a pamphlet called Crude Designs - The rip-off of Iraqs Oil Wealth. This report calls for full and open debate in Iraq about the way oil resources are to be developed, not 30-year deals negotiated behind closed doors.

Learning together

The TUC has published a report of a delegation of Iraqi and Kurdish teacher union representatives to Britain, November 2005. It says that the Teachers’ Union alongside another 24 Iraqi professional associations and the Iraqi Workers Federation have formed a coordinating committee to organise and coordinate the efforts to defeat the Iraqi Government’s anti-union order 8750.

TUC Iraq Bulletin

The TUC Iraq Bulletin is just out and majors on new attacks on Iraqi unions

Odious debt

Jubilee Iraq gives the latest on the campaign to scrap debts run up by Saddam. (David Spector)

Towards a new Government

Iraq The Model reports on the process of forming a new Government. (David Spector)

Women entrepreneurs

Portal Iraq reports on a training programme for would be female entrepreneurs. (David Spector)