Bleak Picture of Iraqi Academic Future

Martyn Rush reports

The Council for Assisting Refugee Academics (CARA) yesterday hosted what it labelled an act of solidarity with Iraqs embattled academia and launched an emergency appeal fund.

During the meeting, at University College London, it was astonishing to learn exactly the extent to which academics in Iraq are being targeted, intimidated and murdered by the insurgents.

Academics and teachers get a bullet in the mail with a personal "Leave or Die" note, those who can, obviously do the former, whilst 472 have had to face the latter (of which 300 were definitely terrorist assassinations) - either option though, is obviously bad for the future of Iraq. 20 Universities and 84% of other Higher Education institutions were either "burnt, looted or destroyed" in the aftermath of the intervention. 80% of Iraqi schools need 'rehabilitation'. The 3,000 most gifted students of Iraq, have been turned away following the closure of the renowned Baghdad College.

10-15,000 objects are still missing from the Iraqi National Museum, and priceless archaeological sites in the south are being looted daily. Against this bleak backdrop, CARA admitted that there was very little it could do. It will donate £100,000 to the cause, offer scholarships to as many Iraqi students as possible to bring them to the UK (even though it is loath to do this on a mass scale fearing for the future of the country) - but other than that it seemed kind of paralysed. Members of the audience offered practical solutions such as housing University Lecturers inside Universities to stop them being murdered on the way to work.

Iraqi union representative Abdullah Muhsin eloquently suggested that Cara work closely with the Iraqi Teachers’ Union, which is, he said, one of the larger unions in Iraq.

Please support the fund and the work of the Iraqi Teachers’ Union.

Iraq the Model looks at terror attacks

Mohammed, of Iraq The Model, concludes his account of the atrocities with possible grounds for optimism.

Iraqi Association Condemns Militias

Jabbar Hasan the director of the Iraqi Association has responded to the 23rd November attack: Sadistic terrorist crimes in Iraq must inspire us to work unceasingly together in pursuit of peace, justice and respect for differences. Dissolving militias will ease the tension, which will equally break the cycle of foreign terrorists and pave the way for peace.

News round-up

The Iraqi union federation, GFIW issued a statement in Baghdad on 23 November condemning strongly the sectarians’ attacks in Sadar City and Athamia District in Baghdad. These vicious attacks killed more than 200 innocent Iraqis. Congressional delegations to Iraq by newly elected Capitol Hill representatives are becoming popular. Many Democrats see this as an opportunity to understand the consequences of an American withdrawal. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak considers that Iraq could descend into a full scale civil war were Allied forces to pull out. (Dave Spector)

Des Browne MP, Secretary of State for Defence outlines UK Defence Strategy in Iraq

Des Browne argues that reconciliation will take time, and none of us who have been involved in this kind of process before are under any illusion about how difficult and precarious it can be. Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and South Africa show that once reconciliation is put at the heart of the political process, as [Iraqi PM] Maliki has done, other aspects start to fall into place. We should remember the years of pessimism in each of these places, and reflect on the progress each has made, despite the very real difficulties that remain.

He outlines a three-pronged strategy: First, we are helping the Iraqis build up their own security forces. Second, as those forces develop we are handing them control, province by province, city by city, moving to the point where they have complete responsibility. Third, we are underwriting that handover process by leaving in place quick response forces – not to do front line security work but ready to support the Iraqis if the situation gets out of control.

Full Text of Chatham House speech

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to be able to give this lecture today here in Chatham House, which for almost a hundred years has been making a valuable contribution to debate on international issues.

Typical that on my first appearance here I won’t get to benefit from your famous Chatham House rules… But in fact our strategy in Iraq is something I am happy to debate in public.

Let me start by reading you a quote.

“No perspective is more false, no analysis more shallow than that of viewing Iraq in the context of the last three and a half years alone. Iraqi history did not start in 2003.”

So said Barham Salih, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, in September of this year. I hope whatever our other disagreements we can agree with this. If so, then all of us – politicians, military planners and commanders, commentators and interested members of the public – would do well to bear this in mind whenever we think and talk about this emotive subject.

To understand the challenges facing Iraq we must go back far beyond 2003, beyond the 35 years of dictatorship under Saddam, beyond even the drawing of Iraq’s boundaries by outside powers including ourselves 50 years before that. We have to go back to its historic and geographic roots: the ancient civilisation of Mesopotamia, fanning out from the two great river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, home to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the majestic city of Ninaveh; and then, a thousand years after that, the site of the Abbasid Caliphate, a world force in commerce, learning, and culture.

Throughout this long history of progress and achievement, we can also discern deep and lasting currents of tension and instability. Iraq has always been a place where different populations – Kurd, Persian, Arab – rub up against each other. And it was the site of the first great bloody struggle of Islam: the struggle over the succession to the Prophet Mohammed, the origin of Islam's defining schism.

These tensions have never gone away. They were suppressed, brutally, under Saddam. As in the Balkans under Tito and elsewhere, such suppression simply hides the tensions or replaces them with a wider tension with the state itself. It puts off the day when the deeper tensions are brought into the open – which they must be, if they are to be resolved or accommodated. But history in the Balkans and elsewhere also shows that when they are brought into the open, the first result is often violence. People retreat into the certainty of old identities – and old fears and hatreds.

By removing Saddam, we have brought Iraq’s tensions back into the open. That does not mean we created them. It does not even mean, necessarily, we have made them worse in the long run. It is too early to say – and, frankly, far too easy to say if in truth you oppose the use of military force as a matter of principle.

But it is increasingly clear that until these tensions are dealt with, Iraq will not escape from its current troubles. It is also clear that they must in the end be dealt with by the Iraqis themselves. The Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki recognises this challenge, and I know from our conversations over recent months that it remains his highest priority. Through his programme of national reconciliation he has sought to confront and accommodate the tensions between Arab and Kurd, between Sunni and Shia. But his government is only six months old, and the fledgling political structures underneath it are still bedding in. He has to encourage the different groups to move on from settling old scores, or simply pursuing short term financial and political gain. But so far distrust remains the default position, and to many it still seems that the best route to power is not the number of votes they can secure, but the number of guns they can field on the streets.

Reconciliation will take time, and none of us who have been involved in this kind of process before are under any illusion about how difficult and precarious it can be. Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and South Africa show that once reconciliation is put at the heart of the political process, as Maliki has done, other aspects start to fall into place. We should remember the years of pessimism in each of these places, and reflect on the progress each has made, despite the very real difficulties that remain.

One of the chief tasks of the reconciliation process is to disentangle the different elements of the Sunni insurgency: the irreconcilables of Al Qaida from the Baathists and from disaffected Sunni youth. Again when it comes to Al Qaida in Iraq we are accused of creating the problem – but again that is too simplistic. Their hatred of the West goes back far beyond 2003 – a wider struggle whose connection to Iraq is essentially opportunistic. Al Qaida have tried to ally themselves with Iraq’s Sunni community, exploiting their fears and insecurities. For a time this worked, but the essential nihilism of their message, their brutal and alien methods and their patent lack of interest in the future of the Sunni community let alone the future of Iraq, has exposed them for what they are. In places like Al Anbar where once they were strongest, the Sunni are turning against them.

Let us be clear: Al Qaida remain a very serious challenge. But we know how to respond – and so increasingly do the Iraqis themselves. In other areas, the reconciliation process is still feeling its way. One of the complicating factors is the uncertainty over federalism. The new Iraqi constitution allows for a degree of autonomy. The Kurds, whose experience of this has been very positive, are pushing to go further, and so are some other groups. But while splitting the country into three states for Kurd, Sunni, and Shia is a seductive solution, it ignores the lessons of Iraq’s past – and has the potential to reinforce sectarian tensions rather than resolving them. The aim should be to promote legitimate identities within a unitary state, not to draw lines on a map which entrench sectarian or ethnic tensions.

A divided Iraq would also threaten regional stability. Even without that division Iraq is vulnerable to becoming a crucible for wider regional tensions – and again, this vulnerability has roots which go back far beyond 2003. It is vital now that Iraq’s neighbours give it full and undivided support. Some, despite their own natural affinity with Sunni or Shia, are welcoming a new unified Iraq as a worthwhile partner in a stable Middle East. Even Syria, whose motives the international community has often had cause to question, has shown signs of constructive engagement. Its Foreign Minister – the first senior-ranking Syrian official to visit Iraq since Saddam’s fall – has re-established diplomatic ties and stated that Damascus is ready to engage in dialogue and work for stability in Iraq and the region. But as ever we need to see actions to match the words.

Perhaps the most influential neighbour is Iran, and its behaviour remains a cause of deep concern. It has influence inside Iraq: the power to turn up or turn down the heat, to turn on or turn off the dialogue. It is not using that influence well. Support from within Iran goes to groups who are attacking our forces, but also to groups who are simply fuelling the sectarian violence. This is unacceptable, and also, in the end, counter-productive. Iran must start seeing Iraq not as a tool in a wider confrontation with the West, but as a vital interest in its own right. Iran’s interest is in a stable and non-aggressive Iraq. So the message to Iran is simple. Be a constructive partner, help yourself as well as the wider region – or face increasing isolation.

These then are the factors – historical, religious, cultural, and regional – which we must consider in facing the challenges in Iraq. They reinforce my view that lasting progress cannot be achieved by military means alone, but will depend on a combination of security, politics and economics. In times of extreme uncertainty, fear and violence win out over hope and cooperation. Security reduces the fear and uncertainty, allows the political process to start, and so enables people to address the rivalries and resentments which underlie the violence. Economic regeneration shows people there is sufficient wealth and opportunity to go round – put crudely, it gives people a sense that they have something to lose – and a reason to unite against those who continue to pursue violence.

So all three strands are vital. But to the extent that any of them can be said to have priority, it must be security. Without a basic level of security, it is hard to persuade people of the value of engaging with political solutions, or trying to build for the future.

And I know that it is the security situation that worries the British public most about Iraq. They worry that it is getting worse, or at best going sideways. If there is no realistic prospect of stopping the violence, they say, then there is no justification for continuing to expose our people to it.

I do not believe this – if I did, I would not allow British forces to stay. But nor do I underestimate the challenges, or the difficult and dangerous work our people have to do to meet them. And I accept that we can do better in articulating our security strategy, together with setting a realistic ambition for what can be achieved over the coming years.

As I said in Parliament last week there are limits to how far we can go in discussing our strategy in public – we owe a duty of confidentiality to our allies, including the Iraqi government who are an equal partner in this – but also and most importantly we owe a duty of care to our forces who are carrying out the strategy on the ground.

But the core principles can be discussed, and as I said at the start I am happy to do so. There are three main elements, and these have remained the same as long as I have been in this job. First, we are helping the Iraqis build up their own security forces. Second, as those forces develop we are handing them control, province by province, city by city, moving to the point where they have complete responsibility. Third, we are underwriting that handover process by leaving in place quick response forces – not to do front line security work but ready to support the Iraqis if the situation gets out of control.

I am convinced that this remains the right strategy – indeed the only one that could possibly work. What is changing is not the strategy but the pace at which it unfolds. Prime Minister Maliki and his Government want it to go faster. That is a natural response and a welcome sign of increasing confidence. But it also crystallises the great challenge Maliki faces. On the one hand, to keep up momentum, to reinforce a sense of progress and nationhood, he must show that Iraq is regaining control of its own destiny. At the same time he must not ask too much too quickly of its developing security forces. It is a fine balance. We are all frustrated at delay – we all want to move this process as fast as we can, without putting it at risk. But it is significant that among the voices calling for immediate withdrawal, there are no Iraqi politicians actually in a position of responsibility – and most of them, from President Talabani and Prime Minister Maliki down, are clear that an immediate withdrawal would be catastrophic.

There are some parts of Iraq – especially Baghdad – where the reality on the ground is clearly a long way from the point where the Coalition can hand over. In Baghdad, sectarianism and violent power struggles are as bad as anywhere in Iraq. The misery they cause is compounded by terrorist atrocities like last Friday’s bombs in Sadr City – part of whose motive of course is precisely to provoke an escalating sectarian reaction. But Baghdad is not Iraq. I make no apology for reminding people that 14 of the 18 provinces are relatively peaceful. The security situation, and therefore progress along the security strategy, is different in each.

This is well illustrated in the four provinces under British lead in the South. In two of them, Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar, we were able to hand over to Iraqi control during the summer. Yes they were the less challenging provinces – but that’s why the handover process started there, and despite some sceptical predictions, the security situation remains stable. The Iraqi Police and Army are working together and are accountable to the civil authorities, not in the way we are used to here, but in a way that reflects local practices and needs.

The other two provinces, Maysan and Basra, have not been handed over. But that does not mean we are standing still. In Maysan in August we moved out of our fixed base near the main city Al Amarah, to make our forces more mobile. Attacks against us – most of which were mortar and rocket attacks on the fixed base – have reduced, and we are better placed to help the Iraqis protect the border with Iran.

A month ago Al Amarah saw serious disturbances – clashes between rival Shia factions – but it was the Iraqi police, reinforced by the Iraqi Army, who re-established order. They held the ring while a political solution was hammered out by politicians including Maliki’s envoys from Baghdad. Our forces stood ready to help – an example of what we mean by ‘overwatch’ – but were not required. As usual the instant media reaction here in Britain was to see this as another day of worsening violence in Iraq. But to those prepared to follow it through, and to look beneath the surface, this was in its own way a positive story. A story of the new Iraq challenged by violence but showing the political will to confront it, and the security muscle to back that political will.

The fourth province, Basra, remains the most difficult challenge in the South. But again the security situation is a symptom – the underlying cause is rival Shia power blocs vying for control over a province that has great economic potential. Regional powers sense this potential and its importance for the future of Iraq, and are keen to build links with the power blocs – but this just feeds the rivalry. Right now this is too much for the Iraqi security forces to deal with on their own – and there are real weaknesses in the local police – so unlike in the other three provinces in the South, British forces are still doing front-line work in the main city.

Last month we started a new joint operation with the Iraqi Army – Operation Sinbad – working through Basra city, area by area, re-establishing security, building confidence, rooting out corrupt and failing police, putting Iraqi soldiers on street corners as a sign that the Government is determined to govern. But again security is merely the first step. Engineers and local contractors are following on, bringing basic services like clean water, sewerage and rubbish collection. Early progress is encouraging. Levels of violence are down, and people are reporting a positive difference in their daily lives. The results are visible. They offer an alternative view of the future which ordinary Basrawis can understand, and buy into.

Of course as ever the question is whether the improvement will last, and more importantly whether it will build momentum. The Iraqi Government has started to release central resources to accelerate regeneration in Basra, meeting a need that until now has been met by international aid. The fact is, Iraq is in a better position than many places facing similar problems, in that it is not short of money – what it is short of is the confidence and the infrastructure to spend that money, and a mature political process to ensure it is spent and seen to be spent fairly. These things can take decades to mature – Iraq has to develop them, or rediscover them, in months or years. The relationship between Baghdad and Basra, soured by Saddam through decades of neglect and downright vandalism, is a good place to start.

I have said that I believe the strategy is making progress, and that despite the violence and terrible events like last Friday, if you are prepared to look you can see real evidence of this progress – more haltingly than we would like and not always in the precise direction we would choose – but that is inevitable. And progress against the strategy will bring a drawdown of our forces. We have said that we and the Iraqis hope they will be ready to take over Maysan in January. We have said – and the Foreign Secretary reiterated last week – that we hope they will be ready to take over Basra in the spring. If both of these go to plan, we will be able to start drawing down our forces. This will itself need careful handling. Those who have been attacking our forces will claim a propaganda victory, hoping to gain status in local power struggles. They will seek to portray a reduction in our forces as a victory for violence. They will claim they have driven us out. So as we move towards handover, perversely, attacks on us may increase.

So the process needs to be managed carefully, both in Iraq and here in the UK. We need to be clear that handover does not mean withdrawal. Even when all of the provinces are handed over we will still be providing a force to mentor and back up the Iraqi army and police, and to protect Coalition supply routes.

How large a force will this be? Again for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe it is right to give precise numbers, nor to assume what the next 12 months will hold. But I can tell you that by the end of next year I expect numbers of British forces in Iraq to be significantly lower – by a matter of thousands. The planning for this has been going on for some months, and I have been pressing our planners to look at all the options, to make sure we do not ask a single extra soldier to remain in Iraq longer than is necessary. In the end, of course, it must depend on conditions on the ground – including the level of threat and the capacity of the Iraqis to deal with it – and the final decision will be down to our commanders.

So this is our strategy. We will continue to support the Iraqis in overcoming the violence and intimidation that exacts a terrible cost in human lives and misery in the areas where politics is not yet working. We will work with them to build a long term relationship, including training and mentoring, to help the security of the country and the region, including dealing with the ongoing challenge of international terrorism. But both in security and in the parallel strands of politics and economic development we have to accept that how quickly things move will depend on many factors, not all of them directly under our control. In fact, it is a measure of success if the path of progress becomes increasingly an Iraqi one. We must get used to thinking not just in terms our strategy, but of our role in their strategy.

So while we can start to look forward to the end of this process, there is clearly much work still to be done. I am acutely aware of the effort, risk, and sacrifice this ongoing commitment requires from our armed forces – sadly demonstrated again on Friday with the death of Sergeant Jonathan Hollingsworth in Basra. I know from talking to them on the ground that what they want in return is a proper understanding back at home of what they are doing. I hope today I have gone some way to help that – and to explain why we continue to insist we are not going to cut and run. This is not about political gestures or a trial of wills, this is about recognising the challenges we face but also the commitment we have made. We will stay as long as we are making a positive difference and as long as the Iraqi government need our support; we will hand over when it is right to do so, driven not by arbitrary deadlines but by reality on the ground.

I repeat that I am determined not to allow a single one of the seven thousand British soldiers sailors and air personnel currently in Iraq to stay there any longer than necessary. Together with the chiefs I will work to ensure that our plans remain clear and realistic. But I will also work to resist cynicism and defeatism so long as I still believe we are making a difference – so long as I still believe the presence of our forces there is increasing the chance of a positive legacy for their work and sacrifice in Iraq in the last three years.

Key elements to improving security

The Iraqi Prospect Organisation is a network of Iraqi men and women promoting democracy in Iraq. This analysis by Ahmed Alaskary and Mohammed Baraka examines the consequences of past mistakes - the failure to round up all the top tiers of the Baathist regime – and concludes that the democratically elected government of Iraq is given full control over all Iraqi security forces

Full text

• With regards to the security situation in Iraq, mistakes made post-war are largely to blame for the current crisis. By far the most important of these was the failure to round up all the top tiers of the Baathist regime, who quickly morphed into various elements of the insurgency, and whose defeat is critical to any success in Iraq. There are other factors which impede attainment of security in Iraq, such as:

1. Local Policing

The police were established under the coalition provisional authority according to a western model of recruiting from local areas to serve in local districts, so that they would have the advantage of local knowledge. However, Iraqi is a country built upon tribal lines, reports of police not responding to local violence is a consequence of the police fearing retaliation by local militant tribes, not just against the individual policeman, but their tribe and family.

In order to combat this problem, the police need to be distributed randomly across the country, so that no police officer would serve in their local areas. This will ensure that they are able to carry out their duties without the fear of retaliation against their families and tribes. In addition, it ensures that battalions are randomly made up of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Saddam Hussein understood Iraq’s cultural structure and used this policy; its re-implementation is a necessary step towards combating security in Iraq.

2. UN Resolution 1546

The resolution gives ultimate control of security to the multinational forces, including the Iraqi security forces, the effect of this on the ground is; ultimately the Iraqi Prime Minister cannot move troops around different parts of Iraq. Also, the quota on the number of troops and police Iraq has is set by the Pentagon and not the Iraqi government.

A senior advisor to the Iraqi Prime Minister has told the IPO that one of the reasons why the current Baghdad security plan has failed has been because part of the plan required a disc around Baghdad to prevent the flow of insurgents into the capital, split up into different sections manned either by Iraqi or US forces, yet there were physical gaps in this disc between sections, which allowed the flow of insurgents in through them. The Iraqi PM pressed the multinational forces repeatedly to address this oversight for over 2 weeks, only to be stalled by arduous coalition bureaucracy. He ordered the Iraqi troops to expand and cover unmanned areas outside of their allocated sectors, only for the loyal Iraqi troops who carried out the order to be arrested by the multinational forces that were covering an adjacent sector.

This incident and others like it has made Iraqi troops reluctant to carry out their governments orders. This resolution is due for renewal next month. It must be changed so that the democratically elected government of Iraq is given full control over all Iraqi security forces. In the meantime, it is unreasonable to demand that the Iraqi government takes more responsibility for the security of its country when the resolution and its implementation have the government’s hands and feet tied.

Iraqi Communist Minister assesses current situation

The Iraqi Minister of Science and Technology and member of the Central Committee of the Iraqi Communist party Raïd Fahmi gave an interview to l’Humanité in which he says: as for what’s been accomplished in terms of meeting people’s primary needs (transportation, water…) or in the security area, I’m afraid we’ve fallen short, particularly in the Baghdad and central region of Iraq. On the other hand, we have made some progress towards establishing major governmental strategies. Especially at the political level, in that for over a year now, there is a national reconciliation initiative under way which was launched by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. Getting the nation out of the difficult impasse we currently find it in, necessarily includes a reconciliation process. This involves enlarging the government’s political base and process so as to create conditions for reducing violence and isolating those who resort to arms. This means integrating some of the groups who took up arms as a result of the poor decisions made by Paul Bremer (the American proconsul who was sent to Iraq immediately following the war, in April 2003 – editor’s note) or because of the behavior of the multinational forces who provoked reasonably negative reactions among the population. These groups are animated by a desire for a nation more than by a desire to restore Saddam Hussein’s regime or any other despotic potentate. These people can be integrated. Some contacts have already been established, and others are being made. We are still waiting to reap the benefits, but generally, the message is positive.

Asked about Troops Out, he couldn’t be clearer: Regarding the withdrawal of military forces, the Iraqi government’s approach is quite clear. We think that it’s not possible to call for an immediate withdrawal. The country is united on this front. Even political forces from the Sunnite community are firmly opposed to immediate withdrawal of the multinational forces, for reasons of national security. But there is also a large majority of the population who agree that it’s impossible to call for an unmodified continuation of the presence of multinational forces. These troops are here by virtue of UN resolutions 1637 and 1546 as well as a number of letters exchanged between two former Prime Ministers: Allaoui et Al Jaafari. We have publicly expressed the fact that we are no longer satisfied with these conditions today. Furthermore, negotiations are under way with the multinational forces to review their conditions and their presence, and in particular, their authority, and their relationship with each other and with the Iraqi forces. The Iraqi government recommends that the Iraqi armed forces be primarily responsible for the country’s security. If the Iraqi forces need support from the multinational forces, it should be the Iraqis who ask for help, rather than the current situation where there are limits and constraints imposed on them by virtue of the above-mentioned resolutions. This should be formalized when the question of the authority of the multinational forces will be discussed in December. Nevertheless, this will not provide a definitive response with regards to the withdrawal date of the multinational forces. The principle of a withdrawal schedule has been accepted by the government. But this schedule has two prerequisites. We must establish a schedule for developing the capacities of Iraqi military forces, for increasing such capacities, and for the gradual transfer to the Iraqi forces of security files pertaining to the various Iraqi provinces. Similarly, the timing of the withdrawal of the multinational forces must be accelerated. This dual calendar should provide an acceptable solution for the population and will correspond to our desire to establish a withdrawal plan for foreign armies in Iraq.

Campaigning for free unions in Iraq

Abdullah Muhsin the international representative of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU) called on the Iraqi government to abolish the 1987 law passed by the toppled Saddam regime and to implement the new labour code for workers.

He said Saddam's law of 1987 which effectively banned trade unions in the public sector has still not been abolished. He also called for the repeal of code 8750 passed by the former Iraqi prime minister Ibrahim Jafari saying it froze rights of workers.

"The trade union movement in Iraq is besieged in some sense," he said Muhsin said the IFTU which was established in 2003 has 200,000 members today.

The Iraqi trade unionist estimated the current unemployment rate in Iraq between 40-45 percent.

He noted that the public sector in Iraq employed the largest number of workers, followed by construction, oil and transport.

Neglected nurses fight their own war

Iraq is suffering a dearth of nurses. Those who could afford to have already fled to neighbouring countries. Those with working husbands stay at home, afraid of the escalating violence. But the rest must soldier on in their fight against fear and poverty.

TUC urges solidarity with Trade Unionists in Zimbabwe

Conference calls on EU to maintain sanctions against President Mugabes regime.

Response to news of troop withdrawal timetable

Handing over control to Iraqi security forces is excellent news but grassroots solidarity remains pressing. More should support the TUC appeal for second hand mobiles for Iraqi union organisers and emulate, for example, Unison and the Fire Brigades Union in providing practical and moral solidarity to unions whose growth after having been pulverised by Saddam Hussein is an inspiration and whose consciously non-sectarian approach could do much to build a democratic, federal and pluralist Iraq.

Gary Kent
Director Labour Friends of Iraq

Displaced persons in Iraq

Hilary Benn has been asked what estimate he has made of the number of internally displaced people in Iraq; and what assessment he has made of recent trends in the number.

He replied thus: The Government of Iraq, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its partners estimate there are now more than 1.6 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Iraq. Up to 1.1 million of these people are believed to have left their homes under the previous regime. The UNHCR report that there are 424,000 newly displaced who have left their homes and communities since the bombing of the Samarra shrine in February 2006. Reasons for this recent displacement are mainly due to the rise in sectarian violence around Iraq.

The majority of internally displaced persons in Iraq are either living with relatives, friends or extended family, or renting accommodation in other neighbourhoods. However, thousands of displaced without family links or money, are living in public buildings and schools, improvised shelters and government camps run by the International Federation of the Red Crescent.
UN agencies are delivering food and emergency assistance in central and southern Iraq together with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Organisation of Migration (IOM). Since February, the ICRC has distributed food and emergency relief to 150,000 people. EC member states have recently agreed to give €10 million to the UN for the provision of additional shelter and other basic needs for IDPs.

The UNHCR also estimate that there are up to 1.6 million Iraqis living outside their country, most of them in Jordan (500,000) and Syria (450,000). Some have been outside for a decade or more, but many have moved since 2003. The UN Assistance Mission Iraq is currently conducting an assessment of these people’s needs.

Since 2003, DFID has contributed over £100 million to humanitarian agencies working in Iraq, including £85 million for the UN Humanitarian Appeal and £32 million to the ICRC for emergency humanitarian assistance. This includes £4 million for their 2006 Appeal. In 2004, DFID also provided £70 million to the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq (IRFFI). IRFFI has already spent over $18 million on supporting the return and reintegration of IDPs in Iraq. We are in close touch with UN humanitarian agencies so that we are able to respond quickly where unmet needs are identified.

Iraqi leader calls insurgents for talks to end the violence

Ned Parker in Baghdad for the Times reports that the Iraqi Prime Minister will sit down for the first time next week with representatives of insurgent groups in his most concerted effort yet to quell the country’s sectarian war.

Education International protests against killing of teachers in Iraq

Teachers should be guaranteed a safe and secure working environment, says EI in a letter to the President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani. Since February this year, 180 teachers have been killed and up to 100 have been kidnapped.

Margaret Beckett in Commons speech on International Affairs

Margaret Beckett says this of Iraq

We have all along had a clear vision of the future of Iraq. We want to see a fully sovereign Government, taking complete responsibility for providing security, and governing in the interests of all the people of Iraq.

Despite all the difficulties, Iraq has made a lot of progress down this path. For the last six months Iraq has had a Government of National Unity – democratically elected under a new permanent constitution.

As I made clear to the House on 31 October, the process of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces is well underway. Prime Minister Maliki is determined to press ahead with this process. We are equally determined to help his Government do so successfully and sustainably.

We expect Najaf to be the next province to be transferred to Iraqi control, in December. In our own area of responsibility, we expect Maysan to follow in January. And the progress of our work current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we will achieve transition in that province too at some point next Spring.

There is therefore a clear forward perspective – notwithstanding the very obvious difficulties Iraq faces. It demands our wholehearted attention and unwavering support.

Full Text

This House has a long memory. Historical comparisons can seem presumptuous.

It is not lightly, then, that I say that the international environment in which our country finds itself today is one of the most difficult – and the most complex – that we have ever seen.

Difficult because international challenges – global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change, conflicts within and between states, illegal migration, rapid globalisation in some parts of the world, chronic underdevelopment in others – are increasing in scale and severity.

And they are increasing too in the direct impact they have upon us here in Britain. Today, foreign policy is one of the most crucial means by which we can deliver domestic priorities.

And that international environment is complex because its many different aspects are closely linked and mutually reinforcing: they cannot be dealt with in isolation but have to be tackled together.

Let me begin by setting out some of the most immediate and urgent challenges we face.

The Prime Minister has stated that there is no more pressing diplomatic task for this country or for the international community than to find a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

If we can do so, it will benefit the entire region, and remove a key source of global tension and division. That is why we are working closely with the EU, US and regional partners both to develop practical initiatives, such as strengthening Palestinian institutions and improving Palestinian security, and to restart the political process itself.

And at the same time, we remain one of the world’s biggest donors to the Palestinian people. This year alone, despite our concerns about a Hamas government in office, we have committed £30 million to the Palestinian people. And we played a key role in developing the main international mechanism through which all donors can channel assistance while bypassing the Hamas-run finance ministry. We intend to contribute £12 million through this temporary mechanism.

Yesterday I met the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni. Our meeting was constructive. We talked about President Abbas’s moves to build a government of national unity and about the issue of prisoners held by both sides in the conflict.
But just as I stood up to leave that encouraging meeting I was given the tragic and shocking news of the assassination of Pierre Gemayel.

I am sure the whole House joins me in expressing its horror and dismay at this act and in expressing its deepest sympathy to the family of Mr Gemayel and to the people and Government of Lebanon.

We welcomed the unequivocal condemnation of this murder by the UN Security Council last night.

No-one yet knows for sure who carried out this attack. It is imperative that an independent and thorough investigation begins immediately and we will offer whatever support is asked of us. As indeed we continue to support the work of the United Nations on the death of Rafiq Hariri.

Fingers have already been pointed at Syria. As I have said, it is too early to reach any definite conclusions. But the reason why many are looking in Syria’s direction is because of its long record of destructive meddling in Lebanon. There must be an end to outside interference in Lebanese affairs, as mandated in UN Security Council 1559.

Indeed, Syria faces a strategic choice. If the Syrian authorities are ready to play a constructive role in the region, we have made clear that we will work with them. But if they support terrorism, promote instability, and interfere in other countries, we will unite with our regional and international partners to prevent this.

This is the same choice which faces Iran.

We are – with France, Germany and our other European partners – leading efforts to encourage Iran to address international concerns over its nuclear ambitions, support for terrorism and dismal human rights record.

Thanks in part to those efforts, the international community is now more united than ever. The Iranian regime has been presented with a clear choice.

On the one hand we have offered Iran the chance of an improved relationship with Europe and the international community. This would give Iran: help in developing a civil nuclear power programme; an energy partnership and Trade & Co-operation partnership with the European Union; help with joining the WTO; and the first lifting of US sanctions since the 1979 revolution in some areas of real need.

On the other hand, if Iran continues to defy the Security Council, it should be in no doubt that that relationship will deteriorate, and that the international community will respond.

Both Iran and Syria can choose to be part of the solution and not part of the problem in Iraq.

British soldiers and civilians alike are working in tough conditions and with great bravery, to try to help build a better future for the Iraqi people. The horrific murder of our service men and women in Basra on Remembrance Day underlines their courage and sacrifice.

Indeed, the appalling reports of killings and of kidnappings which we hear every day are a clear sign that the fate of that country is hanging in the balance.

As I have said in this House before, we owe it to our own forces and to the Iraqi people to hold our nerve in this critical period. There is no question of us cutting and running from Iraq. To do so would be an act of gross irresponsibility – abandoning the Iraqi people to bloodshed much worse even than that we see today.

But that does not mean our strategy is standing still. On the contrary, our approach has evolved very significantly in recent months, in response to a dynamic situation.

We have all along had a clear vision of the future of Iraq. We want to see a fully sovereign Government, taking complete responsibility for providing security, and governing in the interests of all the people of Iraq.

Despite all the difficulties, Iraq has made a lot of progress down this path. For the last six months Iraq has had a Government of National Unity – democratically elected under a new permanent constitution.

As I made clear to the House on 31 October, the process of transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqi security forces is well underway. Prime Minister Maliki is determined to press ahead with this process. We are equally determined to help his Government do so successfully and sustainably.

We expect Najaf to be the next province to be transferred to Iraqi control, in December. In our own area of responsibility, we expect Maysan to follow in January. And the progress of our work current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we will achieve transition in that province too at some point next Spring.

There is therefore a clear forward perspective – notwithstanding the very obvious difficulties Iraq faces. It demands our wholehearted attention and unwavering support.

The Middle East will inevitably dominate much of our discussions today. But British soldiers and civilians are engaged elsewhere around the world: building peace, supporting democratic institutions, safeguarding human rights and the rule of law.

The people of Darfur have suffered immensely in the last three years: from unacceptable violence, daily insecurity, and profound humanitarian misery; millions have had their lives disrupted or worse.

We have been leading the international community’s efforts to resolve this crisis. Last Thursday’s agreement in Addis Ababa on a peace keeping force for Darfur and a resumption of the political process shows that there is an international consensus on how to address the ongoing, deplorable violence in Darfur. We now need the Sudanese Government to agree. Peace, stability and prosperity in Sudan will go on being a top priority for the Government.

In Afghanistan, NATO is facing its greatest test. Succeeding in its mission there now is crucial for its credibility in the future.

The UK, with its NATO allies, is engaged in a struggle to turn a failed state into one that provides for its people and functions as a part of the international community.

What is being achieved is rarely reported.

Since 2001, more than four and a half million who fled their homes have returned. Men and women have turned out in their millions to vote in free and fair elections. Six million children are now in school, over a third of them girls. Seventy two new hospitals and clinics have been built. Thirty-five thousand children who would have died are alive today thanks to immunisation programmes.

British soldiers, alongside the Dutch and Canadians, are now supporting the Afghan government’s efforts to bring security to the South of the country. It is a tough job that they are carrying out with incredible professionalism and bravery.

I am sure that the whole House would join me in paying tribute to the outstanding work that our military and civilian personnel – from the FCO, the Department of International Development, the police and others organisations – are doing in Afghanistan and indeed in Iraq.

I should like to single out from my own department Stephen Evans and his team in Kabul, Nick Kay and his team in Lashkar Gah, Ros Marsden and her team in Basra, Dominic Asquith and his team in Baghdad.

Our diplomats do not always receive the recognition they are due for doing a difficult and often dangerous job in these countries and in others across the world.

These are a few of the issues that – quite rightly – are at the forefront of our minds.

But in focusing on the urgent we must not lose sight of the important, underlying factors which drive and exacerbate global insecurity.

Here too Britain is making a difference.

Last month we led a resolution at the UN General Assembly towards an International Arms Trade Treaty to end the irresponsible trade in arms world-wide which fuels conflict and ruins lives.

Since the last Queen’s speech, a great deal has been achieved in the fight against global poverty. At Gleneagles, G8 governments pledged to increase aid by US$50 billion a year by 2010 – with half going to Africa, to cancel debt worth another US$50 billion and to provide AIDS treatment to all who need it. As Presidency of the G8 we were instrumental in getting those agreements.

Last year the UK provided £5.9 billion in official development aid, making the UK the third largest donor in the world. And we were instrumental in the launch of the International Finance Facility for Immunisation which is expected to prevent five million child deaths before 2015 and more than five million adult deaths after that.

The Government’s White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making governance work for the poor sets out how it intends to work with others to meet the challenges ahead.

We will not end global poverty unless we give developing countries the means and the tools to help themselves.

The WTO Round is our best opportunity to help them to do just that. However, we only have a narrow window – a matter of months – to secure the ambitious, pro-development deal we all want.

There have been some encouraging signs. Pascal Lamy has restarted WTO negotiations at the technical level. Leaders at the APEC summit in Hanoi committed themselves to breaking the current deadlock and recognised that to do so all sides would need to move beyond their current positions. If others do move, then the European Union must be ready to move too. In his speech last week, Peter Mandelson confirmed that we are.

Let us not underestimate the cost of failure. If we cannot resolve these differences, our own economies will suffer. If we cannot overcome find a compromise we condemn millions of men, women and children to a life of poverty, or to no life at all. And if we cannot work together on this agenda which is so clearly in all our interests, what hope do we have of building global consensus on counter-terrorism, international crime, energy security.

And nowhere is the need for that mutual trust more obvious or more vital than on the global challenge which may come to define our generation – climate change.

Those few who remain who don’t think that this is a foreign policy issue simply fail to grasp the magnitude of the challenge we face. An unstable climate will place huge additional strain on the international tensions which we spend out time trying to resolve. They are already at breaking point and climate change has the potential to stretch them far beyond it.

The Stern Review has laid out the challenge for the international community. It has shown that it will not cost developed or developing countries the earth to tackle climate change. But it will cost the earth – literally, as well as financially – if we do not.

Through the G8+5 process which began at Gleneagles; through our role in pushing ambition within the EU; through our increasing co-operation with China, India and Brazil; through our links with individual states in the United States, Britain is helping to set and drive forward this agenda.

No country, however powerful, can address these challenges – and the many others I have not had time to set out – on their own. It calls out for concerted global action: a truly international consensus bringing together countries from across the political and economic spectrum.

One element of this will have to be a more effective multilateral system, including a reformed United Nations, better equipped to face these challenges.

For the UK, it means we are forging new partnerships with emerging economies and powers around the world. On recent visits to India and to Brazil I have spoken of the need for us to act as global partners; and I have restated our support for the growing influence of these countries to be fully reflected in the UN Security Council and other international organisations.

But alongside these partners we value our old allies and friends.

The Commonwealth continues to do important work – about a third of which we fund – not least in promoting democracy, good governance and the rule of law.

We do not see eye to eye with the United States on everything: still less do we automatically follow its lead. Indeed, in some areas of the global agenda such as the International Arms Trade Treaty or climate change, it is we who are in the driving seat and asking the United States to get on board.

But, none of the things that I have spoken of today – from global poverty and Africa to the Middle East Peace Process and reconstruction in Afghanistan – can possibly be addressed, let alone solved, without American involvement.

And our membership of the European Union – the largest political union, the biggest economic market and largest aid donor in the world – gives us a far more powerful voice on the international stage than we have speaking as a single nation.

That is why the Government has put Britain at the centre of Europe, from where we can influence how the European Union speaks and how it acts beyond its borders: rather than migrating to the margins and losing that hard-won leverage.

One of Europe’s greatest achievements has been the successive waves of enlargement that have created an ever wider circle of prosperous and stable democracies.

Earlier this year, I accompanied Her Majesty the Queen on a State Visit to the Baltic States. They are countries transformed – confident, free nations and strong allies and trading partners of the United Kingdom.

Next month’s European Council will conduct a strategic discussion on further enlargement. We are clear that further enlargement, coupled with rigorous conditionality, will bring clear benefits to Europe and clear benefits to Britain.

We must, then, honour our existing commitments on enlargement, above all by moving forward accession negotiations with Turkey and Croatia. For that to happen these candidates will need to fulfil their existing obligations to all Member States, and make progress towards meeting European standards. We will support them in this process.

Later this month, Latvia will act as host to the NATO summit. It will be the first territory of the Former Soviet Union to do so: a powerful symbol of how NATO, like the European Union, has erased Cold War divides and helped to create a modern, united continent.

In Riga we want NATO to take the decisions that will allow it to meet the challenges of the century to come.

These are the strong, global partnerships through which we enact a distinctive, British foreign policy.

It is a foreign policy that we enact not by gesture or political grandstanding, but through quiet and steady progress. The hard-grind and determination of our soldiers and civilians around the world means that Britain continues to be a strong, independent and positive force in the world.

Practical solidarity from Fire Brigades Union

Two fire engines have been successfully delivered to firefighters in Iraq and Kurdistan thanks to a partnership between the Fire Brigades Union (FBU), Perkins Engines Company and the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service.

A team of FBU officials undertook the humanitarian trip, after securing support from Perkins and Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service.

The team started from Peterborough in Cambridgeshire, and from there the two engines were driven across ten different countries and covered a total of nearly 5000 kilometres.

Travelling via the channel tunnel the vehicles were handed over to officials of the General Federation of Iraqi Workers in Du Hok in Kurdistan. From there the fire engines were taken on to Irbil in Kurdistan and Baghdad in Iraq.

Adrian Clarke regional official of the FBU for the East of England said:
“In my experience this was a unique partnership led by a trade union and supported by both a public service and a private industry company to deliver humanitarian help to another part of the world. Fire fighters in Iraq face probably the most dangerous working conditions of any firefighters anywhere in the world at present.”

Previous visits by FBU officials delivering much needed fire kit to firefighters in Iraq had highlighted the desperate need for fire engines and equipment to carry out their duties.

Following consultations between the FBU and Chief Fire Officer Tom Carroll of the Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service an agreement was reached for the FBU to purchase two appliances that had finished their operational service in Cambridgeshire and were due for disposal.

Before travel the Fire and Rescue Service’s vehicle maintenance department serviced both fire engines. Firefighters also helped ready the engines for the trip as well as helping with supplying equipment to go on them. This ensured that the Iraqi and Kurdistan firefighters had a basic firefighting and rescue capacity when they were delivered.

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service’s Chief Fire Officer Tom Carroll said: “We were only too pleased to be able to support the FBU with their venture. It is good to know that kit and fire engines that have served us well in Cambridgeshire for a number of years and come to the end of their useful life for us, can help our firefighter colleagues in Iraq and Kurdistan provide a better service for their communities.”

As one of the vehicles was powered by a Perkins diesel engine the FBU decided to contact Perkins Engines in Peterborough and request its help. Perkins responded immediately providing support both financially and logistically. Along with a financial donation Perkins supplied a basket of service parts for the engines. The company also gave the team a list of distributors in every country which the vehicles would travel through and instructed these distributors to support any requests for assistance.

The engines proved to be extremely reliable with the only vehicle breakdowns being electrical faults.

Marion King, marketing communications manager at Perkins Engines said: “We were delighted to be able to support such a worthwhile humanitarian project.

“After meeting Adrian Clarke, who explained the background to the trip, we immediately agreed it was something Perkins wanted to support. Our sponsorship committee decided to assist with the cost of the trip but we also wanted to help ensure the vehicles made it to their final destination.

“We spoke to our distributors throughout Europe and the Middle East and they all agreed to provide assistance to the team throughout their trip.

“We were delighted to hear both vehicles had been delivered safely and that the Perkins engine had performed extremely well throughout the journey.”
Mr Clarke added: “The FBU has long been supporting our fellow firefighters in Iraq and without the help of these partners this project would not have happened. Both Perkins Engines and Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service should be congratulated on their support of this life saving project and they should be proud that they employ people who not only talk the talk on diversity issues but that they are also prepared to walk the walk with their individual actions. The fact is that these fire appliances that served the communities of Cambridgeshire are now carrying on what they were designed to do and are helping to save lives once again”.

Notes for Editors.

There are two different fire services in Iraq. These are the oil field firefighters and the civilian fire service which performs the same function as the fire service in the UK.

The General Federation of Iraqi Workers is newly formed since the fall of the Saddam Hussein Regime and is the equivalent of the TUC with unions affiliating to it.

The Kurdistan Workers Syndicate Union is the TUC equivalent in Kurdistan.

Iraqi Communist Party Statement

The Iraqi CP has made a contribution to a gathering of Communist Parties in Lisbon. It says that a national consensus is emerging in Iraq, among the major political forces, that there should be a clearly defined timetable for a speedy withdrawal of the occupying forces, linked to rebuilding the Iraqi armed forces and urges more concrete forms of support and solidarity with the Iraqi people, Communists and democrats, which should be coupled with clear and unequivocal condemnation of all human rights violations in Iraq, whether committed by the occupation forces, by terrorists and extremist and reactionary Islamists, or by paramilitary organizations. Mass killings of innocent civilians, and the so-called suicide bombings, targeting mainly workers, the unemployed and women, in poor districts, have nothing to do with resisting the occupation. As a matter of fact, they provide free service to the occupiers and their "divide and rule" tactic, alienate the people, and stir up sectarian strife.

Iraqi CP contribution to International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties in Lisbon (10-12 Nov. 2006)

We seize this opportunity to express our gratitude for the internationalist support and solidarity extended to the Iraqi people, to our Communist Party and democratic forces (trade unionists, women and youth organizations..), by many fraternal parties all over the world. We look forward to your continued support in the difficult and complex struggle ahead in Iraq, to end the occupation, restore full national sovereignty and build a unified democratic and federal Iraq.

The first topic in the themes chosen for this International Meeting, "The Dangers and potentialities of the International Situation", is of special relevance to our country Iraq, about 3 and a half years after the US-led invasion, war and occupation, with catastrophic consequences, first and foremost for our Iraqi people, and also for peace and stability in the Middle East and the whole world.

The Iraqi experience, and its eventual outcome, is therefore of great significance to the to the struggle of peace-loving and progressive forces all over the world, to stem the aggressive onslaught of US imperialism.

It will not be possible, in this brief contribution, to go into detail about the situation in Iraq. But I urge the comrades to have a look at a brief report on the current situation, prepared for this International Meeting, based on an extensive statement issued by our Party’s Central Committee meeting held last September.

I would like, however, to mention few points:
• Our Party openly opposed and rejected the warmongering and hegemonic policy of the neo-conservatives in the US, long before the war on Iraq in 2003. We opposed the war, invasion and occupation, exposing its imperialist objectives. This position has been vindicated, thus enhancing the credibility of our Party in Iraq, among the people. In the unique and extremely complex situation that developed after the war, with the collapse of the Iraqi state, following the collapse of the fascist-type dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, our Party, along with the major political forces, resorted to political struggle as the main form of fighting against the occupation, and for regaining national sovereignty and independence.
Let me say few words about the ongoing political process in Iraq:
• We view this process as a contradictory process. Different constituent political forces and currents (Islamic, nationalist – both Arab and Kurdish –, democratic and liberal) have different and conflicting visions and societal projects and agendas. The occupying powers, the US and its allies, also have their own, well-known, agenda and plans, and are still a major player.
• But the events and developments in Iraq clearly show that the internal dynamic, and the internal forces, can effectively influence the direction, content and pace of the developments of the political process.
• This influence grows stronger, the more the Iraqi forces succeed in unifying their ranks and act together on agreed-upon national objectives.
• National Unity, (which is a recurrent theme also in Palestine and Lebanon), is therefore indispensable in the fight to overcome sectarian divisions, that have been accentuated and manipulated by the US administration. National Unity, and national consensus, are also indispensable for the fight to seize back full national sovereignty, eliminate the legacy of dictatorship, end the occupation, and empower the people to take their destiny into their hands.
• We conceive the political process as an arena of struggle, with the aim of bringing it closer to the national democratic agenda.
• In this process, as always, our Communist Party is guided by the interests of the Iraqi people, toilers and workers.
• In parallel with the fight for the big issue, of ending the occupation, Iraqi Communists are playing a prominent and a leading role in social struggles, defending the rights of workers and people.. as recently demonstrated by the wave of strikes by tens of thousands of teachers, that swept many provinces all over the country.
• In addition, there is the continuing fight against privatization of sate enterprises, against neo-liberal plans and the diktat of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and to keep the oil wealth under Iraqi control.
• These social and class struggles cut across the ethnic-sectarian divide, and therefore also contribute significantly to strengthening the Iraqi national identity and national unity.

Relevant also to the main theme of this International Meeting, is what has happened over the past few days in the US. The American people have spoken, and passed their verdict against the Bush administration. It is (if I may borrow a geological term!) like a tectonic shift (an earthquake) in the political landscape of the US, that could have far-reaching consequences for other parts of the world. It has provided yet another powerful example on the impact of peace and mass democratic movements.

Iraq dominated the US congressional elections. So, the question that arises now is: What will be the impact on Iraq and the US policy there?

It remains to be seen how things will develop in the US. But already Rumsfeld is gone, and he may soon be followed by the US representative in the UN, John Bolton, the well-known hawkish Neo-con.

One very important aspect, however, is that pressure will increase for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

A national consensus is emerging in Iraq, among the major political forces, that there should be a clearly defined timetable for a speedy withdrawal of the occupying forces, linked to rebuilding the Iraqi armed forces. Up to now, Bush has adamantly refused to be committed to such a timetable, obviously preferring an open-ended military presence and occupation.

This crucial issue will come up for review at the UN Security Council by the end of this year. Such a timetable, and also seizing back effective control over security matters in Iraq, is fundamental to restoring full national sovereignty and speeding up the end of occupation.

Finally, one word about internationalist solidarity. We call on all fraternal parties to develop more concrete forms of support and solidarity with the Iraqi people, Communists and democrats.

This should be coupled with clear and unequivocal condemnation of all human rights violations in Iraq, whether committed by the occupation forces, by terrorists and extremist and reactionary Islamists, or by paramilitary organizations.

Mass killings of innocent civilians, and the so-called suicide bombings, targeting mainly workers, the unemployed and women, in poor districts, have nothing to do with resisting the occupation. As a matter of fact, they provide free service to the occupiers and their "divide and rule" tactic, alienate the people, and stir up sectarian strife.

In conclusion, we salute the advances made by the forces of the Left in Latin America. They are an inspiration to progressives all over the world.

We also strongly condemn the Israeli atrocities committed against the Palestinian people, including the horrific massacre carried out three days ago in the town of Beit Hanoon in Gaza.

Solidarity with the Lebanese people and Communist party against the Israeli aggression.

Solidarity with the Iranian people and the fraternal Tudeh Party against external interference and for democratic rights.

And we voice our condemnation of anti-Communist measures and the ban of the Communist Youth Union in the Czech republic.

EU and Iraq launch negotiations for a Trade and Cooperation Agreement

On 20 November, the European Commission and the Iraqi government will open in Brussels the negotiations for a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the EU and Iraq. The negotiations will be launched by Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner and Mandelson, on behalf of the Commission, and by Barham Salih, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, on behalf of Iraq. The TCA will help to progressively strengthen the EU’s relations with Iraq and integrate the country in the world economy.

EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said: "Establishing this framework for EU-Iraq trade relations is a small part of Iraq's difficult road to stability. Those committed to Iraq's peaceful future must begin planning for it now."

“This is an important moment in our relations with Iraq. Through this agreement we will for the first time establish contractual relations. This is a natural step for the Commission which has supported substantially the Iraqi reconstruction and the political process since 2003. Clearly, for this agreement to achieve its full potential a stable and secure environment in Iraq will be necessary.” said Commissioner for External Relations and Neighbourhood Policy, Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

This agreement aims to improve the trade arrangements between Iraq and the EU, covering a wide range of issues, including trade in goods, services, measures to encourage investment, customs, intellectual and industrial property rights, and public procurement rules. Co-operation could cover a number of key aspects in the economic area, as well as in the human development and poverty reduction field, environment, culture and education. All agreements with third countries now feature human rights, terrorism and WMD as important elements.

By entering into negotiations for contractual relations with Iraq, the EU aims to:

· Facilitate Iraq’s engagement with the international community and with the EU in particular, to the benefit of the internal and regional stabilisation process.

· Stimulate and anchor ongoing institutional and socio-economic reforms at both policy and operational levels.

· Contribute to the socio-economic development of Iraq and to the improvement of living conditions in the country.

· Promote bilateral trade relations in accordance with WTO principles.

· Ensure a minimum level of predictability, transparency and legal certainty for economic operators.

During his visit, Deputy Prime Minister Salih will also hold separate bilateral talks with Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner and Mandelson. With Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner, discussions are likely to focus on the general political and security situation in the country and Commission assistance to alleviate the situation for the population as well as means to promote national reconciliation. The meeting with Peter Mandelson will be an occasion to share views on the long-term bilateral trade relations between the EU and Iraq.

Background

Since 2003, the European Commission has contributed €720 million towards the reconstruction of Iraq with a focus on assisting Iraqi people in accessing basic services, furthering democracy, and promoting good governance. In 2006, the Iraqi government has proposed that a Compact be developed to build a new partnership between Iraq and the international community. The Commission supports this initiative, which should aim to promote political, economic and social development in the country. Lately, the Commission has also stepped up its presence in Baghdad and has opened a Delegation.

FBU protest

The Fire Brigades Union has protested against the accidental killing of 4 firefighters in Fallujah by US troops.

Ann Clwyd in America

Ann Clwyd has emphasised after a speech at Wellesley College near Boston that an early withdrawal of troops from Iraq would accelerate rights abuses against ordinary Iraqis and that the Iraqi government should press harder to investigate police abuses, weed out corruption and free thousands of mostly Sunni prisoners in Iraqi prisons.

UK unions stand in solidarity with Iraqi workers and educationalists

The TUC has issued a message of solidarity from Brendan Barber.

Responding to the kidnapping of Ministry of Education officials in Baghdad this week (not all of whom have been released as yet), TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has sent the following message of solidarity with Iraqi workers and teachers.

'This cowardly attack on some of the people most involved in keeping the education system going is a terrible reminder of the persistent persecution being suffered by workers and academics in Iraq. Workers in the education sector are in the front line, facing intimidation, harassment and sometimes death, all for the simple reason that they are trying to bring enlightenment, empowerment and education to Iraq's children and young people.

'British trade unionists have little experience of the pressures under which Iraqi workers and educationalists operate every day, but we stand in solidarity with them in their struggle to build a new Iraq - non-sectarian, non-discriminatory and free.

'We call on the government of Iraq to take the steps necessary to prevent sectarian and other violence against people at work, and to restore the freedoms that they should have to join the trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively.'

Last year, a delegation of Iraqi teacher union representatives (along with their colleagues from Iraqi Kurdistan) visited the TUC as guests of British teaching unions. They explained how teachers were targeted by terrorists for teaching about human rights, secularism and equality, as well as for 'co-operating' with the government of Iraq. Recently, the number of attacks on teachers in schools and universities has increased as sectarian disputes have been added to the so-called insurgency - developments which affect workers in many others sectors too.

Brendan Barber's message of support was sent to the General Federation of Iraqi Workers, representing Iraqi workers generally, and to the Iraqi Teachers' Union which covers teachers in schools and colleges. The TUC has an Iraq Solidarity Committee chaired by General Council member Sue Rogers who is National Treasurer of the teachers' union NASUWT.

Watch this film

Roger Darlington reports on tonights successful screening at the Commons of a poignant film on atrocities under Saddam and rightly says you should all watch it on Monday 20th November at 8pm on Channel 4. Nuff said. Gary Kent

European Airline Starts Erbil Flights

Austrian Airlines has become the first European carrier to offer scheduled flights to Erbil - the fourth biggest city in Iraq and the focus for United Nations regeneration plans.

Judicial System Making Progress

Iraqi Chief Justice Madhat Al-Mahmood has emphasised how much the
judiciary has improved in recent years. The number of female judges, for
example, has risen from five under Saddam to 28.

Blair speech on a whole Middle East strategy

His wide-ranging speech on international strategy included this assessment of the current Iraqi situation: The bomb which killed British forces in Iraq yesterday was a cruel and wicked reminder that this terrorism is dedicated to one end: to stop democracy flourishing in Arab and Muslim countries; to foster sectarian division; to drive out the possibility of reconciliation between people of different faiths.

In defiance of the wishes of the Government of Iraq, now elected, and of the UN which for over three years has supported that democratic process, they urge violence to eliminate hope. In Basra, we are halfway through the army and police operation, which British forces are supporting, to put the proper authorities in charge of the city. It is an operation that is succeeding. The bomb was designed to stop it.

Do not countenance the myth that it is a protest about the so-called occupation of Basra by British forces. On the contrary, the terrorists know the whole purpose of the operation we are conducting with the Iraqi forces is to allow Iraqis to take charge.

Full text

Remembrance weekend took on a special poignancy this year. No longer do we only look back, nostalgia mixed with emotion and pride, on the supreme sacrifices of two World Wars.

In this century, a new and unconventional enemy has appeared: a global
terrorism, based on a thoroughly warped misinterpretation of Islam, which is fanatical and deadly. It was present for years but little noticed by us, before 9/11. Since 9/11, it has cast its shadow over the Western world.

The bomb which killed British forces in Iraq yesterday was a cruel and wicked reminder that this terrorism is dedicated to one end: to stop democracy flourishing in Arab and Muslim countries; to foster sectarian division; to drive out the possibility of reconciliation between people of different faiths.

In defiance of the wishes of the Government of Iraq, now elected, and of the UN which for over three years has supported that democratic process, they urge violence to eliminate hope. In Basra, we are halfway through the army and police operation, which British forces are supporting, to put the proper authorities in charge of the city. It is an operation that is succeeding. The bomb was designed to stop it.

Do not countenance the myth that it is a protest about the so-called occupation of Basra by British forces. On the contrary, the terrorists know the whole purpose of the operation we are conducting with the Iraqi forces is to allow Iraqis to take charge.

Once again we should reflect on the quite humbling courage of the British Armed Forces. They are remarkable people, making an extraordinary sacrifice. They have our admiration. And for the families of those that have fallen, we extend to them our most profound sympathy and condolences.

Both in respect of Iraq and Afghanistan this weekend we remembered those who have died. But it is critical that we understand what links both struggles. Of course, in each case there are very specific national factors at play.

But in the ideology and methods that are fuelling the violence in both countries, there is a common set of characteristics. It is the same ideology, the same methods that have seen thousands die in acts of terrorism across the world.

In Iraq, the pressure from such terrorism has changed the nature of the battle. Its purpose is now plain: to provoke civil war. The violence is not therefore an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists - al-Qaeda with the Sunni insurgents, Iranian backed Shia militia - to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy.

These external elements are, of course, the same elements driving extremism the world over.

This is crucial to our understanding of the right strategy to combat it. The majority of Iraqis don't want this extremism - they showed that when they voted for an explicitly non-sectarian Government. But the terrorists are trying to propel them towards it.

Just as the situation is evolving, so our strategy should evolve to meet it.

Inside Iraq we should empower the Iraqi leadership that wants to take responsibility - that knows that they, not us, must lead and win the fight against terrorism. To do this, effectively, they need our support, politically, in their economy and for their armed forces.

First, we need a strong political compact in Iraq led by the Iraqi Government to bring all parties together, with clear commitments to non-sectarian government and to democracy;

Second, we need to build Iraqi governing capability, especially in the disbursement of money for reconstruction and rebuilding of the economy;

Third, we must plug any gaps in training, equipment and command and control in the Iraqi Army and help the new Interior Minister root out sectarianism in the police, which in turn will allow us, within the timeframe set down by General Casey, to transition to Iraqi control.

However, most crucial is this. Just as it is, in significant part, forces outside Iraq that are trying to create mayhem inside Iraq, so we have to have a strategy that pins them back, not only in Iraq but outside it too.

In other words, a major part of the answer to Iraq lies not in Iraq itself but outside it, in the whole of the region where the same forces are at work, where the roots of this global terrorism are to be found, where the extremism flourishes, with a propaganda that may be, indeed is, totally false; but is, nonetheless, attractive to much of the Arab street.

That is what I call a "whole Middle East" strategy.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding that this is about changing policy on Syria and Iran. First, those two countries do not at all share identical interests. But in any event that is not where we start.

On the contrary, we should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core. We should then make progress on Lebanon. We should unite all moderate Arab and Moslem voices behind a push for peace in those countries but also in Iraq. We should be standing up for, empowering, respecting those with a moderate and modern view of the faith of Islam everywhere.

What is happening in the Middle East today is not complex. It is simple. Iran is being confronted over its nuclear weapons ambitions. Its stock market has lost a third of its value in the last year and foreign credit is increasingly hard to come by. The statements of its President - such as wiping Israel from the face of the earth - are causing alarm, even in Iran.

To be fair, they have a genuine, if entirely misplaced fear, that the US seeks a military solution in Iran. They don't. But we all want Iran to suspend its enrichment process which if allowed to continue, will give them a nuclear weapon. Under the agreement we brokered in June, the US has said they will talk to Iran direct for the first time in 30 years, if they abide by the UN demand to suspend enrichment. But Iran is refusing to do it.

Instead they are using the pressure points in the region to thwart us. So they help the most extreme elements of Hamas in Palestine; Hizbollah in the Lebanon; Shia militia in Iraq. That way, they put obstacles in the path to peace, paint us, as they did over the Israel/Lebanon conflict, as the aggressors, inflame the Arab street and create political turmoil in our democratic politics.

It is a perfectly straightforward and clear strategy. It will only be defeated by an equally clear one: to relieve these pressure points one by one and then, from a position of strength to talk, in a way I described in July in my speech in Los Angeles: offer Iran a clear strategic choice: they help the MEPP [Middle East Peace Process] not hinder it; they stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq; and they abide by, not flout, their international obligations. In that case, a new partnership is possible. Or alternatively they face the consequences of not doing so: isolation.

The basic point I come back to, again and again and which I have made many times here - is that whether in Iraq, or Afghanistan or indeed combating terrorism here, these battles are inextricably bound together. It is a global issue. It needs a global response.

Which brings me to the principal consideration of Britain's foreign policy over the past 10 years.

Global challenges can only be met by global alliances. A nation like Britain has no prospect - none - in the world as it is developing today, of pursuing its national interest except in close concert with others. That is why, no matter how tough the test, and these past years since 9/11 have shown how tough it can be - the alliances Britain has with America and within Europe, must remain the
cornerstones of our policy.

Do not misunderstand me. I support the US willingly. I believe in the EU for reasons of principle. I supported the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq because I believed them right. I have put Britain at the centre of Europe because I am proud that we are part of the largest political union and biggest economic market in the world. For me these alliances have never been a struggle between individual conscience and duty to my country. It is a happy marriage of conviction and realpolitik.

But just for a moment, leave aside the obvious and deep-rooted ties of history with America. Leave aside the fact that only, together, when the US finally entered WWII, were we able to succeed. Leave aside the prospect of Britain facing the Cold War for half a century without the transatlantic alliance, an absurd thought. Leave it all aside and focus on today and the future.

Take any problem Britain wants solving: global terrorism - (assuming you don't believe that but for George Bush it wouldn't exist); climate change; Israel/Palestine; Iran and North Korea's nuclear programme; world trade; Africa in general, right now Sudan in particular; global poverty.

We may agree or disagree with the US position on some or all of these issues. But none of these vital British concerns can be addressed, let alone solved, without America. Without America, Kosovo could not have been attempted. Without Kosovo, Milosevic might still be running Serbia; and the Balkans rather than stabilising with a potential future in Europe, would have remained the destabilising force it was for most of the 20th Century. We need America. That is a fact.

All that, in a sense, is obvious. But - runs the more sophisticated argument -: America we like, this American President we don't. This is a comforting argument. It separates anti-America from anti-Bush. However it is also a cop-out.

Let us not kid ourselves. 9/11 would have changed any American President's foreign policy. 3000 innocent people dead in the streets of New York; the al-Qaeda operatives who did it, trained out of Afghanistan. Following 9/11, American policy was going to shift. It was going to get out after the terrorists with all America's might and any President who didn't do it, wasn't going to be President for long.

When I said, after 9/11 that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with America, I said it because I believed it. But I also thought it was profoundly in Britain's interests. I knew this attack wasn't aimed at America per se; but at America as the leading representative of our values.

Look round the world today; look even just within Europe. Britain is not the only country that faces a terrorist threat. We all do, allies and non-allies, anyone in fact that isn't "them". I thought then and I think now that defeating this threat - whose roots are deep and have been a long time growing - was going to take a generation; and I knew then and know now that defeating it, was never going to be done without an America prepared to lead as America, to its credit, has.

And the truth is, for Britain, it is always right for us to keep our partnership with America strong.

Post 9/11, there were no half-hearted allies of America. There were allies and others. We were allies then and that's how we should stay; and the test of any alliance, I'm afraid, is not when it's easy but when it's tough.

Most bizarrely, there is a significant section of British opinion today that wants us both distant from America and from the EU. Some Prime Ministers, when they actually have to deal with what can be a maddening process in Europe, become disillusioned with the whole thing. Not me.

I can't see a single good reason for Britain not being at the centre of Europe and every good reason why it should be. Europe gives us weight and strength. In fact, in my view, Europe should be far more confident about its potential. Provided it eschews grand institutional visions and concentrates on grand practical visions - for prosperity, in energy, fighting crime, in developing defence capability - it has a huge, even exciting future. Enlargement has been remarkable. And on all these issues Britain has been in a clear leadership position. We should rejoice in it.

These alliances will become more not less crucial. We all welcome the benign economic and political development of China. But its force is one to be reckoned with. All of us too can see how Russia has emerged under President Putin as a stronger, more confident nation. But it also knows it is a major power and we rely on its energy resources. India is making extraordinary strides in every way. But it, like China, will be a nation more than twice the size, in
population, of the whole of Europe.

Let me put this delicately but firmly. The world is changing. New powers are emerging. In the decades to come there will be many international negotiations, debates, occasionally, if only in a diplomatic sense, confrontations.

Britain in this early 21st Century world is a country with extraordinary strengths. It is well and justifiably respected. But it is also a country of 60 million people whose geography could fit neatly into a corner of Alaska. We will need collective strength in the years ahead. That strength is infinitely easier to generate, and more to our liking, if based on alliances with nations that share our values.

For that reason, our partnership with America and our membership of the EU are precisely suited to Britain. For that reason, it would be insane, - yes I would put it as strongly as that - for us to give up either relationship. For that reason anti-Americanism or Euroscepticism are not merely foolish they are the surest route to the destruction of our true national interest.

Both alliances are founded in history. Both are, however, now, at this point, utterly validated by the future. These are no misty-eyed products of sentiment, relics of a bygone age to be taken out and cradled fondly. They are the vital life source of British power, influence and weight in the new global community taking shape around us. To nurture and enhance them is not vain glory. It is the most hard-headed realism. Lose them - and alliances are like all living
things, neglect them and they die - and we will spend a long time struggling to revive what's gone.

When people say: yes, but we want a "British" foreign policy, I say: of course we do, but in today's world a foreign policy based on strong alliances, is the only "British" policy which works.

Iraqi Oil For Asia

Iraqi oil minister Hussein Al-Shahristani has called on Asian companies to help develop the Iraqi oil industry.

Iraqi Association says that immediate withdrawal will lead to a humanitarian nightmare

Text of press release

Most Iraqis expect the Baker Commissions report to provide intellectual cover for retreat and may produce more peace in America than in Iraq. Equally, the regionalisation solution will undoubtedly diminish democratic hope of Iraqi people.

“After all Britain made a commitment to the people of Iraq to turn tyranny to
democracy.” Said Jabbar Hasan, director of Iraqi Association in London.
Regionalisation of Iraq will allow bordering countries to protect their interests in Iraq directly. We are sceptical that those countries will want to be helpful. “Instead of regionalisation, we need to jump-start political accord and genuine militia disarmament.” Said Hasan.

“It doesn’t matter how "realistic" the political proposals drawn up by Baker
Commission may be, unless the majority of Iraqi people can be protected from
foreign terrorists, militias and death squads, they will not be able to negotiate and sustain any political solution.” Said Hasan

There is no getting around of the fact that under present conditions, cut and run
policy or regionalisation solution, will bring about the rapid collapse of Iraq, and the violence we are seeing today would seem minor compared to the bloodshed of a genuine civil war.

War jaw

Denis MacShane, MP for Rotherham and a former minister for Europe, writes a review of two new books on Iraq in Progress and concludes that the new book by Patrick Cockburn is the most excoriating exposé of the almost unbelievable catalogue of errors the Americans made in the running of Iraq after the fall of Saddam but all the more powerful because he acknowledges that the fall of Saddam was a liberation for the Iraqis.

Not the time to cut and run

Labour Minister Meg Munn reports in Progress on seeing Barham Salih, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq speak in the Commons and says that Whilst listening to him describe governing the country, it became clearer to me just how much Iraq is a country in transition, and that it continues to need our help and support. It was a dictatorship for 35 years, during which its political and social fabric was degraded completely. The current journey of transition cannot be anything but demanding and painful.

Brain drain

This IWPR report says that every day, Iraqi families are packing their bags and emigrating to escape the violence tearing their county apart. The UN refugee agency, UNHCR, estimates that 1.8 million people have fled to neighbouring countries and 1.6 million have been internally displaced since the fall of Saddam. In 2006 alone, 425,000 Iraqis sought refuge abroad.

Hitchens indicts Rumsfeld

Christopher Hitchens in todays Mirror examines Donald Rumsfelds legacy as Defence Secretary. He says: One does not get a second chance to make a good first impression, and it now looks as if almost everything that went wrong in Iraq went wrong right from the start. Surveying the hell that is todays Baghdad, who can avoid wincing at his offhand remark that “stuff happens?” The situation would be just as bad if he had not said that, but his breezy refusal to face facts had come to symbolize an Administration that did not learn from its mistakes.

Northern Irelands help enlisted to end sectarian violence

The Guardian reports a visit to Northern Ireland by a delegation of government officials including the Iraqi national security adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, who drew parallels between Iraqs and Northern Irelands sectarian and political disputes. He said: Although our conflict is on a different scale there are many similarities, particularly where there is a religious background laid on top of a political background.

Mr al-Rubaie said violence in Iraq might last years but insisted it was unsustainable and would fall in the coming months amid new security measures. "Eighty per cent of the country is secure ... Millions of people go to work every day. Nine out of 10 ministries in Baghdad are not even in the international green security zone.

"It's in the interest of everyone that Iraq prevails over terrorism. Otherwise it's going to be a disaster worse than Chernobyl, a disaster of world war two magnitude ... I know the war is unpopular ... But it's worth spending blood and treasure."

LFIQ at Oxford University Labour Club

LFIQ Director Gary Kent tonight addressed a meeting of the Oxford University Labour Club. Speaking in front of the Clubs historic banner with the slogan Forward to Socialism he appealed to the audience and the wider labour movement to carry out its elementary duty of solidarity with the Iraqi trade unions.

He argued that too many feel that the struggle for democracy in Iraq has been defeated whilst it is still to be fought for. He praised the work of the TUC and unions such as Unison but suggested that too many were sitting on their hands and that what he called our side, our brothers and sisters have asked for our support and deserve it.

He said that Saddam should not be hung as he could become a martyr and should face charges over genocide against the Iraqi Kurds.

LFIQ is very keen to increase activity in the student movement over Iraq.

Lest we forget

Saddams mass graves
Hat Tip Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions

Why Saddam should be saved from the hangman

Christopher Hitchens says that Saddam should be saved from the noose and concludes: If he is dropped through the trapdoor, we will never get to hear Saddam Husseins response to two very important historic events—the Anfal campaign to exterminate the Kurds in the 1980s and the sanguinary way in which he restored himself to power after the Kuwait war. And there will always be the suspicion that he might have pointed the finger at Western complicity in both of these terrible episodes. He should have been indicted by an international tribunal well before 2003, and the refusal of the American and British governments to act on this suggestion—made most notably by the British MP Ann Clwyd and her organization, Indict—will always be a standing reproach to our statecraft. I have always found the term "victor's justice" an absurd one—the courts are invariably set up by the powers that be, and how would "loser's justice" have looked in Nuremberg or at The Hague? But it is for the losers, or in other words the victims, that justice should be sought in the first place. It is a shame that the Kurds were not part of the centerpiece of this trial, just as it is impressive that their leaders are the ones most in favor of magnanimity. And these, by the way, are the people that every liberal in the world is currently arguing that we should desert.

Iraqi Disgust

The Mesopotamian is deeply offended by this analysis of what the author calls the fortress of stability in the shape of Saddams Iraq.

Bye bye, butcher

Jim Nolan says good riddance to one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants of the modern era. He quotes novelist Ian McEwan who observed that there were, in relation to Iraq, two kinds of people: those who recognised the words Abu Ghraib before 2004 and those who only did so afterwards.

Jim concludes that: Of course, the pious hand-wringing among significant parts of the Western Left about the war curiously and conveniently passes over the fact that their ideological brethren in Iraq - represented principally, but not exclusively, by the Kurds - were the subject of this most ruthless repression. In July 2003, the Iraqi Communist Party renewed its call for the UN Human Rights Commission and international human rights organisations to support efforts aimed at revealing the fate of tens of thousands of disappeared Iraqis who were victims of Saddam's anti-leftist repression.

As if deaf to this history, only minutes after the announcement of Saddam's death sentence there were tendentious blogs that called for the trial and sentencing of those other "war criminals" George W. Bush and Tony Blair, confirming yet again, if confirmation were needed, that new depths of moral obtuseness not seen since the Hitler-Stalin pact are resurgent.

The critics of the removal of Saddam should recall George Orwell's message to his contemporaries in another, not unrelated, context: "The truth, it is felt, becomes untruth when your enemy utters it ... There was even a tendency to feel that the Nanking atrocities had become, as it were, retrospectively untrue because the British government now drew attention to them." Reminding his appeasement-minded comrades of the atrocities in pre-war Europe, Orwell said: "These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one's eye on. They happened even though Lord Halifax said they happened."

And so it was for Saddam, for whom the words genocidal butcher and tyrant have real meaning. It's just a shame that so many so-called progressives discreetly and eagerly look the other way.

Iraqi Community Reaction To Saddam Sentence

There was jubilation amongst the Iraqi community in London once the death
sentence had been passed on the former dictator. Jabbar Hasan
of the Iraqi Association noted that it was the first time ever in the history of the
Middle East that a dictator had been judged directly by his own people. The
Times says that the region does not need another martyr.

Ann Clwyd welcomes Saddam verdict

Labour MP Ann Clwyd says she welcomes the guilty verdict in the trial of Saddam Hussein, although she is against the death penalty herself. The LFIQ Joint President added "The hundreds of thousands who have died, (been) tortured, disappeared and their families who will today be very pleased ..the vast majority of the people of Iraq will be very pleased that a verdict has been reached."

Lifting Of Cordon Has Wider Implications For Iraqi Sovereignty

The democratically elected government of Iraq has asserted its power over the American forces presently attempting to restore peace to the nation. In a move that is not normally consistent with the actions of an occupying army, the US forces were commanded by Prime Minister Maliki to terminate their attempts to besiege a part of Baghdad. An increase in the number of
Iraqi security forces has also been widely reported.

UN Announces Five Year Plan

The United Nations has announced that a major meeting will take place within six weeks with the intention of pursuing the political, economic and social development of Iraq over the next five years.

From Nelson Mandela Vigils to Iraqi Ambassador

How a London School of Economics student who frequently attended the vigils outside South Africa House in Trafalgar Square became Iraqi Ambassador in Canada. He also kindly praises LFIQ: Ziad also spoke highly of the British organization Labour Friends of Iraq, which builds international support for Iraqi trade unions. "What we need is that kind of support, frankly, because the terrorists are actually targeting trade unionists."

But support like that is difficult to muster in an age when peace rallies have taken the place of effective and meaningful internationalist solidarity, and a reflexive anti-Americanism has mutated into a surrogate for analysis. Where does that all end up?

"Well, you look at issues purely through that prism, and it leads to supporting fascist theological movements and people who never think about the rights of women, or civil liberties, or trade unions," Ziad said.