Harry, John and Duncan

Harry Barnes writes a letter to John McDonnell MP on solidarity with Iraqi unions and ends up discussing things with Duncan. It’s an informative chat.

The debate on the new Nick Cohen book

Nick Cohen, here and here has been criticised for tarring all anti-war activists and supporters with the tarnished brush of irrelevant and ultra-leftist minority groups. And his provocative polemic is indeed stirring debate, which is a good thing.

It is fair to point out that most people who marched against the impending war in February 2003 were not members or supporters but such groups have disproportionate power in the movement and their influence stretches further.

Such groups can set the agenda and Nick's strongest critique is the failure of the anti-war movement to embrace solidarity with Iraqi democrats, women's groups and trade unionists in favour of sloganising about Bush and Blair.

The purpose of LFIQ was to bring together those who had differed on the war – there were perfectly legitimate arguments on the left to support or oppose it – and to unite them in favour of solidarity with Iraqi democrats, struggling in the most desperate conditions.

In normal circumstances one would have expected the British Left to acknowledge that a new situation had been created by the fall of Saddam and to have thrown its weight behind criticism of the way the US authorities failed to secure the country and the disastrous mistakes made in excessive de-Ba'athification and the abrupt disbandment of the army, for example, as well as human rights abuses.

One would also have expected the labour movement to fully support the new trade union movement and have been open to working with Iraqi democrats who have fought for and won support in three massive popular votes since 2003.

The TUC and unions like Unison, the FBU and RMT have done much to be proud of. We are very pleased that the recommendations of our own delegation to Iraq in 2005 form the basis of TUC solidarity work.

But the sad truth is that Iraq solidarity work has none of the reach and energy that the anti-war movement had. Indeed, that important and leading sections of that movement have not just sat on their hands but actively refuse to help our Iraqi comrades because they see things through a basically Anti-American prism. Worse still, sections of the anti-war left actively support the insurgents who target Iraqi democrats, trade unionists and communists. They have sold the pass.

We still lack a vibrant solidarity network. LFIQ has done its bit, with limited resources, to activate such work. Please forgive us if you aren't getting enough feedback from us but we are running this operation on a shoe string with a part-time staff so bear with us.

We will continue to do all that we can to build support for the Iraqi labour movement and invite people to support our work.

In a five hour meeting we had with the Iraqi trade union leadership in Iraq, the emphasis was not on Troops Out Now (though, of course, the Iraqi left wants to create the conditions for their withdrawal and the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty) but on practical measures to help them to help themselves. Please participate in such activities.

Iraq is clearly in a mess just now. Savage forces are seeking to destroy its democracy at birth. Some want to restore Sunni minority rule. Others abhor democracy in principle and are stoking up a sectarian showdown between Sunni and Shia communities. The ordinary Iraqi man and woman, especially in Baghdad, is stuck in the middle. The members and leaders of the new trade union movement face death every day in seeking an Iraq based on social justice. They want and deserve your support.

Gary Kent

Syria and Iraq

Commons written answer 26 Jan 2007

Mr. Grogan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of the progress that the Syrian government has made over the last 12 months in sealing the border with Iraq.

Dr. Howells: Syria has sought to improve security on the border with Iraq in recent months. The Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Mu’allem, visited Iraq on19 November 2006 for talks, including on security, and the two countries reopened embassies in December 2006. A high level Iraqi delegation visited Syria from 15-18 December 2006, which resulted in Ministers signing a number of Memoranda of Understanding. The decision was also taken during these meetings to establish joint committees on detainees, borders and terrorism/intelligence co-operation. President Talabani of Iraq paid a State Visit to Syria from 14-20 January, during which he is understood to have held extensive discussions, including on security. As I said in the House on 16 January: “there have been some very welcome moves recently. The Syrians are setting up an embassy in Baghdad, and the Iraqis have a reciprocal arrangement in Damascus. It is very good news that the two countries are establishing stronger diplomatic links: that must be seen as a positive development”.

We continue to call on the Syrians to do more to control facilitation networks in Syria.

Worth fighting for

John Lloyd wrote this inspiring article last year in the FT about a Downing Street launch of the TUC book on the life of Hadi Saleh, the slain Iraqi trade union leader, and it’s worth re-reading. (Gary Kent)

John draws these two key lessons.

First, Saleh’s life and death shows what the stakes are, and remain, in Iraq. Those who hated him, and who hate trade unions, do so because their vision of society is of one ruled by either a party or a faith or both that prohibit, on pain of death, any challenge to a totalitarian reality. The "insurgents" who are launching attacks on the US and British forces include groups and individuals who see any effort to build the institutions of civil society as an intolerable provocation. Their attacks on trade unionists continue: of some 10 trade union leaders I met on a trip to Iraqi Kurdistan two years ago, one has been killed and two injured; another was the victim of an attempted kidnapping.

Second, trade unions struggle for rights. Rights are won by dialogue and sometimes industrial action between employers, workers organisations and, sometimes, the state. They are in many ways the most obvious fruit of a free society, and the strike is the most graphic demonstration of freedom. Unions, insofar as they remain organisations for bettering the wages and conditions of groups of workers and are organised or at least controlled by the collective decisions of these workers, represent a necessary balancing force to the powers of corporations, and of the state itself. That this is so has been tested to literal destruction not just in Iraq, but in every tyranny: yet when they do succeed in organising within such tyrannies, they can break it: it was, after all, Solidarity that was perhaps the major initiator of liberation movements that spread from Poland across the communist world in the 1980s.

Nov 03, 2006

It was a small ceremony, in a Downing Street public room. It took perhaps half an hour of the prime ministers day, much of it pressing the flesh of the guests milling about with wine glasses. Then he gave a short speech. He was flanked by Brendan Barber, who is the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress: at one point, Tony Blair turned to Barber, gave a "joke coming up" little grin, and said, "relations between government and trades unions can be difficult, as Brendan and I know... " The guests obliged with a little laughter: Barber made an obligingly rueful moue.

In fact, Blair had been talking about a murder - hideous, agonised, prolonged by torture. He was speaking of Hadi Saleh, the Iraqi trade unionist who was murdered in January last year by men who broke into his house in Baghdad, tortured him, then killed him by strangulation, shooting and burning. Indeed, those who conducted these rituals - ex-Baathist secret police were suspected, but never caught - had many reasons to kill him. The ceremony was to mark the launch of a TUC-published book, Hadi Never Died.

Hadi Saleh had, since his teens, sought to establish independent trade unions in Iraq. The Baath coup of 1968, which brought Saddam Hussein to power, crushed unions not organised by the Baath party: Saleh was condemned to death in 1969 for daring to dissent. A member of the Iraqi Communist Party, which had had to undergo more dizzying changes of line than most such Moscow-tied parties, he was reprieved after five years on death row during a rapprochement between the Soviet Union and Hussein, and found refuge in South Yemen, Syria and Sweden. Abroad, he founded the Workers Democratic Trade Union Movement, which helped keep an underground syndicalism barely alive. Returning to Baghdad after the invasion (which he opposed) he co-founded the Iraqi Federation of Workers Trade Unions, and became its international secretary, travelling as much of the world as he could, wearing a battered suit and an unwavering smile.

This was the man whom Blair honoured last week. The next day, answering a question in the Commons from the Labour MP for Blaydon, David Anderson, who is a former mineworkers official, Blair called for an end to curbs the present Iraqi government has put on the unions (it controls their finances). And he added a plug for the TUCs book, written by Saleh’s successor as international secretary of the Iraqi unions, Abdullah Muhsin, and Alan Johnson. The book, said Blair, "makes quite clear the appalling brutality to which people - especially trade unionists and others - were subjected under Hussein and shows how, despite the difficulties, that is changing in Iraq today".

Small matters, both the Downing Street reception and the PM questions. Easily dismissable as a beleaguered prime minister seeking a little solace and support in any quarter, proclaiming success or at least not outright failure in obscure parts of Iraqi society, when it is clear that we are witnessing disaster... and so on.

Three things should be said. First, Saleh’s life and death shows what the stakes are, and remain, in Iraq. Those who hated him, and who hate trade unions, do so because their vision of society is of one ruled by either a party or a faith or both that prohibit, on pain of death, any challenge to a totalitarian reality. The "insurgents" who are launching attacks on the US and British forces include groups and individuals who see any effort to build the institutions of civil society as an intolerable provocation. Their attacks on trade unionists continue: of some 10 trade union leaders I met on a trip to Iraqi Kurdistan two years ago, one has been killed and two injured; another was the victim of an attempted kidnapping.

Second, trade unions struggle for rights. Rights are won by dialogue and sometimes industrial action between employers, workers organisations and, sometimes, the state. They are in many ways the most obvious fruit of a free society, and the strike is the most graphic demonstration of freedom. Unions, insofar as they remain organisations for bettering the wages and conditions of groups of workers and are organised or at least controlled by the collective decisions of these workers, represent a necessary balancing force to the powers of corporations, and of the state itself. That this is so has been tested to literal destruction not just in Iraq, but in every tyranny: yet when they do succeed in organising within such tyrannies, they can break it: it was, after all, Solidarity that was perhaps the major initiator of liberation movements that spread from Poland across the communist world in the 1980s.

Third, Blair is indeed beleaguered. It is true that there are real advances in Iraq in civil freedoms, but the chaos, mainly in the capital, offsets these and makes government and development hard. Also, the prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, is under pressure to deliver more, faster, in the way of security, by UK and US leaders anxious to set a date for withdrawing their forces.

But the little scene in Downing Street was larger evidence of a prime minister who knew, as few leaders now do, what the stakes are; the more so since he is tied to one. Through the doughty Labour MP Ann Clwyd, his representative on human rights in Iraq, he remains in touch with a range of groups, as well as unions. He is seeing the gamble he took in seeking the destruction of the regime take a murderous direction. He will be pilloried for it until the day he leaves office, and beyond. Yet he must hope - and so should we, if we value the ideas to which we subscribe - that it will be recognised how much honour he did his country by ensuring the end of a monster. And this least labour-ish of Labour prime ministers did most to give sense to the life and death of Hadi Saleh, trade unionist.

In Memory

Harry Barnes, who voted against the invasion of Iraq on every occasion in the Commons, draws our attention to a blog from a now dead young American officer, Mark Daily.

I opposed the American led invasion of Iraq and have been highly critical of its many excesses. These include the abuse of prisoners, a tendency to zap first and to think later, its ill thought overall tactics which show it to be attuned to fighting the wrong type of war, its rip off commercial interests and its anti-trade union bias. But there is another side of this coin.

Nowhere is this better expressed that on the blog of a young USA officer serving in Iraq. It was posted on the blog last October and I have just picked it up from "Harry's Place".

Mark Daily was 23 and was killed last week. He was dedicated to trying to stop the type of horror which took place around Baghdad today.

Sinbad and Modern Terrorism

Harry Barnes
makes some very thoughtful points about efforts to counter terrorism and draws on his experience of Northern Ireland as an MP over 18 years.

Operation Sinbad has been functioning in Basra since 27 September, 2006. It aims to root out corrupt elements in the police, whilst providing assistance to rebuild and repair essentials such as schools, hospitals, water systems and electricity supplies. It is led by the Iraqi Security Service supported by British, Danish and other Multi-National Forces; with the rebuilding aspects of the project being carried out by Iraqi engineers.

In the Commons debate on Wednesday, Margaret Beckett drew from a Basra opinion survey taken last month which showed that 92% feel that their neighbourhoods are now more secure, 50% feel that the police service is now effective in protecting their neighbourhoods (up from 32%) and 75% believe that it will further improve this year. 67% believe that the police are capable and professional.

The indications are that Kurds in the north who operate under a great deal of autonomy, overwhelmingly trust and support their democratic institutions and their security system. Many of the Shia in the south are favourable towards the new political set up as it gives them a newly found collective influence and they hope to see trustworthy security and other provisions develop. This is a countervailing force to Iranian influences.

The overwhelming problems remain in Baghdad and its surrounding areas, where terrorism has driven people for protection into separate communities of Sunni and Shia. If Iraq is not to fracture, the removal of terrorism by military and political means in this area is an essential in facilitating the re-integration of communities. The lesson from Northern Ireland might be the Belfast Agreement, but we only reached that stage by containing the paramilitary threats of the likes of the Provisional IRA and Unionist Paramilitary equivalents.

The main question in Iraq is how can we assist the Iraqi Government to overcome the terrorist activities in the Baghdad area and what forces are available for this task, American or otherwise. The problem won't go away - even if we do.

Iraqi Refugees

Commons Written Answer, 26th January

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is being given by his Department to the refugees from Iraq who have crossed Iraqi borders into neighbouring countries.

Hilary Benn: We are very concerned at the increasing numbers of people fleeing the sectarian violence in Iraq. The United Nations estimate that the total number of Iraqi refugees living in neighbouring countries has risen to 1.8 million, with 492,000 displaced since the Samarra bombing in February 2006.

I have just announced a £4 million contribution to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to provide emergency assistance, including water, medical supplies and rehabilitation of health infrastructure to vulnerable people, including IDPs inside Iraq. We are also considering UNHCR’s appeal, which includes help to refugees in neighbouring countries. This brings our total humanitarian contribution for Iraq to over £120 million since 2003, including £85 million for the UN’s 2003 Humanitarian Appeal and £36 million to the International Red Cross. Additionally, DFID provided £70 million to the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq (IRFFI), which provides support to internally displaced persons.

Powerful testimony from Ann Clwyd in Commons debate on Iraq

24th January

As chair of the Campaign Against Repression of Democratic Rights in Iraq and chair of Indict, I have, of course, received thousands of letters about Iraq over the years. Recently, a number of Iraqi medical doctors wrote to me. One suggested that I should resign as the special envoy on human rights. Several letters from other doctors followed. I want to read just one of them because it sums up for me what the war was all about. It is from Dr. Leonard Jacob. He wrote:

“Dear Dr. X,

I had the misfortune of reading the terrible letter that you sent to Ann Clwyd. Let me begin by saying that whilst I do not by any means condone the terrible present situation in Iraq, and whilst I criticise the governments of the USA and the UK for allowing the situation to get out of hand, and for not having an exit strategy, I still believe that it is possible to bring this chaotic situation under control after crushing the remnants of the defeated Saddam’s party and his henchmen, albeit at a greater cost to all parties concerned.

Like you, I am also a Christian doctor from Iraq who has been working in this country for the last 26 years.

Unlike you, however, I and my family, have not only watched but also sensed and experienced bitterly and in person, the physical and the psychological torture and the terror that we were subjected to, at the hands of Saddam’s thugs and secret service criminals.

I am not here trying to compare your family’s situation with mine, but if your family was perhaps fortunate enough for 35 years, to enjoy the privileges of Saddam’s tyrannical and brutal reign, my family and relatives, had to escape the intimidation and the imminent danger to their lives...They fled the country in 1991 leaving behind very good jobs and homes and their livelihoods.

In doing that, we lost a member of the family. We were the lucky ones; many lost more than one member and some could not make it at all and were killed under torture or disappeared completely.

You say that all this time, you have been active in human rights...But I and many other political prisoners and detainees...have not even heard of you...Other human rights personnel, in this country and abroad, were very active in condemning the brutality of the criminal Saddam and his regime, in various publications and in mass gatherings and meetings, but we never saw you in any of those meetings nor did we hear any condemnation like that from you. So where were you all that time?

Where were you...when Saddam and his regime were arresting, torturing and killing thousands of Communists and Shia in the late 70s, 80s and 90s? Or did not that matter to you?

Where were you when he, his sons and his thugs were inventing new methods of torture, like dangling the bodies of their victims in acid baths, starting from the perineum, and pulling them in and out, so that they would die a slow and painful death; or pumping the rectum with petrol and then shooting them, so that they would burst into a ball of fire?

As a doctor, working in a human rights organisation and claiming to be one of the founders of the medical group” within that organisation “wasn't that something that stirred at least some repulsion in you to prompt you to campaign for the human rights of those people?

And what about some of Uday’s crimes? Have you written or spoken about them? Have you ever denounced him publicly, when he and his thugs, used to behead young decent women from respectable families, who would refuse to surrender to his lust, after raping them, and then throw their severed heads in front of the doors of their parents’ homes, with a message ‘whore’ displayed on their heads?

Where were you, when Saddam first used chemical weapons in 1983, during the war with Iran, and then again in 1987 and in 1988, in Halabja, or haven’t you heard of it? And where was your human rights campaign when Ali Kimyawi supervised the throwing of whole families from helicopters in Kurdistan and the throwing of shackled Shia victims, from the roofs of tall buildings in the south of the country? Wasn’t the condemning of that savagery an essential part of your human rights job?

I have not heard, or seen you, condemning Saddam’s regime, when his torturers...rape the wives, mothers and sisters, of the detained members of the Communist party, the Shia political parties and Shia religious leaders, in front of their eyes, in order to obtain forced and false confessions from them!

Didn't that incite some anger in you similar to the one that you expressed in your letter to Ann Clwyd?!

The mass graves are yet another example of the recent additions to that reign of terror. Did you do, or write, anything about that?

You say that you are a Christian doctor, where were you when Dr Habib Almalih, a Christian doctor from Ainkawa and many others were virtually cut into pieces and put in black sacks and thrown at the doorstep of their parents’ houses, forbidding them even to hold any funeral service for them?

And again, being a Christian doctor, where were you, when Saddam gave the order to wipe out and flatten to the ground, 65 Christian villages of the Assyrian community in Kurdistan and hanged four young leaders of the Assyrian democratic movement and left them, hung and strapped on the electricity poles for days, for everybody to see?

It will take several books, to write about the crimes against humanity, the vicious torture and violations of human rights, the mass murders and extra-judicial killing and the genocide that have been committed by that fascist and repressive regime, which I haven’t seen you denouncing!

Finally, in stark contrast to your shameful silence in condemning these atrocities of the criminal Saddam and his regime, in the UK and internationally, Ann Clwyd, and for the last two decades, has been one of the torch-bearers”— I include in that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)—

“in the fight against the violations of human rights by that repressive regime.
I have therefore inevitably arrived at a conclusion that it should be you that must reconsider your position in the human rights organisation and not Ann Clwyd.”

The letter is signed Leonard H. Jacob, physician from Sheffield.

Opening Speech by Margaret Beckett MP in Commons debate

On Iraq, Margaret Beckett said: Our fundamental objective in Iraq has been and remains the same – to develop the capacity of the democratically-elected government of Iraq; and in particular to increase its ability to provide security and basic services to the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi government of national unity has only been in place for eight months – something I think we often overlook. Governing by coalition is never an easy job. Doing so in a country which has been riven by decades of terror and oppression and in which there is no tradition of government by consensus is harder still. What is being tried in Iraq today – genuine power-sharing among the different major communities – has never even been tried before.

Full Text

Iraq and the Middle East

24 January 2007

The Middle East is a region that engages every aspect of that foreign policy: not just our security with regard to conflict, proliferation and terrorism, but also the security of our economy, of our energy supplies as well as of our climate. And it is a region critical to our deeper goal of building a safe, just and prosperous world for all.

This afternoon, I will concentrate on four areas: first, of course, Iraq itself; then Iran and Syria; third the Middle East Peace Process; and finally some comments on the wider political and economic reform needed in the region.

For the purposes of this debate I will address each in turn. But for the purposes of analysis and policy-making they are, of course, intimately linked. What happens in Iraq has direct consequences for political developments across the region. Iran and Syria present very distinct challenges for the international community but both have the ability to play a pivotal role – for good or ill – in Iraq, in the Middle East Peace Process and in the region as a whole. And the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians, as has long been recognised, is a festering sore at the core of the region’s politics.

So we need – and we have – a strategy for the Middle East which recognises both the scale of the challenges and the links between them.

Iraq

First, then, Iraq.

Our fundamental objective in Iraq has been and remains the same – to develop the capacity of the democratically-elected government of Iraq; and in particular to increase its ability to provide security and basic services to the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi government of national unity has only been in place for eight months – something I think we often overlook. Governing by coalition is never an easy job. Doing so in a country which has been riven by decades of terror and oppression and in which there is no tradition of government by consensus is harder still. What is being tried in Iraq today – genuine power-sharing among the different major communities – has never even been tried before.

Prime Minister Maliki has made a clear public commitment to bringing about national reconciliation.

As I said to Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi last week – and I think a number of members met him on his visit –, we strongly support this and we recognise how important it is to the future of Iraq. We have, this month, urged Prime Minister Maliki to redouble his efforts with all communities to demonstrate that his government is pursuing a national and non-sectarian agenda. And we are providing help and support including through sharing our experience from Northern Ireland.

The greatest challenge that the relatively new Iraqi government faces is ongoing violence.

Eighty to ninety per cent of that violence takes place within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad – in contrast, the four southern provinces account for around four per cent. So progress in Baghdad is of immense strategic and symbolic importance to the whole of Iraq.

On 6th January Prime Minister Maliki signalled his firm intention to get to grips with sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar. His actual words were: “We will not allow anyone to be an alternative to the state, whether the militias or anybody else, regardless of their affiliations…We will confront them firmly”.

On 10th January, President Bush said that the US would help the Iraqis to deliver greater and more lasting security to the capital. It is the joint judgement of the Iraqi and the American governments that the Baghdad Security Plan – including the announced increase in troop numbers but, equally importantly, increased resources for reconstruction – is the best way to achieve that goal.

I know that this House has shown great interest in the implications of the new Baghdad Security Plan for our own involvement in southern Iraq. The Defence Secretary and I discussed this at some length and in some detail on 11 January at a joint session of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committees. I do not intend to repeat everything that was said on that occasion.

But one point does bear repetition. We have always said that our approach in Iraq, and the level of our commitments there, must be governed by conditions on the ground. We have not set arbitrary timelines. And, like our coalition and Iraqi partners, we have tailored our approach to tackle most effectively the challenges in our area of operation.

As we have explained repeatedly, the challenges in southern Iraq differ significantly from those in Baghdad and its neighbouring provinces, which have heavily mixed populations and have suffered – and tragically are suffering – from intense sectarian violence. In the overwhelmingly Shia south of Iraq, the challenge is to improve the quality of governance and the capacity of the Iraqi security forces; and to reduce crime and the role of the militias.

Our troops and our diplomats operate in a dangerous and difficult environment. The House has been consistent in its praise for their professionalism and for their courage. I pay tribute to them again.

Their combined military and civilian efforts have led to positive change in Basra over recent months.

The murder rate is down. The number of kidnappings has fallen. Significantly more police stations in Basra province have reached the standard required for transition to Iraqi control.

And we have made important progress in unlocking investment in the region’s future from the Iraqi authorities themselves. Our Provincial Reconstruction Team has helped the Basra Provincial Council gain approval for over 300 new projects funded by the Iraqi government.

President Bush reaffirmed in his 10 January statement that he expected that lead responsibility for security in all 18 provinces of Iraq would be handed back to the Iraqi authorities by November. We support that aim.

As the House knows, decisions on the transfer of individual provinces are made jointly, with the Iraqi Prime Minister having the final say.

The process of transition is already well underway. Two provinces in our area of responsibility, Dhi Qar and Muthanna, have already been transferred to Iraqi control. A third province, Najaf, in the US sector, was transferred last month.

In the light of the progress I have already described, we remain confident that at some point this Spring, we will be able to recommend that Basra province too is ready for this process of transition.

The Prime Minister told the House on 10 January that, as Operation SINBAD draws to a close, an assessment of progress in Basra would be made, following which, he will make a statement.

The transfer of authority is an important step. It marks a new stage in the development of a stable, independent and democratic Iraq. It does not, of course, mark the end of the international community’s support for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people.

Iran and Syria

The role of some of Iraq’s neighbours is deeply worrying.

Iran continues to supply weapons, training and funding to extremists operating in the south of Iraq and to Hizbollah in Lebanon.

The Iranians should be in no doubt that – in the long-term – they have as much to lose as anyone else, if not more, from encouraging instability in Iraq.

Here, as elsewhere, the Iranian regime has a very clear strategic choice to make. On the one hand it can provide its young and very talented population with all the benefits they would get from a new partnership with the rest of the international community. To do that they must meet the requirements of the IAEA Board backed by UN Security Council over their nuclear programme; play a constructive role in Iraq, in the Middle East Peace Process and across the region; and end their support for terrorism.

The alternative option is for the Iranian regime to lead its country and its people into increasing political, economic and cultural isolation.

Iran has consistently tried to portray itself as the victim of a vindictive led solely by the US and UK. They hoped to exploit perceived differences between members of the Security Council. But they have badly and repeatedly misjudged the situation. At the end of last year the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1737. It is plain even to the government of Iran that the entire international community calls on Iran to meet its obligations.

Iran must also meet its international obligations and standards in the way it treats its own people. After China, Iran executes more people than any other country in the world. Recently ten Ahwazi men were sentenced to death for alleged terrorist activities. But we understand that the men did not have adequate access to lawyers and the trial was held behind closed doors. We urge the government to allow these men a fair and public hearing.

As for Syria we continue to be concerned about the nature of its involvement in Iraq, Lebanon and over Palestine.

On the positive side, since Sir Nigel Sheinwald visited Damascus last October there has been some strengthening of relations between Syria and Iraq. The Syrian Foreign Minister has visited Baghdad and Syria has re-established full diplomatic ties with Iraq. The Iraqi interior minister has been to Damascus to talk to the Syrians about disrupting what the Iraqis perceive to be a flow of fighters and weapons across the Syrian/Iraqi border. President Talabani spoke about the same issues when he visited Syria last week.

On the other hand, I fear we are still looking for evidence that Syria is ready to play a constructive role in promoting stability in Lebanon, or in supporting President Abbas’s efforts on behalf of the Palestinians.

But Syria, like Iran, faces a similar strategic choice to Iran: either to act responsibly or to continue to support terrorism and hold back progress in the region.

We will continue to engage diplomatically with both countries.

Middle East Peace Process

As the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated, progress on the Middle East Peace Process must remain our highest priority.

The UK and the international community continue to support the Palestinian people, including through the Temporary International Mechanism, to which the UK will contribute £12 million. Last year, the European Union spent 680 million Euro supporting the Palestinians – more than in any other year.

We welcome the recent agreement between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas on the release US$100 million in Palestinian tax revenues and on the easing of restrictions on movement and access.

These practical steps are an essential foundation to the effort towards a comprehensive peace and two-state solution, and an end to the cycle of violence.

In this respect too there have been recent positive developments. The Gaza ceasefire is holding. Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas met. And I believe that there is also a new willingness on all sides to address some of the fundamental issues that underpin the conflict.

We will encourage and support this, working closely with the US and EU and Arab partners. The Prime Minister was in the region last month. I intend to go again shortly. Secretary Rice visited last week. We then held detailed talks here in London, covering both the need to re-energise the political process and practical ways to support President Abbas and help the Palestinian people.

Our common goal is to see accelerated implementation of the Roadmap, and real progress toward peace and stability for both parties. The next step is a meeting of the Quartet on 2 February.

Wider Political and Economic Developments

These points of tension in the region – Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel/Palestine – all present different problems. They demand and deserve individual attention. But they are also affected by and pivotal to wider political and economic reform in the region.

Long-term stability in the Middle East demands a truly comprehensive approach – what the Prime Minister has called “a whole Middle East strategy”. That means resolving the big conflicts. But it also means helping economies in the region to modernise, create more jobs, attract more inward investment. It means giving the young people in the region – men and women alike – the tools and the education to embrace globalisation. And it means making progress towards more open politics, more accountable government and better respect for individual rights.

The challenges we face in the region should not blind us to significant and positive development across the Middle East and North Africa over the last few years; developments that often have profound implications for the UK.

From what is admittedly a low base, foreign direct investment is now growing. In Egypt it has risen from just over US$2 billion a year to over US$5 billion – including very substantial UK investments. Shell is about to make the largest ever investment by a British company in Qatar. BP is the biggest foreign investor in Algeria.

On the political front we’ve seen the first elections in Saudi Arabia, universal suffrage in Kuwait, the most successful elections in Yemen’s history.

And there has been an improvement in the rights of women: in Egypt women can now divorce; in Bahrain a Supreme Council for Women has been established; in Morocco there is a new, fairer family code.

It would be wrong to overplay such progress but, broadly speaking, it is, at least, heading in the right direction. The people in the region are leading this change. But we can help them.

We are doing so partly through our political relationships.

There are certainly many on the so-called “Arab Street” who are suspicious of British foreign policy. But among local politicians we are still seen by many not only as an honest broker in the region and but also as a close ally and friend. It is one of the reasons why – during the Lebanon crisis – it was, for example, the UK that was entrusted with the job of flying the first international envoys into Beirut. It is why, when Libya wanted to come in from the cold, they made contact with the British Government. It is why we can discuss the reform agenda with the Saudi Arabians through our Two Kingdoms dialogue.

We use this political influence to encourage locally-led political and economic reforms. And we back it up with money and expertise.

That includes the small-scale but highly targeted work of the FCO’s Global Opportunities Fund: for example, supporting a youth parliament in Bahrain; teaching business and leadership skills to women in Kuwait; strengthening NGOs in Saudi Arabia.

Last November we hosted the Yemen donors conference in London. More than US$4.5 billion was pledged in support of Yemen’s national reform agenda. And we announced a five-fold increase in our own aid programme – around US$225 million over the next four years.

This afternoon I shall be going to Paris to discuss how the international community can support reconstruction and reform in Lebanon. The UK has already committed more than US$50 million to Lebanon, including humanitarian relief and 47 Land Rovers for the Lebanese armed forces. At the Paris conference, I will reaffirm our determination, which I think is shared across the House, to stand by the government and people of Lebanon.

Alongside this work, the UK is influencing how the international community spends its money – making support for reform one of the main priorities. During our G8 Presidency, the Forum for the Future established a US$50 million Foundation to support democracy and a US$100 million fund to support regional entrepreneurs.

We are strong advocates of the recently proposed EU Governance Facility, which will provide additional funding to those countries that make the most progress on good governance. The exact size of that fund is still being decided but we are talking about hundreds of millions of euros.

The challenges we face in the Middle East are complex and – as the whole of this House recognises – they are extremely difficult. But they are not wholly intractable. And the prize on offer is an immense one – we can help the people of the region to overcome a legacy of underdevelopment and conflict and give them the chance to carve out better lives for themselves and their families. That is the task to which we in this Government are committed.

200 Islamic Scholars Call For Truce

Islamic religious leaders from over 40 countries have urged senior religious and political authorities in Iraq to effect an end to sectarian strife. (Dave Spector)

A tale of two Iraqs

Tribune 19 January 2007

Abdullah Muhsin argues that progressive forces can prevail and it is possible to build a democratic and secure Iraq.

There are two tales to tell about post-totalitarian Iraq and they are both true.

The first tale is familiar to anyone who watches the news and involves death and destruction. The other is less-known and concern hope democracy and human rights.

The future of Iraqi freedom and security development depends on the outcome of this battle being fought across between the friends and enemy of democracy.

It is far from clear who will win. The commitment of most Iraqis and their elected representatives to forge a new democratic state suggests that they still have the initiative. But for how long? The viciousness of the enemy’s attacks means they are running out of time and patient.

Those who oppose a democratic Iraq seek the restoration of extreme form of nationalism or, the balkanization of the country, and the establishment of a Taliban- like al Qaeda Islamic state. This is coupled with deliberate proxy regional interferences in the internal affairs of Iraq by foreign powers funding extreme nationalists with arms and money and allowing terrorists to cross into Iraq unchecked. These countries are supporting sectarian militias from both side of the religious divide who are committing heinous crimes against innocent Iraqi civilians.

Iraq’s security depends on constructive engagement with neighbouring countries. The alternative is social and economic instability for all concerned. A secure and stable Iraq is in the best interest of whole Middle East, so Iraq’s must stop all active and passive support for armed militias and terrorist groups.

Extremist nationalists and Islamists seek to formant a civil war to achieve their aim of dividing Iraq. The atrocities of November 23 in Sadar City (Althowra) in which more than 200 innocent Iraqis lost their lives were followed by sectarian retaliation and the attacks on Iraqi intellectuals.

The British Council for Assisting Refugee Academic (CARA) estimate that more than 230 Iraqi prominent academics have been so far murdered since the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US, UK and their allies.

The failure of the democratically elected Iraqi Government to restore basic security, delivering essential services and advance national reconciliation has encouraged much of the western media to describe the violence in Iraq as a civil war.

The scale of violence is devastating. Iraqis are being massacred in their thousands. But in my view, the country is yet in a state of civil war. The violence in not being perpetrated by mainstream Iraqi political forces but a tiny minority with external backing. The violence has not engulfed the whole nation. It is concentrated in confined if very important area of Iraq. Iraqi Kurdistan is safe and the South of Iraq is relatively secure-Although the cost of this has been the independence of civil society organizations and there has been accusation that a blind eye has been turned to some of the activities of the militias and Islamist hardliners. The violent physical attack on university student picnic of male and female in Basra late

The second reason why I argue that there is not a yet civil war is that the state in the form of government, its institutions and bureaucracy is functioning. It is all-too evident that it is weak. But the key Iraqi political parties are still working together to steer Iraq towards calmer waters. If the Iraqi government buckles under the pressure and collapses then civil war would almost certainly follow. So, too would humanitarian catastrophe for Iraq and its neighbours.

Iraqi patriotic and democratic forces are holding their ground to give the second tale of the post-totalitarian Iraq its chance. This tale finds less room in the liberal media but in it lays the great hope for my country-the tortuous creation of a new, modern and democratic Iraq of human rights, democracy organized as a unitary state with a federal structure for Iraqi Kurdistan.

But so far, Iraq’s democratic forces are holding their nerve to give their post-totalitarian country a chance. There is still hope for the creation of a new, modern Iraq of human rights and freedom, organized as a unitary state with a federal structure for Iraqi Kurdistan.

Despite everything, the march towards democracy in Iraq proceeds. It started with the first open national elections in our history. The January 2005 election saw millions of Iraqis braving the threats of extremists and casting their vote to elect Iraq’s first democratically accountable government. Ordinary people then defied extremists again to ratify Iraq’s first permanent constitution. It may be flowed, but remains the most progressive constitution in the region.

There are other democratic achievements such as the move towards a free press and the development of a multiparty system and civil society. This includes a free trade union movement which has soared from a small underground movement to a significant force. It is not driven by ideology or religion. Its motivation by the improving is to improve the lot of ordinary Iraqis and work with other progressive forces to build a free and open society.

All these suggest that the vast majority of Iraq want a brighter future of democracy, prosperity and human rights. But nothing is ordained, and the international community can still make huge difference. The support of the United Nations and the European Union is vital. The alternative is misery and death on a massive scale that will haunt humanity.

All Iraqis Will Share Oil Wealth

New hydrocarbon legislation will both encourage foreign investment and ensure an equal distribution of the profits amongst all Iraqis as an attempt to curb oil smuggling which may be used to fund insurgents. (Dave Spector)

Hot Neighbourhoods To Receive Better Services

A work programme will be synchronised with the latest security plan, with the intention of providing better services to Baghdad neighbourhoods. (Dave Spector)

Who Sold Saddam His Weapons?

See this debate between bloggers on who supplied Saddam. The USSR, France and China rather than the US or UK would appear to be largely responsible. (Dave Spector)

Iraqi Bloggers Condemn Mustansiriya Bombers

Insurgents who distributed leaflets prohibiting education were probably behind recent University bombing. Iraq The Model suggests that it may be time to differentiate between deaths caused by insurgents and those resulting from military actions. (Dave Spector)

NDI Remembers Staff Member in Iraq

The National Democratic Institute, which runs programmes to assist civil society organisations, pays respect to those murdered by insurgents in Baghdad: They did not see themselves as heroes, only people doing a job on behalf of a cause they believed in. They were not the enemies of anyone in Iraq; they were there to help. Now, the prayers of all of us at NDI are with them and with their families. We pledge to do everything that is within our power to see that they did not die in vain. We will honor their example, keep alive their memory, and carry on their work.

Errors and solidarity

Patrick Wintour reports that: Labour will have to admit that serious errors have been made over the war in Iraq if it is to restore public trust in the government, a growing number of ministers believe.” It is only right that ministers and party members continue to learn lessons from the last few years but it is also vital that we increase our practical and moral solidarity with Iraqi democrats, especially the new and independent labour movement. The resurgence of that movement after decades of fascism is a great symbol of hope and vehicle of social justice in Iraq. Gary Kent

Government outlines view on observation of the human rights of women in Iraq

Commons Answer: 17th January

Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions her Department has had with the Iraqi Government on the observation of the human rights of women in Iraq; and if she will make a statement.

Dr. Howells: Officials from our embassy in Baghdad, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), as Special Envoy to the Prime Minister for Human Rights in Iraq, regularly raise women's rights with the Iraqi Government at all levels. The Iraqi Constitution provides that all people should be treated equally irrespective of their gender, race or ethnicity and includes additional provisions specifically to protect the rights of women. We are actively supporting the Government of Iraq on developing policies and legislation in line with these provisions including through work with the Ministries for Human Rights and Women's Affairs.

Iraqi parliamentarians, women's rights activists and women’s groups have told us about problems with women's access to employment and education, threats and assassinations of women professionals, the enforced wearing of the veil and other socially conservative forms of dress, and gender based violence including honour killings and female genital mutilation.

We are concerned about these issues and the impact of continued violence on all Iraqis. We will continue to support the Iraqi Government, security forces, judiciary and civil society organisations to develop a more secure country with a representative government able to work for all Iraqis.

How the government helps Iraqi trade unions

Commons Answer 17 Jan 2007

Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support his Department is providing to strengthen trades unions in Iraq.

Hilary Benn: Under Saddam Husseins regime, trades unions were part of the Ba'ath Party machinery and had very little independence. After the fall of his regime, trades unions effectively collapsed. Trades unions in Iraq are therefore relatively recently established. DFID provides support to trades unions through our Civil Society Fund (CSF) programme. There are two main aspects to this assistance:

training trades union leaders; and

providing a resource centre for trades unions.

DFID-funded training for trades union leaders is conducted through the UK public services trade union, UNISON. The aim is to contribute to the social and economic stability of Iraq by building the capacity of trades unions through the training of a new generation of union leaders. Training has focused on the role of trades unions in the workplace and society; negotiating collective agreements; union organisation; and women's involvement in the unions.

DFID support for a resource centre for trades unions in Baghdad has been undertaken with the International Centre for Trades Union Rights (ICTUR). The purpose of this project is to establish an independent NGO office to provide information, technical support services, expertise and legal advice to Iraqi trades unions and act as a centre for open discussions between trades unionists and the legal, academic and NGO communities. The centre studies and promotes basic principles of trades union and labour rights throughout Iraq and aims to influence government policies on labour rights and standards.

Britain and the US withdrew Iraqi passport recognition

Britain and the US are no longer recognising existing Iraqi passports. The recognition withdrawal affects many Iraqis living abroad or in Iraq neighbouring countries, including business travellers, students, visitors, family reunion cases and those who need medical treatment. "This inhumane punishment must be stopped, the people of Iraq continues to suffer at every level." saidJabbar Hasan, director of the Iraqi Association in London.

Recently, Iraqi authority has issued new passports which are only issued in Baghdad with limited availability. With continuing violence in the capital, many people may not be able to travel to Baghdad. In addition to that, its limited numbers will lead to queue jumping culture.

"This is outrageous and unacceptable method of treatment, which undoubtedly affects the livelihood of thousands of people, including children and other vulnerable people." Said Jabbar Hasan. (Dave Spector)

Iraq Needs Political, Diplomatic Efforts, Not Military Build up

President Bushs decision to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by more than 20,000 ignores the will of the American people and perpetuates this administrations flawed policy, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said in a statement. (Dave Spector)

Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney On the President's Proposal to Expand American Troops in Iraq

January 11, 2007

No United States foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. Last November the American people spoke loudly and clearly that the President's course in Iraq was flawed and that he should begin bringing our troops home rapidly.

Rather than heed the will of American citizens, or listen to military leaders speaking out against the current policy in Iraq, the President is choosing to make one last attempt to salvage his own legacy by putting in harm's way more young American soldiers.

These soldiers - the men and women risking their lives in Iraq - come from America's working families. They are our sons and daughters, our sisters and
brothers, our husbands and wives. They always answer when called to duty.

For that fundamental commitment to this nation, they deserve leaders who will call them only when the nation's security is at risk and there is a clear plan for victory. This administration has failed and continues to fail that basic obligation.

As our generals on the ground in Iraq have said, there is no military solution to the civil strife that now wracks that country. Only a political solution - effected by the Iraqis themselves - can resolve what has become an internal struggle among Iraqis themselves.

What is needed in Iraq is an expansion of political and diplomatic efforts - not an increase in United States military performing police functions. Moreover, sustainable social and economic development and the guarantee of fundamental labor and trade union rights are absolutely essential. The President insists that we must succeed militarily in order to establish the conditions for a political settlement. In fact, the reverse is true. Unless there is first the political will to stop the violence, there can be no military solution involving American troops.

American policy in Iraq has been based on false premises and wishful thinking since the beginning. And we have tried to increase American troop presence in the most violent and dangerous areas of Iraq before without success.

We urge the Congress of the United States to perform its constitutional responsibilities and insist that the President, and his military leaders, clearly articulate the path for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq rapidly. The dedication and patriotism of those young men and women who answer the call to service deserve no less.

Hilary Benn on Iraqi refugees

Commons written answers on 16th January

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Government plans to make a contribution to the UN High Commission for Refugees emergency appeal for refugees fleeing violence in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: DFID is very concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and we are in close contact with the United Nations and Red Cross to discuss what more the UK can do. UN agencies estimate that some 1.7 million Iraqis are currently displaced internally and up to two million others have fled to nearby countries. We are currently discussing with UN agencies and the international Red Cross where funds can be most effectively placed to deliver assistance on the ground. No decision has yet been taken over whether we will be contributing to the UNHCR appeal.

DFID is already supporting humanitarian agencies in Iraq. Since 2003 we have contributed over £100 million of assistance to the UN and Red Cross. This includes £85 million to UN humanitarian appeals and £32 million to the international Red Cross—we made a contribution of £4 million to the 2006 Red Cross appeal. Additionally, DFID provided £70 million to the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq (IRFFI), which provides support to IDPs though UN trust funds cluster F (which is identified for humanitarian needs).

For the first time, a real blueprint for peace in Iraq

Former Defence Minister Ali A Allawi outlines a comprehensive analysis of the woes of Iraq and the wider Middle East.

He says: The Iraqi state that was formed in the aftermath of the First World War has come to an end. Its successor state is struggling to be born in an environment of crises and chaos. The collapse of the entire order in the Middle East now threatens as the Iraq imbroglio unleashes forces in the area that have been gathering in virulence over the past decades.

It took the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the mismanagement of the country by both the Coalition Provisional Administration and subsequent Iraqi governments, to bring matters to this dire situation.

What was supposed to be a straightforward process of overthrowing a dictatorship and replacing it with a liberal-leaning and secular democracy under the benign tutelage of the United States, has instead turned into an existential battle for identity, power and legitimacy that is affecting not only Iraq, but the entire tottering state system in the Middle East.

The Iraq war is a global predicament of the first order and its resolution will influence the course of events in the Middle East and beyond for a considerable time. What we are witnessing in Iraq is the beginning of the unravelling of the unjust and unstable system that was carved out of the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire. It had held for nearly 100 years by a mixture of foreign occupation, outside meddling, brutal dictatorships and minority rule.

He then proposes a comprehensive solution. He writes that “The first step must be the recognition that the solution to the Iraq crisis must be generated first internally, and then, importantly, at the regional level. The two are linked and the successful resolution of one would lead to the other.

Secondly, the basis of a settlement must take into account the fact that the forces that have been unleashed by the invasion of Iraq must be acknowledged and accommodated. These forces, in turn, must accept limits to their demands and claims. That would apply, in particular, to the Shias and the Kurds, the two communities who have been seen to have gained from the invasion of Iraq.

Thirdly, the Sunni Arab community must become convinced that its loss of undivided power will not lead to marginalisation and discrimination. A mechanism must be found to allow the Sunni Arabs to monitor and regulate and, if need be, correct, any signs of discrimination that may emerge in the new Iraqi state.

Fourthly, the existing states surrounding Iraq feel deeply threatened by the changes there. That needs to be recognised and treated in any lasting deal for Iraq and the area.

A way has to be found for introducing Iran and Turkey into a new security structure for the Middle East that would take into account their legitimate concerns, fears and interests. It is far better that these countries are seen to be part of a stable order for the area rather than as outsiders who need to be confronted and challenged.

The Iraqi government that has arisen as a result of the admittedly flawed political process must be accepted as a sovereign and responsible government. No settlement can possibly succeed if its starting point is the illegitimacy of the Iraqi government or one that considers it expendable.”

All in all, vital reading for all those who wish to assist Iraqi democrats to retrieve their country from disaster. Gary Kent

Despair and hope in Iraq

Harry Barnes carries a link to a very moving song for peace on his blog and appeals for people to work with those in Iraq who work with each other often irrespective of religous sect, ethnic or national background, family or tribal links, sex or sexual orientation, race or creed.

More on execution of Saddam Hussein

Writing in the Mirror author Christopher Hitchens criticises the execution of Saddam arguing: what we have seen instead is something more like an exorcism, or blood-rite. It is difficult, in fact impossible, to convey to non-Iraqis how deep and terrible was Saddams regime of fear. People could be executed horribly if they upset a cup of coffee on a newspaper that carried his photograph.

Relatives were not just forced to watch the torture and murder of their loved ones, but were compelled to applaud as well. A quarter of a century of terror and humiliation is not easily cancelled.

As with Dracula, fearful people want the assurance of the stake through the heart.

They cannot rest until they know the ghastly tyrant is dead. As a result, the chance of a landmark human rights tribunal has been missed and a botched, hasty and panicky process substituted, which means the exorcism hasn't quite succeeded - and the spirit still walks and stalks.

Archbishop found wanting

Ann Clwyd criticises the Archbishop of Canterbury for not doing enough to get Saddam Hussein indicted for mass murder before the invasion of Iraq. Tony Blairs personal envoy to Iraq revealed she had asked Dr Rowan Williams to take a leading role in her campaign in 2002 when he was the Archbishop of Wales.

Ms Clwyd campaigned against Saddam's human rights abuses for many years and, in 1996, founded a group called Indict which amassed evidence and sought to persuade governments to support moves to prosecute the dictator.

She said, "I went to see Rowan Williams in Newport in the summer of 2002 to try to get him to campaign for an indictment. He appeared to be quite enthusiastic at the time but all I ever saw was a quote from him in the Guardian some time later.

"I wish he, and others, had pursued the matter more vigorously. If Saddam had been indicted, he would have lost a lot of credibility in the Arab world and it may have been possible to avoid invasion."

Iraqi Association reaction to execution of Saddam Hussein

Saddams heinous crimes against humanity can never be diminished

Saddam Hussein acknowledged on Iraqi national television during his trial that he had signed the death warrants after only the most cursory look at the evidence against his victims, and that he testified proudly. He had the day in court that was denied to his victims.

Saddam was the first Arab tyrant made to answer for his crimes in an open court; a potential warning to the region's other tyrants.” Said Jabbar Hasan of Iraqi Association in London.

The execution of Saddam ended the life of one of the most brutal tyrants in recent history. The despot had oppressed Iraqi people for more than 35 years, unleashing devastating regional wars, producing millions of refugees, and reducing his once promising, oil-rich nation to a claustrophobic police state.

However, our concern is that his removal from the scene will make it difficult to shed more light on his crimes; investigation of which often has to be reopened. The trial of Saddam Hussein, like those of Pinochet and Milosevic, ought to have been the occasion for the assembling of a huge and conclusive information of evidences, including those companies and governments who had armed and helped him in the past to sustain his terror and evil regimes. 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. This would have been an all time monument to justice and the healing process of Iraqi people.

“For victims’ families, revenge and retribution can never produce genuine healing. It can only deprive them of the opportunity for forgiveness and uncovering the truth behind the making of Saddam’s regime. Justice takes place when the complete truth is uncovered during the trial.” Said Mr Hasan of Iraqi Association in London.

Psychological, political and social crimes of Saddam’s regime had destroyed the Iraqi society for many generations. Among his routine deadly torture methods were: charging the families the price of the bullets used to kill their beloved ones. The family have to sign a statement that their son is a traitor and are prevented from mourning the death. Or using the rat poison to kill the detainees, even teeth pulling was a routine method, coupled with the pulling the nails and decapitating children in front of their mothers.

Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq; and his execution will not stop the violence immediately, but may contribute towards easing the situation.