National MP runs down protester with a motor vehicle

:John Hayes the National MP for Wairapara thinks it ok to use a motor vehicle to run a local man off the road. (Hat tip newzblog)

"Local activist James Sleep was today exercising his democratic right to protest when he was approached by an entourage of 4WDs carrying Wairapara MP John Hayes and John Key. Sleep attempted to get out of the way however he soon found himself being propelled backwards by the force of Hayes’ car. The car continued to accelerate for 20 metres until bystanders forced him to stop. Sleep described the incident as frightening and thought he was going to be run over. When the car stopped Sleep was aggressively tackled onto the ground by a male escorting Hayes."

Sleep has laid complaints of assault and careless driving with the police. Good on him. James has written about the incident here.

Perhaps it is relevant to quote the contribution of John Hayes to the debate over the section 59 bill.

"...Labour camp and in the Greens, is undermining the social fabric of our country. They are passing this bill on the back of having undermined every teacher and every policeman in this country. Two weeks ago, at the Golden Shears in Masterton, a couple of young kids were sitting on the bonnet of a car, causing trouble and abusing old people. Someone said to them: “Listen, boys. Naff off!” It was not me doing the telling; I witnessed this. “You can’t tell us that, mister. You can’t do that,” the boys said. The guy said he was going to get the police. “They can’t do anything either,” he was told. That is why we have so many children out of control in Masterton and elsewhere in the small towns of the Wairarapa. It is because this Labour Government has pulled the rug of authority from every institution in this country, whether schoolteachers, police officers, or, now, parents."

Clearly Hayes believes he should use the bonnet of his car to maintain the 'rug of authority'. Isn't it an irony how many times those that bemoan the breakdown the the rule of law often find themselves on the wrong side of it?

Worse of all, National leader John Key appeared to endorse the actions of his blunderbus MP by attempting to make jokes about the incident. "Mr Key said he would like to borrow the protester to take home, as he made a lot of noise and could be used in the early morning and on dusk to scare ducks from landing on his pool.". If Key endorses running down protesters with motor vehicles, perhaps he could ask Hayes and his 4x4 to come and shoo the ducks away for him?

Saddam sentenced to hang

I am disappointed, but not surprised to hear Saddam Hussien has received a death sentence for "crimes against humanity".

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's director of the Middle East and North Africa, called the trial seriously flawed.

"This trial should have been a major contribution towards establishing justice and the rule of law in Iraq, and in ensuring truth and accountability for the massive human rights violations perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's rule. In practice, it has been a shabby affair, marred by serious flaws that call into question the capacity of the tribunal, as currently established, to administer justice fairly, in conformity with international standards."

It is for these sorts of reasons I wish Saddam had been sent to the International Criminal Court (ICC) instead, along with a few western significant others also to blame for numerous Iraqi deaths. If gassing the Kurds is such a terrible crime (which it is), why not also charge the people who gave Saddam the gas? Unfortunately the citizenship of these alleged criminals would give them refuge in the United States, a country which refuses to recognise the ICC.

It is not that I believe Saddam should not be held to account for human rights violations, but I strongly believe a death sentence in these circumstances will be nothing but counterproductive. Saddam does not deserve to become a matryr - yet he is likely to gain this status when he is gifted a rope.

Saddam could well become a greater challenge to the political stability of Iraq in death than he ever could be in life, especially if the alternative is spending the rest of his life in jail.

Given only the losing side are to be charged for their crimes, this looks very like much like victors justice. In order for a new Government to feel safe, the old leader must die. I am reminded of the decision of the Russian Bolsheviks to shoot the last Czar and his family in July 1918. In giving this order Lenin's administration demonstrated its immediate weakness, not its strength. Perhaps a similar assessment will be made of the scarcely effective Iraqi Government and its support for the death of Saddam. Now the Bolsheviks were able to eventually consolidate their power, but they were in the position of fighting off the invading armies, not depending on said armies for their survival....

Corporate Human Rights Violators

International human rights organisation, Global Exchange have named the multinational corporatations most noted for human rights violations in 2005.

"Corporations carry out some of the most horrific human rights abuses of modern times, but it is increasingly difficult to hold them to account. Economic globalization and the rise of transnational corporate power have created a favorable climate for corporate human rights abusers, which are governed principally by the codes of supply and demand and show genuine loyalty only to their stockholders."

It is a sorry list of 14 big corporates, including
- Caterpillar
- Chevron
- Coca-Cola
- Dow Chemical
- Dyancorp/CSC (private security contractor)
- Ford Motor Company
- Kellog Brown and Root (subsidiary of Halliburton)
- Lockeed Martin
- Monsanto
- Nestle USA
- Phillip Morris USA/Altria Group Inc.
- Pfizer (drug company)
- Suez-Lyonnaise Des Eaux (SLDE) (French water mulitnational)
- Wal-Mart

The Global Exchange report includes a writeup detailing the human right abuses committed by each money hungry corporate, together with some helpful links to other watchdog organisations with a special interest in each company (eg. Coke Watch).

Several of these corporates are being sued under the Alien Tort Claims Act, a law that allows citizens of any nationality to sue in US federal courts for violations of international rights or treaties.

"When corporations act like criminals, we have the right and the power to stop them, holding leaders and multinational corporations alike to the accords they have signed. Around the world, in Venezuela, Argentina, India, and right here in the United States —citizens are stepping up to create democracy and hold corporations accountable to international law."

With the Bush Administration demonstrating nothing but absoulte contempt for international law with its invasion of Iraq in 2003, it ought to be no surprise there are so many US based corporations on the Global Exchange List.

DynCorp, Kellog Brown and Root and Lockeed Martin are all eager Iraq war profiteers, keen to help Bush suck the oil money out of Iraq by exporting the profits back to the States. These three corporates rogues deserve a post of their own.

Some other lowlights,
Caterpillar has refused to end their corporate participation in house demolition by cutting off sales of specially modified D9 and D10 bulldozers to the Israeli military, supplying equipment that kills Palestinian civilians and peace activists.

Chevron: In Nigeria, this large petrochemical company "has collaborated with the Nigerian police and military, who have opened fire on peaceful protestors who oppose oil extraction in the Niger Delta". Watching BBC World last night I caught an advertisement from Chevron aiming to cast doubt at the potential of wind power - the message appeared to have a remarkable similarity to the line promoted by our very own Contact Energy in their the so-called 'Positive Energy' campaign last year!

Coca-Cola Company: "...leads in the abuse of workers' rights, assassinations, water privatization, and worker discrimination. Between 1989 and 2002, eight union leaders from Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia were killed after protesting the company's labor practices. Hundreds of other Coca-Cola workers who have joined or considered joining the Colombian union SINALTRAINAL have been kidnapped, tortured, and detained by paramilitaries who intimidate workers to prevent them from unionizing. In Turkey, 14 Coca-Cola truck drivers and their families were beaten severely by Turkish police hired by the company, while protesting a layoff of 1,000 workers from a local bottling plant in 2005."

Dow Chemical is involved in human rights abuses worldwide: "environmental destruction, water and ground contamination, health violations, chemical poisoning, and chemical warfare.". In their hometown of Midland, Michigan, Dow has been "producing chlorinated chemicals and burning and burying its waste including chemicals that make up Agent Orange. In New Plymouth, New Zealand, 500,000 gallons of Agent Orange were produced and thousands of tons of dioxin-laced waste was dumped in agricultural fields."

Ford Motor Company. "Every year since 1999, the US Environmental Protection Agency has ranked Ford cars, trucks and SUVs as having the worst overall fuel economy of any American automaker. Ford's current car and truck fleet has a lower average fuel efficiency than the original Ford Model-T...Amazingly, despite the company's recent greenwashing PR campaign, its record has actually worsened. According to Ford's own sustainability report, between 2003 and 2004, the company's US fleet-wide fuel economy decreased and its CO2 emissions went up".

Monsanto, more widely known as the largest producer of genetically modified seeds on the planet, are not as well known for their use of child labour. They should be. "In India, an estimated 12,375 children work in cottonseed production for farmers paid by Indian and multinational seed companies, including Monsanto. A number of children have died or became seriously ill due to exposure to pesticides."

Nestle: Earlier this year "the International Labor Rights Fund and a Birmingham law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against Nestlé and several of its suppliers on behalf of former child slaves...In 2001, Save the Children Canada reported that 15,000 children between 9 and 12 years old, many from impoverished Mali, had been tricked or sold into slavery on West African cocoa farms, many for just $30 each."

Pfizer: One of the largest and most profitable pharmaceutical companies in the world (Revenues of $52.5 billion in 2004). Produces Viagra, Zoloft and many HIV/AIDS related drugs (Rescriptor, Viracept and Diflucan/fluconazole). "Like other drug companies, they sell these drugs at prices poor people cannot afford and aggressively fight efforts to make it easier for generic drugs to enter the market....Pfizer and other drug companies have refused to grant generic licenses for HIV/AIDS drugs to countries like Brazil, South Africa, and the Dominican Republic, where patients are forced to pay $20 per weekly pill for drugs like fluconazole, though the average national wage is only $120 per month....To ensure its profits, Pfizer invests heavily in US campaign contributions. Though it can't seem to afford to offer life-saving drugs at affordable prices, it was able to scrounge up $544,900 for mostly Republican candidates in election cycle 2006 (still in progress) and $1,630,556 in the 2004 election cycle."

Do corporates get away with murder?

In the UK unionists and victims of the Hatfield rail disaster are dismayed the culpability of engineering firm Balfour Beatty (BB) has been limited to a £10m pound fine. On October 17 2000 a King's Cross to Leeds train came off the tracks at 115mph after a rail disintegrated, killing four people and injuring 102.

While Trade Union Council general secretary Brendan Barber welcomed the severity of the fine, he joined others in calling for tougher corporate manslaughter laws.

"The families of those killed will still feel cheated that no senior executives are to face punishment as a result of their safety crimes. The government urgently needs to address [the fact] that all the courts can do is to fine a company. What is necessary is both a new offence of corporate killing, with a wider range of penalties available, and new legal duties that make directors directly responsible for the health and safety of their staff and customers."

The Old Bailey judge put Balfour Beatty's failure at the "top of the scale", saying he regarded "Balfour Beatty as one of the worse examples of industrial negligence in a high-risk industry I have seen". While Justice MacKay was highly critical of the company, he cast out corporate manslaughter charges bought against Balfour Beatty, most likely due to the difficulty in securing convictions under present legislation.

Perhaps it says a lot about the company that BB did not admit breaching health and safety rules until the corporate manslaughter charges were dropped.

I would be interested to look into whether New Zealand has a 'corporate manslaughter' charge on its statute books and if so, what kind of burden of proof is required. New Zealand could come up with its own shady looking lineup of irresponsible corporates. As a couple of examples, the former Tranzrail and forestry company Juken Nissho have long records of heath and safety convictions - including incidents leading to deaths on the job.

Back to the BB case, the judge also voiced his own criticisms of the way the UK railways were privatised.
"The elimination of one of the indefensible features of the 1996 privatisation is now gone - the separation of the track from its maintenance - is now gone. Perhaps that is one good thing resulting from this disastrous affair."

In 2002 Tranzrail contracted out track maintenance to Transfield, who by most accounts maintained a better relationship with unions and did a better job than the privately owned Tranzrail ever did (that would not be hard). Following the renationalisation of the rail track in September 2004, the Government set up a new Crown agency to oversee the ownership and maintenance of the rail infrastructure on its behalf - OnTrack.

Given the clear warning the Balfour Beatty case represents, it is probably a good thing OnTrack decided to bring the maintenance work back in house, following a tendering process it is obliged to carry out under the agreement it made with Toll Holdings. Best of all, OnTrack purchased part of the present contractor, allowing staff who maintain the rails to transfer to OnTrack while maintaining their present terms and conditions of employment.

The Guardian - Hatfield victims and unions call for new corporate killing law
The Independent - Balfour Beatty fined £10m for Hatfield disaster

Categories: UK, New Zealand, Corporations, Law, Politics, Rail, Union, Safety

Random Historical Interlude #3: UK helped Israel develop nuclear weapons

In September 1958 the UK agreed to supply heavy water without safeguards against military use, enabling Israel to produce nuclear weapons. This revelation follows an investigation by BBC newsnight reporters of documents in the British National Archives. Other files on the matter remain classified.

The 20 tonnes of heavy water were part of a consignment which Britain bought from Norway in 1956, but the UK later decided this was surplus to requirements. While UK officials attempted to make it look like sale from Norway to Israel, the heavy water was loaded onto Israeli ships docked in a British port, half in June 1959 and half a year later (for some reason 5 tonnes was left outstanding).

These officials also attempted to conceal the deal from the US, according to the files, and may not have consulted their own ministers before approving the sale. It appears civil servants in the Foreign Office and the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) approved the sale, without safeguards to prevent the heavy water from being put to military use, with one official scrawling that "It would be somewhat over-zealous for us to insist on safeguards".

The heavy water was a vital ingredient for the production of plutonium at Dimona, a secretly build underground reactor in the Negev desert of southern Israel (near Beersheba), built with French assistance. Frank Barnaby, who worked on the British bomb project in the 1950s says he had "no idea" about the sale, "heavy water was crucial for Israel...Therefore it was a significant part of their nuclear programme".

Like any country with a secret nuclear weapons programme, Israel lied about the true purpose of Dimona, and claimed it was a "manganese plant", yet the security measures employed suggest Dimona was far more important (a Libyan civilian airliner and a Israeli fighter were shot down for getting too close).

The released documents suggest money was the primary motivation for the sale. At the time the consignment of heavy water was worth £1.5m, or £20m in today's money.

In 1960 the UK Daily Express exposed the Israelis' work at Dimona, and highlighted the fact Israel was probably making a bomb. The following March, the UKAEA told the Norwegians they thought it was unlikely Israel could have the outstanding five tons, although the deal was commercially "attractive". This was, wrote Peirson, because of "the political sensitivity of Israel's nuclear activities".

Israel is thought to have exploded its first nuclear devices in the mid-1960s, possessing several dozen deliverable atomic bombs by the time of the 1973 war (when Israel went on full nuclear alert).

While the Guardian reports that the Eisenhower administration was "hostile to proliferation" and President Kennedy and his defence secretary Robert McNamara "strived" to stop Israel acquiring nuclear weapons, John Steinbach says the United States also helped Israel develop the bomb (Chomsky says the same thing).

Although the French and South Africans were primarily responsible for the Israeli nuclear program, the U.S. shares and deserves a large part of the blame. Mark Gaffney wrote (the Israeli nuclear program) "was possible only because of calculated deception on the part of Israel, and willing complicity on the part of the U.S.." From the very beginning, the U.S. was heavily involved in the Israeli nuclear program, providing nuclear related technology such as a small research reactor in 1955 under the "Atoms for Peace Program." Israeli scientists were largely trained at U.S. universities and were generally welcomed at the nuclear weapons labs. In the early 1960s, the controls for the Dimona reactor were obtained clandestinely from a company called Tracer Lab, the main supplier of U.S. military reactor control panels, purchased through a Belgian subsidiary, apparently with the acquiescence of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA. In 1971, the Nixon administration approved the sale of hundreds of krytons(a type of high speed switch necessary to the development of sophisticated nuclear bombs) to Israel.

Israel has over 200 nukes, and people wonder why Iraq, and now Iran want weapons of mass destruction? In 2003 George Bush and Tony Blair attempted to use Security Council resolution 687 as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. While 687 provided no such authorisation, it did call for the elimination of Iraqi WMD and delivery systems as a step towards "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all other missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons." (Article 14). So if 687 is really to be upheld, then pressure must be put on Israel to disarm.

BBC - How Britain helped Israel get the bomb
Guardian - US kept in the dark as secret nuclear deal was struck
Guardian - How the UK gave Israel the bomb

Categories: Nuclear, Antiwar, Politics, Peace, Israel, International Law

The Bush Administration's complete contempt for democracy in Iraq

In the June 27 edition of Focus on Trade, Herbert Docena compiles the complete story on how America have implemented their neo-liberal economic designs on Iraq.

'Shock and Awe Therapy: How the US is attempting to control Iraq's oil and try open its economy" is a very impressive piece of work and while long, is well worth reading. My April 2004 article 'Hijacking of a Nation' covered similar ground - its nice to see someone else reaching similar conclusions, as well as providing some damming quotes and references :)

Even before the invasion Docena quotes documents to show that the US had "sweeping plans to remake Iraq's economy in the US image". During the bombing BP engineers were embedded with the soldiers to locate and secure the oil wells. In May 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced the Bush administration would be installing a regime heading by personnel who "favor market systems" and "encourage moves to privatize state-owned enterprises"

The US hand the contract for "transforming" Iraq's economy to US multinational Bearing Point. The contract states "The new government will seek to open up its trade and investment linkages and put in place the institutions promoting democracy, free enterprise and reliance on a market-driven private sector as the engine of economic recovery and growth.". Docena contrasts this 'systematic plan' with the complete lack of any planning for post-war humanitarian, rehabilitation and relief operations.

US Viceroy Paul Bremer illegally changed the "existing laws in force" in Iraq, allowing foreign investors to buy up and take over Iraq's state owned enterprises and repatriate 100% of the profits and other assets at any time (Order 39). As Iam al-Khafaji, who worked with the US in the early states of he occupation but later left, attests, "Many radically new sweeping changes, for example the law on foreign investment, Iraqis were not allowed to review it. They not even given the chance to look at it before it was passed.". Other 'orders' allowed foreign banks into the country and reduced the top tax rate form 40% to a flat rate of 15%, doing away with the principle of progressive taxation.

All of these imposed 'law' changes are clear violations of international law. The Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, which the US has signed up to, outlaw such law changes under occupation. Even though these 'laws' were forced on the Iraqi people before they had a chance to have a say in an election, Bremer also took steps to ensure it would be difficult for an incoming elected government to change the 'Orders' put in place by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

From the earliest days of the occupation, the US searched for Iraqis whose interests converged with that of the US. The US needed Iraqi faces 'out front' to attempt to show they were not colonizers imposing their will on the Iraqi people (yeah right!), and these Iraqis needed the US because lacking constituency and legitimacy, they have no chance of surviving in power without US protection. "What Washington wanted was Iraqis who - while willing to dabble in occasional criticism of the administration - were at the final analysis beholden to it" Middle East Historian Dilip Hiro (Hiro's book on the history of Iraq is well worth reading)

The US also planted hundreds of "advisers" in key ministries and the bureaucracy - including dozens of organisations and agencies who specialise in designing neo-liberal policies. The US also created new commissions and institutions that, according to the Wall Street Journal "effectively take away virtually all the powers once held by several ministries". Paul Bremer appointed the chiefs of the commissions to 5 year terms, which will neatly ensure the US appointees can not be replaced by an elected government.

During the January 2005 elections, the US used its usual "democracy promotion" organs (National Endowment for Democracy, The National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute(IRI)) to promote their preferred parties, mostly Allawi's and other parties inside the Iraqi Governing Council, who also dominated the interim government. A IRI survey found 55% of Iraqis did not see the interim government as representing their interests. Bremer and his cronies also made attempts to disallow "rejectionists" such as Moqtada Sadr from being candidates in the elections.

No international monitors were allowed to scrutinize the elections - so there was no way to verify if fraud took place - the world just had to trust the word of the US-installed Iraqi government.

My point at present is not whether Iraq adopts a free market capitalist or a socialised economy. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, it should be entirely up to the Iraqi people to decide the type of economy they want and the laws that will govern it. Not only are the radical reforms imposed by the CPA in violation of international law, they have been imposed before the Iraqi people have had a chance to have a say in an election. Not only that, but it appears the US have gone to great lengths to ensure any 'elections' are anything but a fair fight.

The actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq demonstrate nothing by complete contempt for democracy.

Categories: Iraq, Antiwar, Politics, Neo-liberalism, Investment, International Law

Blair's Attorney General warned war was illegal

Ever since the leadup to the Iraq war in 2003 there have been persistent rumors the UK Attorney General first advised Tony Blair such a war would be illegal under international law. While a 'summary' of AG Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion was made public and appeared to give the war a green light, the Blair government have consistently refused to release the full 13-page document given to Cabinet ministers on the 7th of March. It is now clear why.

According to the Mail on Sunday, Goldsmith's original advice included six grounds in which the proposed war with Iraq could be challenged under international law. These caveats were excised from the summary when it was published 10 days later.

• In law, there was a strong argument that it was the job of the United Nations - not Mr Blair - to rule whether Iraq had defied the UN's order to disarm;
• Goldsmith stated UN resolution 1441 ("serious consequences") might not be enough to justify war because it did not include the phrase "all necessary", the UN's usual wording for war;
• It would be much 'safer' and desirable to go to war armed with a second specific UN resolution.
• He warned Mr Blair it could be difficult to revive UN Resolution 678 to justify war, as this resolution focused on removing Saddam from Kuwait and did not permit an invasion of Iraq itself.
• Goldsmith drew attention to the continuing work of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team. On the same day the advice was written Blix said Iraq was being more helpful generally and no weapons of mass destruction had been found.
• The Attorney General explained that US President George Bush faced fewer legal constraints, as Congress had voted Bush special war-making powers. The US government's opinion on the legality of the war did not apply to Britain.
  

When Blair claimed that the advice was identical to the 'summary' which declared the war legal it is now clear he was not telling the truth. The AG changed his views, a suggestion given further credence by the uncensored resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurt, who resigned her post as deputy chief legal adviser at the Foreign Office over the Iraq war. US National Security Council legal chief John Bellinger even went as far as to boast "We had a problem with your Attorney General who was telling us it was legally doubtful under international law. We straightened him out."

Demonstrating the folly of attempting to keep such potentially explosive advice under wraps, serving only fuel speculation of its contents, it has now come out a mere 11 days before a general election. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy is right when he says the issue will "not go away" until Lord Goldsmith's legal advice is published in full. At the very least, this would allow an accurate assessment of Goldsmith's concerns over legality in their proper context of the entire 13-page opinion.

In response, Tony Blair is warning that attempts to "send me a message" at the ballot box may cause Labour to lose marginal constituencies and lead to a Tory Government by the back door. Perhaps Blair should have thought of that before he adopted a Thatcherite economic policy, involved Britain in a war of dubious legality, and then told porkies to cover his tracks. While I regard the Liberal Democrats as a right wing party with some left wing policies (such as on education), their presence in a balance of power type arrangement could be a positive influence on Labour in the next term.

PS: I attempted to post this yesterday, only to have blogger clear the post before I could upload it :(

Wilmshurt letter on Iraq war further evidence of increasing politicisation of British civil service

The UK Guardian has obtained the uncensored resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurt, deputy chief legal adviser at the foreign Office until she resigned over the Iraq war. In her resignation letter Wilmshurst dammed the invasion as a "crime of aggression" and "so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

When the Blair Government first released the letter under the new Freedom of Information Act, they left out a key passage, a passage suggesting that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, believed war against Iraq was illegal - a view he expressed less than two weeks before the Tommies went to Uncle Sam's aid. Wilmshurst says the Foreign Office gave consistent advice that a war would be illegal, before and after UN security council resolution 1441.

She says that was also Lord Goldsmith's view until March 7, when he sent a 13-page written legal opinion to Tony Blair. Ms Wilmshurst does not reveal the content of this advice. However, reports that the attorney warned Mr Blair that British participation in the invasion could be ruled unlawful by an international court have not been denied by the government.

The failure of Blair to obtain a second UN resolution caused both Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Goldsmith to change their view again. How can legality be so elastic...

In the censored passage of her letter, Ms Wilmshurst points out that the attorney's view changed yet again into a new "official line". That is a reference to a parliamentary answer released by Lord Goldsmith on March 17, the eve of a crucial Commons vote on military action. In this, the attorney said - on the basis of advice from Mr Blair - that it was "plain" Iraq was in breach of its disarmament obligations.

The Freedom of Information Act forced the release of the censored piece of the letter, even though the Foreign Office claimed it was not in the "public interest" - yeah right - on reading the previously deleted passage its pretty clear it is not the interests of the public that are being protected.

My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of SCR [UN security council resolution] 1441, and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March.

Whether or not it could be said that a certain dossier was 'sexed up', the Wilmshurst letter makes it pretty clear heavy political pressure was applied on the public service to provide the conclusions Blair wanted.

It is unfortunate that the debate within the civil service over the Iraq war will encourage greater politicisation of the service. The tradition of British public servants providing 'free and frank' advice is under threat, as is the notion of a professional career service. Such principles have guided the British civil service since the mid 19th century (following the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms), and were the basis for the reform of New Zealand's public service in 1912. The cost of Tony's arrogance over the Iraq war could be a public service littered with cronies (or mini Tonys).

Nevertheless, I should congratulate the UK Labour Government for passing the Freedom of Information Act, even if it was long overdue.

Helen: Insist on Sharon and his Spooks saying a Serious Sorry

Great to see Helen Clark sticking to her guns and demanding Israel make a formal apology for sending its spooks to New Zealand in an attempt to fraudulently gain New Zealand passports. While it was good she noted today's apology by Israel's head of state, as being 'encouraging' she should continue to demand a full apology and explanation from the man who is really running Mossard, Ariel Sharon.

Just think of what nearly happened. Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service have a long history of using foreign passports to mask their identities, and using this cover to carry out murders in third countries.

• Amman, September 1997: Mossad agents attempt to assassinate Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal and are found with Canadian passports.
• Limassoi, Cyprus 1987: The killers of three PLO colonels carried Canadian passports.
• Beirut, April 13, 1973: 3/6 Mossad operatives used British passports to enter Lebanon to set up the assassination of senior PLO figures by Israeli commandos.

These examples are contained in an excellent article by Murray Horton in the latest version of Peace Researcher - 'Mossad Spies - Imprisioned in New Zealand' (not available on line yet).

What use could Israel's state sponsored terrorists have made of their New Zealand passports, gained under false pretences, in the name of a cerebral palsy sufferer who has never left the country? Horton speculates that Israel provided a possible example on February 21, with the assassination of Hizbullah official Ghaleb Awali in Beirut, a hit allegedly carried out by Israeli run agents.

Had this murderer being caught with a New Zealand passport, red handed so to speak, this could have had serious consequences for Kiwis, especially in the Middle East. Doors may have closed on visa-free access to many countries, and New Zealanders in Afghanistan and Iraq could have become targets (if they are not already given Helen's backpedalling on her initial principled stance on war on Iraq). Even if the passport was later found to be fake, the damage to New Zealand's reputation could already have been done.

Stick it out for a full diplomatic apology Helen, and make sure you get a decent explanation to go with it - from Sharon himself. If Israel continue to drag the chain, seek an international censure motion (like the ones Israel have ignored before) to ensure international law is upheld. Friendly countries have an interest in helping you. You never know, placing greater international pressure on Israel to comply with international law may lead to progress on the Palestine issue. Its only the West's blind eye to Israel that has allowed it to get away with so much for so long.

Make it clear New Zealand has no issue with the Israeli people, but the illegal and immoral actions of their Government. While the Israeli people may be subject to daily propaganda about 'terrorists', I doubt very much they are comfortable with the murderous and duplicious actions of Sharon and his spooky cronies.

Principles of Magna Carta still needed today for Zaoui and those at Guantanamo

In Runnymede field in 1215, King John was forced to sign a document designed to prevent abuses of royal power, the Magna Carta.

While the vast majority of the Magna Carta dealt with immediate issues of concern to the traditional English aristocracy, it did contain one important principle – that there existed a body of law independent of the King, and the King could not act outside the law. In retrospect, the charter was a logical progression from Henry II’s legal reforms, as it made the only family then exempt from the law subject to the law.

The Magna Carta enshrined the right to freedom of movement, and placed a prohibition on imprisonment without lawful case. A sentence could not be conferred until lawful judgement by peers.

I find it amazing that in the case of Ahmed Zaoui in New Zealand and the incarceration of the alleged terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, we are still battling with the arbitrary power of kings some 800 years after the Magna Carta was first signed. The war on terror is no excuse to do away with fundamental constitutional principles.

In another irony, John only became King after his brother Richard the Lion heart fell to an arrow on his return from another war against Islam, the crusades.

An urgent review of the Immigration Act 1987 is required, as the right of the inspector general of intelligence to issue ‘Security Risk Certificates’ without a requirement to inform the accused the reasons for imprisonment, comes awfully close to a simple abuse of executive privilege. Denying Zaoui the reasons for his imprisonment made it impossible to mount an adequate defence and thus denied him the right to a fair trial of his peers. How long should someone be in prison before it is asked ‘hang on, is this arbitrary imprisonment’? While Zaoui’s request for Habeas Corpus failed, it again demonstrated that the issues surrounding this case have been with us a long time.

Of course Guatánamo Bay is worse, as those held there and in other like US prisons are denied legal process completely. Appointing military lawyers is not good enough, as anyone accused of a crime should be able to choose their own lawyer. No American king, notably George W. Bush should be able to call someone a terrorist and lock them up for an undetermined time. Those held in Guatánamo can only be called alleged terrorists until an adequate trial is held to ascertain their guilt. I expect to return to his issue in a later post. Interesting Guardian article about Magna Carta and Guatanamo Bay. The world needs more Runnymede and less Rummymede!

Of course King John did not keep to the bargain, and as a result the Magna Carta was reissued a number of times, most significantly in 1297 when the Hammer of the Scots, Edward I ran out of hammers.

With the Ahmed Zaoui decision I was pleased to see the Supreme Court fulfil one of its most important functions - acting as a break on the actions of the executive (the crown and cabinet). But ultimately it is up to us to hold our Kings and Queens to account. Making a protest is an act of loyalty to the principles in which ‘liberal democracies’ are founded.

"Clause [29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right." (Magna Carta, 1297 version)

The Magna Carta, along with sections of the Bill of Rights Act 1688, The Act of Settlement 1700 and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640 (+ 1679 + 1816) are incorporated into New Zealand law by the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 (and previous enactments) (Source : The New Zealand Legal System, 2ed, McDowell and Webb)

The Fall Guy of Fallujah

Been thinking more about the case of the US Marine caught on tape shooting an Iraqi solider. Shooting a wounded unarmed solider is a clear breach of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 holds that "persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of combat) by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely".

There is certainly a case for the Marine to be charged, but why is no one talking about the culpability of his commanders and superiors? According to the press release issued by the US Central Command the purpose of this investigation is to "determine whether the Marine acted in self-defence, violated military law or failed to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict". But there are other obvious questions. Why did senior commanders allow a Marine with facial injuries who had recently seen one of his buddies being killed head straight back into combat?

I can see parallels with the case of Lynley England already. Despite clear indications the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was sanctioned, even encouraged by those further up the chain of command, so far only low level soldiers have been charged over the scandal. While Lynley England was involved in some appalling and degrading treatment of prisoners it occurs to me that she was also a scapegoat for the appalling actions and decisions of others. Seymour Hersch alleges that Rumsfeld authorized the use of questionable interrogation tactics to facilitate the accumulation of actionable intelligence. For there to be justice all must be held to account.

Is this pattern going to repeat itself in the case of the Marine? Will he become the public face, the fall guy of Fallujah?

When a Pentagon spokesperson, Lt Colonel Barry Venable commented on media coverage of this case in comparison to other alleged homicides involving soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division, he said "Not to diminish the severity of the incident, but the difference is that there was a camera present for this one." (Press, 18 Nov) So in the case of the Marine and Lynley England, was the camera the crime?

As well as the Geneva Conventions I also had a look at the US Army's own Law of Land Warfare. It states;

501. Responsibility for Acts of Subordinates
In some cases, military commanders may be responsible for war crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control. Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territory or against prisoners of war, the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with the commander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of an order of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof....

So based on Bush being 'Commander in Chief' there could be a case to put Bush and Rummy on trial for war crimes based on the events of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib.

It is becoming pretty clear that US senior commanders are out of control in Iraq. There have been several other possible violations of the Geneva Conventions during the reinvasion. Since my last post, the International committee of the Red Cross has condemned the "utter contempt for humanity" shown by all sides in the fighting in Iraq. Complying with international humanitarian law was "an obligation, not an option."

Iraq opens oil reserves to Western companies

Just read a report on the NZ Herald Online 'Iraq opens oil reserves to Western companies'.

Opening up Iraq's natural resources to widespread foreign investment completes the neo-liberal agenda of the US and its former viceroy Paul Bremer. In September 2003 Bremer imposed Order 39, a 'law' that rescinded nearly all of Iraq's legal and constitutional restrictions on foreign investment and banking. This law allowed 100% foreign investment in Iraqi companies (and state assets) and 100% repatriation of profits to their offshore owners. The only sector to be excluded from this carte blanche neo-liberalism was 'natural resources' (i.e. oil). This law is clearly illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions, as Iraq was under under military occupation when Bremer imposed the changes, and the provisions of Order 39 clearly breached Iraq's constitution of 1970, a constitution that is still valid under international law.

Oil was exempted from Order 39 because it was thought that domestic political opinion would not stand for it. That’s not to say these changes were in any way democratic, as Order 39 was imposed before elections. The US clearly thinks that Iraqis will be happier with US part ownership of oil infrastructure, if the policy is advocated by an Iraqi face. This is where the (unelected) interim government comes in.

In an interview in a Shell newsletter that is distributed to its Middle Eastern clients, [Oil Minister] Mr Ghadban added that Iraq would open its doors to the oil giants early next year.

"We would like to open a dialogue with international oil companies [IOCs]. We are now formulating our policies ... and we think there is room for IOCs in Iraq - in particular in the upstream because we need new investment."

"We believe that there is at least 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day of new oil production capacity that could, in the long term, be added to our production levels."

The 'problem' for such 'investment' is the 1970 constitution that provides that "natural resources" and the "basic means of production" are owned by "the People". Not even Bremer attempted to override the clear constitutional prohibition to foreign ownership of the oil. It would not surprise me if the latest comments by the 'Iraqi' Oil minister are part of a strategy to move public opinion in favour of privatisation. Expect the interim unelected 'government' to stitch up a deal with BP or Shell and then claim 'there is no alternative' to Iraqis accepting full or part US/UK profiteering from the oil. Then expect such clauses to be missing when a replacement constitution for Iraq is drawn up next year.

Luckily, global justice activists have time to fight this issue, as the western oil companies are hesitant about investing in Iraq while the violence continues.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry was forced to cancel a conference in April when most companies pulled out after a surge in violence in the country.
...
Today, neither BP nor Shell has any staff working there. Shell has one consultant in Iraq and it is monitoring developments from its Dubai office. A spokeswoman refused to say if it was planning to send employees to the country. But she added: "Iraq does offer opportunities. We are following developments and working with the Iraqi Minister of Oil.". A BP spokesman said that the company would only consider opportunities in Iraq when "there is a proper regime" in the country.

While it would be nice to think that BP regards the current Iraqi administration as illegitimate, it is more likely they are worried about the prospect of their 'investments' being renationalised by a future representative Iraqi government, on the grounds that privatisation under effective occupation is illegal (and they would be right!)

Also expect US relations with Saudi Arabia to cool further as more barrels of oil roll out of Iraq. Saudi Arabia was one of the most significant beneficiaries of the 1991 Gulf War, as it was able to increase its production as Iraq's oil infrastructure was bombed. Saudi Arabia picked up the slack, and Iraq will soon want and be able to take the 'slack' back.