John McCain - More of the same?

It would certainly appear so. After all, much like Bush, John McCain is enthrall to the oil industry. Bush and McCain may not like each other very much (and many people don't seem to like either of them), but you could barely get a fag paper between the two of them (nb. US readers, fag=cigarette, not some offensive term for homosexuals). Expect more of the same attempts by the US to control oil supplies across the globe if McCain comes to power (God forbid - although the alternative ain't exactly on a different plain).

Since 1989, McCain has received around $700,000 from the oil industry. Furthermore, McCain has worked :

....tirelessly to advance the interests of the oil industry. For example, McCain’s tax plan gives the top five oil companies $3.8 billion a year in tax breaks. McCain meanwhile has voted against reducing dependence on foreign oil, has twice rejected windfall profits tax for Big Oil, and has voted against taxing oil companies to provide a $100 rebate to consumers. If that were not enough, McCain also made a risky political decision recently to back new offshore oil drilling in the US.

Vote McCain, and you most definitely get more Bush (in terms of the President, not women you misogynist fool). But it doesn't end there. What about McCain's supposedly superior experience in international affairs? Ok, put aside his comments about Iraq and Pakistan sharing a border. And don't mention his acknowledgement of the state of Czechoslovakia (ceased to exist in 1993). Despite these gaffes, McCain has a very serious agenda on the international stage, particularly as a result of his relationship with the International Republican Institute (IRI). And just what are his links to the IRI?

Since 1993, McCain has served as Chair of the outfit, which is funded by the U.S. government and private money. The group, which receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year, claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society.

The hottest country in which IRI currently operates is Iraq. According to the IRI’s own web site, since the summer of 2003 the organization “has conducted a multi-faceted program aimed at promoting the development of democracy in Iraq. Toward this end, IRI works with political parties, indigenous civil society groups, and elected and other government officials. In support of these efforts, IRI also conducts numerous public opinion research projects and assists its Iraqi partners in the production of radio and television ads and programs.”

Furthermore, the IRI has been instrumental in events in Haiti. Funding from the IRI was used to foment a violent coup in Haiti against the leadership of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Funding was also used to support opposition parties in the country, and an IRI representative persuaded the opposition parties to avoid compromising with Aristide. It is highly unlikely that Senator McCain was unaware of these events, although it is equally hard to say that he authorised them. However, with such a background in backing violent coups against democratically elected governements, he is perhaps perfectly placed for the role of US president. And, should that day arrive, it doesn't take a genius to work out which country will be first in the firing line. Somewhere rich in oil perhaps?

American Military To Prevent Coup in Georgia?

There has been much talk of the aid being given to the Georgians in the wake of their folly a week ago. Which begs a few questions. Are the Americans providing aid for purely altruistic reasons? Doubtful. Are they sending a message to the Russian government? Certainly. Or are the Americans truly scared that Saakashvili will topple as a result of his humiliation in Georgia and are trying to pre-empt any attempts to overthrow this 'vital ally'? I would say almost definitely.

Saakashvili is certainly in a very precarious position at the moment. His poll ratings were already falling quite dramatically before this latest crisis, mainly due to his preference for sending armed police to disrupt any demonstrations against his rule. His utter failure to complete that which he had pledged (the unification of all parts of Georgia), ensures that even his staunchest supporters must be wavering right now. And that will come as a real concern to a White House that sees this part of the world as strategically vital to US ambitions globally. The toppling of a pro-American leader in this region could have massive implications for the US, not least in relation to the Missile Defence program.

Georgia is one of the countries muted to be a base for these so-called 'defensive' weapons, which is why the US has been so keen to push the case for their membership of NATO. The removal of a leader keen to bend to the wishes of the US would ensure that the 'missile shield' would not receive Georgian approval - a particular problem given the proximity of Georgia to Iran (the supposed target of the 'missile shield'). And with Poland now keen to sign up to missile bases on their territory, the US will be eager to get other allies on board as soon as possible. And what better way to ensure that there is no immediate likelihood of their prized possession in the region coming to harm than to send US troops into the region to provide 'aid'? No doubt the Georgian people will think twice about rising up against Saakashvili as long as they have a superpower paying a 'friendly' visit. Only a few days ago the Georgian leader was talking of Russian occupation in one of his more fantastical pronouncements. There certainly appears to be an occupation, but it is not Russian.

Iran - Stoning Halted

Encouraging news from Iran, although I will hold my breath until it is definitively halted:

Iran's has suspended the punishment of death by stoning, state media say.

A judiciary spokesman said four people sentenced to die by stoning had had their sentences commuted and that all other cases had been put under review.

Lawyers and human rights campaigners have said at least eight women and a man are awaiting the punishment.

Stoning is the penalty for crimes such as adultery under Iranian law, but it is rarely carried out. The last such execution was reportedly last year.

Amnesty International called on Iran in January to abolish what it called a "horrific practice, designed to increase the suffering" of those condemned.

The country's penal code stipulates that before carrying out the punishment, men should be buried up to their waists and women up to their chests. The stones used must be large enough to cause the condemned pain, but not sufficient to kill immediately.

Amnesty also said a disproportionate number of those sentenced to death by stoning were women because they were not treated equally before the law and were particularly vulnerable to unfair trials.

Immigration and The Daily Mail - Hypocrisy in Action

Lots of 'scary' headlines about the latest immigration figures in the national press. The Times took a suitably alarmist stance:

A record number of foreigners were granted British citizenship last year, according to Home Office figures published today.

Just over 164,600 people were given citizenship —- the highest number of applications granted in any year.

The seven per cent increase in persons given citizenship followed a fall in the previous year.

Since 1997 when Labour came to power almost 2 million people have been awarded citizenship, the figures show.

An estimated 591,000 people entered the country, ten per cent up on the previous year, meaning net migration into the country was about 190,000. The overwhelming majority —- 86 per cent —- of immigrants were non British citizens.

“This continued the trend of high immigration to the UK experienced since 1998,” said the Office for National Statistics which published the International Migration figures.


Mmm, scared yet? How about this (watch out for the meaningless statistic):

The number of migrants granted UK citizenship reached an all-time record last year as separate figures revealed more than 200,000 Britons moving abroad.

A raft of statistics released by Whitehall revealed 164,635 foreign nationals were granted UK passports in 2007 - the equivalent of one every three minutes.

The figure is up seven per cent on the previous year and takes the total since Labour came to power to almost 1.2m.

Did you spot it? Incidentally, that last extract is repeated in the Daily Mail. And the good old Express? Why, they are suggesting the figures aren't reliable and are actually much higher:

MINISTERS have no idea how many immigrants are coming to Britain, according to a damning report by MPs.

The official statistics are “totally inadequate” for grasping the scale of population changes, the Parlia-mentary investigation has concluded.

As a result, public services are in danger of collapsing because the lack of reliable data means the Government is incapable of planning ahead.

None of these papers really touch on why there is a rise in immigration (the Daily Mail doesn't even mention where they are from). After all, that would mean treating readers like intelligent individuals instead of mindless zombies. According to the National Statistics website the majority of asylum seekers come from: Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran and Eritrea. Notice any connection there? Two countries have been devastated as a result of our military adventures. These two countries have become increasingly dangerous as a result of our interference. Consequently, it seems quite right and proper that as we fucked their countries, they should come here to enjoy the freedom and democracy we have failed to deliver over there. If we bomb the shit out of their utilities and make their daily lives almost impossible, who can blame them for coming here?

As for the others, presumably the mainstream media are suggesting we send back asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Despite the fact that the very same media outlets have been exposing how dangerous life is in Zimbabwe. So what is it to be, eh? Help the people of Zimbabwe, or turn our backs on them? It wasn't so long ago that the Daily Mail ran a headline screaming:

Don't Zimbabweans have human rights?

Make up your minds chaps. Either you want the people of Zimbabwe to have asylum here, or you do not. Which is it going to be? Just how deep is your concern for the people of Zimbabwe? Is it simply political opportunism? Fear-mongering? Or a genuine desire to protect their human rights? I think we know the answer.

Bush Attacks Obama - Making Political Capital from Holocaust

What better way to make political capital out of the death of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis, than to make the following remark (in Israel no less) on Obama's foreign policy:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before."

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Nothing like a good genocide to utilise a bit of cheap point scoring, eh? Although having said that, it is a bit of a cheek come from a member of a family that gave a fair amount of assistance to the Nazis. Somewhere, 11 million Jews weep.

Besides which, appeasement is very different to talking to your enemies. Appeasement implies giving in to demands. Talking most certainly does not.

What's The Link Between Chevron, Guantanamo and Ecuador?

So, at long last the mainstream media appears to be catching up with reality of torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghriab. Whilst stories surrounding the extent to which those closest to Bush were aware of the new policy regarding torture has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time, it is only now that it is being taking seriously by one of the 'quality' newspapers in the UK. The Guardian's Weekend magazine prints an extensive excerpt from Philippe Sands' Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law which explores Donald Rumsfeld's authorisation of previously illegal interrogation techniques. Although Rumsfeld's name sticks out like a sore thumb, there is one other name that repeatedly surfaces in this expose: William J Haynes II. Yes, the very same William J Haynes II who has recently been employed by Chevron.

Sands' piece makes a pretty damning case against Haynes. Sands writes:

....in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

The document had been drafted a few days earlier by the general counsel at the Defence Department, William J Haynes II (known as Jim Haynes), Rumsfeld's most senior lawyer. The Haynes memo was addressed to Rumsfeld and copied to two colleagues: General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the most senior military official in the US, and Doug Feith, under-secretary of defence for policy and number three at the department.

Yes, Haynes was the man responsible for the policy of torture and human rights abuses that the Bush administration employed across the globe. But to what extent did Haynes approve of new interrogation techniques?


[Attached to the memorandum] was a list of 18 techniques of interrogation, set out in a three-page memorandum.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees - the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals - and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact", such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a "dunk in the water" and a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

The Haynes memo recommended "blanket approval" of 15 of the 18 techniques, including just one of the four techniques listed in Category III: mild, non-injurious physical contact. However, he did not reject the others, nor did he advise that they were contrary to the Geneva conventions. Rumsfeld signed his name next to the word "Approved", and added his comment at the bottom of the page: "I stand for eight to 10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?"

'Blanket approval'. Not 'contrary to the Geneva convention'. Haynes essentially gave the administration the go ahead to indulge in torture on a scale never seen before. Haynes is culpable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity since the Second World War. And now, he has been enlisted to work on legal matters with Chevron. Legal matters that may well include the dispute with Ecuador regarding the alleged damage to the local environment. A dispute that has led to allegations of intimidation of key players in the prosecution (see Chevron in Ecuador label). A dispute that has been subject to a massive smear campaign by Chevron. One does not have to consider for long what Mr Haynes might bring to the dispute. Perhaps new techniques that will encourage the prosecution to drop it's case? One thing can almost be guaranteed. Haynes will explore avenues that will push the boundaries of the law in Chevron's favour. However, as Sands points out, there is still an opportunity for Haynes to receive the justice he deserves:

In June 2006, the Supreme Court overturned President Bush's decision on Geneva, ruling it to be unlawful. The court confirmed that Common Article 3 applied to all Guantánamo detainees. It was as simple as that. Whether they were Taliban or al-Qaida, every one of the detainees had rights under Common Article 3 - and that included Mohammed al-Qahtani.

The majority opinion, reaffirming the "minimal protection" offered by Common Article 3, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. One of the Justices went even further: Common Article 3 was part of the law of war and of a treaty that the US had ratified. "By Act of Congress," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote pointedly, "violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes', punishable as federal offences, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel."

Justice Kennedy's remark put the issue of war crimes on the American political agenda. Individuals who had contributed to a violation of Common Article 3 would know that they were at risk of criminal investigation and prosecution. Even more ominously, it underscored the risk of being investigated outside the US.

Parties to the international Torture Convention are required to investigate any person who is alleged to have committed torture. If appropriate, they must then prosecute - or extradite the person to a place where he will be prosecuted. The Torture Convention is also more explicit than Geneva in that it criminalises any act that constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Complicity or participation could certainly be extended not only to the politicians and but also the lawyers involved in the condoning of the 18 techniques. After all, the scheme applied to al-Qahtani was devised by lawyers, reviewed by lawyers, overseen by lawyers.

Haynes could yet be prosecuted for his abuse of the most basic of human rights. These final few paragraphs might also explain one other aspect of the situation in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr is seen as a real threat to US power in the region. A threat that needs to be crushed in order for the US plan to be fully carried out. What, perhaps, makes this even more crucial is the realisation that should al-Sadr wield any power in Iraq, the consequences could be very serious indeed for various members of the Bu$h clique. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that leading members of the current administration could face extradition to Iraq for their flagrant abuse of the Torture Convention at Abu Ghraib. This, from their point of view, cannot be allowed to happen. Consequently, it is vital for al-Sadr to be portrayed as a dangerous Iranian proxy (ridiculous considering the extensive links between the current Iraqi government and Iran) by the Western establishment (politicians and the media). The thought of Western leaders being exposed as war criminals would be too much for the Western system of government to contend with.

Israel News Special

Numerous stories from Haaretz worthy of comment today. However, given that I am about to hit the sack, feel free to knock yourself out with comments aplenty (that means both of you). First, Olmert confirms the building of 750 new settlement homes:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has approved the renewed construction of hundreds of an estimated 750 new homes in the West Bank settlement of Givat Ze'ev near Jerusalem, the Housing Ministry said Sunday.

The project approved for the Agan Ayelot neighborhood of Givat Ze'ev drew criticism from the Palestinian Authority over Israel's commitment to the peace process.

The prime minister's spokesman said the project was in line with the state's current policy on construction in existing settlements.

"The project was approved by previous governments, and Olmert approved its resumption because it meshes with government policy," he said.

"It is consistent with our long-standing position that building within the large settlement blocs, which will stay a part of Israel in any final status agreement, will continue," Regev said. "Construction outside the settlement blocs has been frozen."

News that is sure to calm tensions in the region.

Second, can you hear the faint beating of drums?? Here commenceth a smear campaign as a prelude to further threats against Iran:

Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim has accused the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog of acting as an agent for Iran and of allowing the Islamic Republic to proceed with its uranium enrichment without international intervention.

"When you examine his behaviour you cannot but reach the conclusion that he is a sort of planted agent ... who has served well the interests of Iran," Boim, a member of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party said in an interview Sunday with Channel One television.

Boim said ElBaradei had allowed Iran time to develop its nuclear bomb plans and that his decisions had thwarted international efforts to stop the Iranians.

"During his years as head of the agency, he has allowed it to be derelict in its duties and has allowed the Iranians to have probably the most important thing of all - time.

"His decisions, have many times been taken with a form of coordination with the Iranians and he has made it impossible to create a strong coalition which could stop Iran's uranium enrichment program," Boim said.

Did someone say "wacky conspiracy theory"??

Back to the peace process, and some predictable stalling by the Israeli government:

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Sunday told visiting U.S. envoy James Jones that that the creation of a Palestinian state amid the current situation in the Gaza Strip and ongoing attacks on Israelis was not in line with Israel's security demands.

"Israel is obligated to respond to terror, and every process must offer a unilateral response to its security needs," said Livni. "The creation of a Palestinian state is not the required answer to Israel's security needs."

The foreign minister said a future Palestinian state must comprise officials "who want not only to live in peace with Israel, but are also able to fight terror and promise the realization of all of its security needs."

The Palestinians, of course, are not "obligated to respond to terror". Especially when over 100 Palestinians are killed (49 of which were civilians) by state terror tactics.

Finally, celebrity news. Goldie Hawn was at a charity fundraising dinner for the Jewish National Fund. The Jewish National Fund will only sell property to Jews, not Arabs:

Pro-Palestinian activists beating drums and blaring horns have protested a visit by Hollywood actress Goldie Hawn to an Israeli charity's fundraising dinner.

Around 150 demonstrators marched on Glasgow's Hilton hotel, where the actress was speaking to supporters of the Jewish National Fund.

The fund is Israel's main land distributor. But the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which organized the protest, believes it is a racist organization and criticized Hawn for lending her support.

Way to go Goldie.

March 6th Will Be Day For Osanloo Mansour

Taken from Scoop:

Events will be held in London, Brussels and worldwide on 6 March 2008 as hundreds of thousands of trade unionists dedicate the day to demanding the release of imprisoned Iranian union leader Mansour Osanloo.

A demonstration will be held outside the Iranian Embassy at 16 Prince's Gate, London SW7 1PTF from 12:30 to 13:30, while across the United Kingdom thousands of transport workers will be leafleting passengers in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Newcastle and other locations. In recognition that Osanloo is an ex-bus driver and heads a bus drivers' union, a red double decker routemaster bus will be visiting London protest sites throughout the day. It will be at the embassy demonstration and will host a photo opportunity outside Portcullis House, Bridge Street, London SW1A (this event not yet confirmed, but planned to take place from 10:30 to 11:00), where union leaders and MPs (TBC) can be photographed next to it with the Houses of Parliament in the background. The campaign is being supported by the TUC, the unions Aslef, GMB, RMT, TSSA, Unison and Unite, as well as Amnesty International, which has declared Osanloo a prisoner of conscience.

Solidarity actions, including demonstrations, will be held at Iranian embassies, in cities, railway stations and at border crossings in Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Cote d'Ivoire, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Spain, South Africa and Thailand. Other countries are planning activities.

The ITF can provide photos of Mansour Osanloo and will be distributing pictures of the March 6th event. A JPEG of an English language leaflet prepared especially for the day can also be sent to you on request to Dawson_sam@itf.org.uk .

The free Osanloo day is receiving particular backing from railway workers and their unions who have voted to dedicate a planned rail action day - which traditionally gives them the chance to promote rail as a safe and environmentally positive way of traveling - to also campaigning on Osanloo's behalf.

David Cockroft, ITF General Secretary, commented: "The Iranian government's continuing mistreatment of Mansour is a running sore. He has asked only for his basic rights and has been answered with fists, truncheons and manacles - but he has not been forgotten. On March 6th we will once again prove that he has friends and supporters around the world."

Melanie Phillips - Sense At Last?

Interesting words from Melanie Phillips on her rage filled blog:

Unfortunately, the moral confusion of our age means that absolute moral values have widely given way to utilitarian and consequentialist thinking, which means in essence that bad means are justified by good ends. That is ultimately the way to tyranny and mass murder.

Quite an astonishing revelation coming from Ms Phillips. In her mind, the invasion of Iraq was an example of bad means justified by a 'good end'. Furthermore, an proposed assault on Iran by Israel would similarly be characterised in this way by Ms Phillips. Is she therefore suggesting that the assault on Iraq, and the proposed assault on Iran, is pointing the way to 'tyranny and mass murder'? Maybe she's not a bad old stick after all.

Meanwhile, in La La Land.....

According to Melanie Phillips, the NIE report is part of some wide ranging conspiracy theory taking in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the United States. Here's a little taster:

On this blog on December 5, I floated the theory that the US had done a deal with both Iran and Saudi Arabia to produce calm in Iraq in return for a promise not to bomb Iran and to serve Israel to them on a plate. Now Debkafile -- whose bulletins, based on intelligence sources, are not reliable but often contain more than a germ of truth -- is reporting a grander version of the same theory. It claims that a Washington-Tehran understanding is in the making, brokered by Saudi Arabia.

[extract]

True? It sounds horribly as if it may be. And there is another dimension to all this. The picture above says it all. Saudi Arabia, which is aghast at Iranian power, appears to have reached the same conclusion about the US -- that it has now totally lost its bottle. Saudi can no longer rely on the US to do what Saudi wanted it to do -- to destroy the Iranian regime. So it has now given up on the US and is doing the next best thing: cosying up to Iran itself. If you can't beat them, make deals with them seems to be its motto.

Hilarious. Isn't it time a tin hat was added to Melanie's picture?

In all seriousness, John Pilger made an excellent point when I witnessed one of his recent talks. It is far easier, and takes less time, to expose the lies of the Daily Mail, The Sun etc than it is to go for the big guns like the BBC, The Guardian etc. The former are no real challenge in terms of identifying the weaknesses in their arguments and exposing them. The latter, on the other hand, buries its establishment bias much further beneath the surface. On this evidence, it really is too easy to expose Phillips' piece as utter fantasy. There's no challenge here. The kind of people who believe this believe there is some vast Jewish conspiracy controlling the world, or that 9/11 was a plot cooked up by the government and there is a secret hanger where all of those who were 'on the planes' are being hidden. Utter lunacy.

Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003 According to US Intelligence

Here is a piece of news that might be worth bookmarking should the Cheney backed propaganda campaign go into overdrive:

Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, intelligence agencies said today, in an unexpected finding that boosts hopes of a diplomatic solution to the problem.

A new national intelligence estimate on Iran concluded, in contrast to two years ago, that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, prompting a conciliatory message from the White House.

"The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically, without the use of force, as the administration has been trying to do," said Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons programme suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," stated the unclassified summary of the secret report.

So, Iran aren't trying to develop a nuclear bomb at the moment. Israel isn't about to be wiped off the map by Iran (not that anyone has actually said this - well, apart from the MSM anyway). The world is not about to be threatened by some supposed mad man in Iran. In short, nothing to worry about. Unless you're Dick Cheney of course. Then you are going to be spending a little bit more time than usual on trying to prove that bombing another country back into the stone age is really in our best interests. Although with Fox News in your corner, you're probably not going to need to work that much harder.

Interview With Mansour Osanloo

Below is a copy of an interview with Mansour Osanloo that has been posted on the ITF's website. It makes for a very enlightening read abou the situation of the workers in Iran:

Iranian trade union leader Mansour Osanloo has been relentlessly persecuted for his efforts to secure an independent trade union and living wages for bus workers. Yet, as he explained in an interview with Transport International shortly before his latest arrest, he does not see himself as anti-government, and believes there are signs of hope for workers’ rights and freedoms in Iran

Did you expect to leave Iran and travel to London safely?

I was very surprised. I was expecting them to come and take me away right up until the flight took off. Then I finally felt that I was OK. My family and colleague came to the airport with me, then they called me continually until I boarded the airplane to ask where I was and if I was safe.

Why do you think the authorities allowed you to go?

Firstly, after my time in prison, and the 200 hours under interrogation, I think the authorities found out I was not anti-government. Secondly, it may be because of all the support I received from my colleagues in my own union, the support for my freedom.

Thirdly, it may be because of international support, from the ITF to the International Trade Union Confederation. There has been so much action and so many letters sent to the Iranian government.

I think another reason may be the media, including the internet, satellite, all those magazines outside of Iran. And my family at home has received so many phone calls supporting me.
What are conditions like in Iran for ordinary working people?

We are in a very precarious age. So many things are changing in our country. We are in two different periods: dictatorial and democratic. There are also cultural changes in Iranian society at present.


Our society is very complex. And in this complex society we still see a feudal economic norm that belongs to a different period, 300 or 400 years ago. Things are changing, the TV and the radio are transforming society, but there are still peasants who live in that period of time.

How did the movement to reform an independent trade union begin?

Because of eight years of war, dating back to 1980, all trade union organisations were closed down. So many of our trade unionists were arrested, they ran away and they were imprisoned.

After 1990 the new Labour Law was established. Islamic leaders were fundamentally against any industrial congregation. More importantly they were against any type of election in the workplace and they tried to help the government, even the intelligence services. During this period they tried to manipulate any kind of workplace election that did take place.

They created a lot of unhappiness, and this and the fact that they were not the voice for the workers, it gave us a chance to evaluate our ideas.

"Each time I went to court, when the judges saw my case, they said this is not the truth and they freed me"

A few of my friends and I knew many of the old trade unionists and we had many discussions with them about reforming unions in Iran.

We tried to use our own experience. We studied fundamental union rights and tried to interpret those issues to our workers. We went from one bus to another, asking questions and trying to make sure the drivers had somewhere to rest. We put all our ideas together to see how we could make a difference to our co-workers. We thought about the effects of our previous generation, what they did and their experiences and how we could renew them for our own union.

We tried to publish a new magazine. We visited every coffee shop; we talked to every driver while they were driving around Tehran. This was six years ago.

Our situation was known in a wide area. At the end of the period of the previous President, Khatami, we decided it was time for us to organise ourselves, and in 2005 after Ahmadinejad came to power for the first time, we started to show our unhappiness about the situation.

One of our actions involved drivers keeping their lights on while driving passengers around the city. This was a protest at the failure of so-called “workers’ organisations” at the company, and about workplace problems such as low wages and long working hours; the use of outdated buses; drivers’ fatigue caused by heavy road congestion; staff redundancy and management’s corruption.

The same day that they first arrested me, the chief of security in Tehran tried to see how he could bring us to the negotiating table. At this time, we had these negotiations and management promised us they were implementing what we agreed, but they didn’t. And from August to December 2005 they kept arresting me.

Each time I went to court, when the judges saw my case, they said this is not the truth and they freed me, but this continued to happen until the December of that year (when Osanloo was arrested and imprisoned for eight months).

How have you managed to keep going, despite the fear that you must have felt many times?
It’s a necessity, and we decided it is better to die than to live like this.

What are conditions like for the bus workers in Tehran?

The minimum wage for bus workers in Tehran is close to US$100 and with all the subsidies we receive it comes to about US$150. The poverty line is US$400 per month. But even government statistics show that the minimum wage should be US$300 per month.

At the same time, working conditions are very difficult. The air pollution is very bad. Some bus services have been privatised, which means the workers have to ensure they compete with these buses. Another problem is that they are not doing just one job, they have many different jobs: they are the driver, the helper, the ticket collector. Yet more problems are that there are two sections on the bus: the women have to be in one section and the men in another. This is a very difficult working situation for us.
Meanwhile since the industrial action in January 2006, which led to mass arrests and dismissals, 43 workers have been terminated. Six of them are in the mediation process, and four workers have received a “return to work” letter.

Does the union have, and encourage, women members?

We had 200 women workers as part of our union and we fought to get them even US$40 per month for the day care of their children. But after the mass arrests their participation went down.

However our members’ wives are very active. They come to our membership meetings, they listen, and they have a right to give an opinion. And on 8 March we had a press release for International Women’s Day and a ceremony.

Is the union allowed to represent its 7,000 members in any normal ways?

Claiming that we represent 7,000 members is not correct, because we do not yet have a free general membership. We are spokespeople for the workers. We represent their problems and they are with us, but if we were in a free and normal situation I believe that 70 to 80 per cent of the whole workforce of 15,000 would want us to represent them.

For the first general membership meeting we had on the street, thousands of workers came and they even ran away from the police and hid in the alleyway, just so that they could come and join. They knew we had helped to increase their wages by US$50 per month, and had got the provision of work clothes for them. I sit here in front of you and the clothes that I am wearing come from the employers.

The most important thing for us to do was to make the temporary workers permanent, and now at least they have a two-year contract.

Do you believe the bus workers of Tehran will eventually get their free and independent union?

Certainly, I believe that.

But what needs to happen, both inside and outside of Iran, for this to become a reality?

I think continued international support for our efforts is one of the most crucial things for us. People have to know that our government representatives are members of the United Nations body and the International Labour Organization (ILO). This is the most important thing for us. Everywhere we go we talk about ILO conventions 87 (concerning freedom of association) and 98 (concerning the right to organise and to bargain collectively).

But we pay the price for this. In Iran, the people are very suspicious of the situation, because they have heard so many lies. But we are trying to gain their trust. I believe that we have already made progress in achieving this, and we hope we can continue in this direction.

What are the political influences in the country?

The situation we are in is very mixed. The majority of people who are in power come from a military background and they are very conservative, but there are different tendencies. Inside the country, we are fighting for our rights. Parliamentary elections will be taking place in the next few months.

The different tendencies have different interests and a different media, and a few of those media are supportive of our work. For example there are particular newspapers that try to emphasise our needs, and each one represents one part of the tendency of the Iranian government. We hope that all of this together will help to lead us to an independent and free organisation.

There are a variety of different movements in Iran right now. We have a student movement, a women’s movement, a workers’ movement, they are training and educating themselves. They try to work together, directly or indirectly, for solidarity.

Interview by Kay Parris

Still A Chance To Avoid War in Iran

The chances are probably quite slim given the blood thirsty nature of the US/UK axis, however, there are some encouraging signs:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to discuss with Arab nations a plan to enrich uranium outside the region in a neutral country such as Switzerland.

He made the announcement in an interview for Dow Jones Newswires in Saudi Arabia where he is attending a petroleum exporters' summit.

Gulf Arab states recently proposed setting up a consortium to provide nuclear fuel to Iran and others.

The scheme could allay fears Iran is enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has insisted that its right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme is not up for negotiation.

No doubt this will be spun as the Iranians playing for time while they continue to develop a nuclear capability. But these attempts must be taken seriously if those in power claim that war is a last resort. Of course, they do not so it is unlikely that this will be the case.

Michael Gove, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the Real Problem With Disengagement

Having watched the BBC's monarchy love fest this morning (also known as the state opening of parliament), I almost choked on my tea when one of the aforementioned politicians pontificated on the real reason for public disengagement from politics. According to Nick Clegg, the fundamental problem was of continual mud slinging between the two main parties. While this may be partly the case, a later remark by Michael Gove (the neo-con crony of the Cameron brigade) was far more (inadvertently) revealing.

During a discussion on foreign policy, Gove spoke of the need to confront Iran, particularly in the light of their leader's wish to "wipe Israel off the map". That this was met with utter agreement by other members of the panel speaks volumes about the current political climate. Not one member of the panel, or the BBC for that matter, chose to challenge the lie that has been perpetuated amongst the mainstream media, entirely unchallenged. And that is the fundamental problem. There is a lack of debate between the parties. The are all standing on the same aggressive, imperialistic patch of political ground. Perhaps, just perhaps, if a politician was to challenge the status quo, more people might be engaged in the political process. Instead, we are presented with a bunch of glove puppets eager to bend to the will of their imperialist masters.

Political disengagement will continue for some time to come because, secretly (perhaps not so secretly), that is what the political establishment desire. How else can policies such as ID cards, 90 detention, not to mention the Iraq war even be proposed? If the public were engaged in the political process none of these things would even be possible. No, disengagement will continue as long as all political parties represent a narrow elite that refuses to indulge in real debate.

Pots and Kettles and Dick Cheney

As intellectually bankrupt as ever, Dick Cheney had this to say about Iran:

"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions.''

Boy, I had to stifle a laugh at that one. Mind you, he is right. We cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. Ahhh, the good old Dick Cheney double-standard. Someone pop a balloon behind his back, maybe the next heart-attack might finish him off.

Mansour Osanloo Still Incarcerated in Evin Prison

In July of this year, Mansour Osanloo was snatched from a bus and placed in the notorious Evin prison. Three months later, and Osanloo is still confined to a prison cell. As a result of his continued incarceration, the International Transport Workers' Federation have produced this video telling the story of Osanloo's fight for the rights of the workers in Iran. Please take time to watch the short clip and, when you have done so, sign Amnesty International's petition demanding that Osanloo receive immediate medical attention.

Israeli Strike on Syria Aimed at 'Nuclear Reactor'

Slowly, but surely, little details are dripping out about the Israeli airstrike in Syria. The Guardian reports:

The target of an Israeli air strike on Syria last month was a suspected nuclear reactor in the early stages of construction which was attacked after intensive consultation with Washington, it was reported yesterday.

The New York Times said US and Israeli intelligence analysts had agreed that the reactor appeared to be built on a North Korean model, though it was unclear how much assistance the North Koreans were alleged to have provided.

It is not clear whether the Bush administration gave a green light to the attack. The US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of defence, Robert Gates, are both reported to have voiced concerns about the impact of a pre-emptive threat against a site that was many years from completion and therefore not an urgent threat.

Yet another pre-emptive strike with no legal basis. The site was clearly no immediate threat, so why did the US and Israel feel the need to launch an attack at this stage, particularly with the upcoming conference regarding the Middle East. The fundamental reason appears to be a re-assertion of dominance in the region in the face of an increasingly confident Iranian state. A confident Iranian state, needless to say, that we have empowered with Western foreign policy over the past four years.

Racism, Beyonce, political convenience, and shitty pre-war coverage of Iran

They say a picture's worth a thousand words. . .

. . . like 'excessive', 'hair product', 'Iron Cross', 'sadist' and, uh,... 'shloop'.

This is Debra Cagan. She's a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to US Secretary for Defence Robert Gates. There is a great little newsbreak here in the Daily Mail about how she told a group of visiting British MPs that "I hate all Iranians". Strangely, this hasn't received the coverage and twisting that might happen if, say, an Iranian official commented that the current regime in charge of Israel should be removed from the pages of history.

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."

Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."

Also amusing is the observation that

Tory Stuart Graham, who was on the ten-day trip, would not discuss Ms Cagan but said: "It was very sobering to hear from the horse's mouth how the US sees the situation."

I would suggest that he actually is discussing Ms Cagan, but he would have surely referred to 'the horse's ass'. . . and even then that would still be an insult to horses.

And although some people complain that mainstream media really have their priorities wrong, I'm glad that this time - in australia at least - that has not been the case.

Because it is far more important to damn Beyonce for 'snubbing' Malaysia by cancelling her concerts because of Islamic fundamentalists intent on regulating her clothing and choreography choices . . . than to report that US military operations on the Iranian border are being run by a sociopathic bigot.

And although I'll obviously be one of squillions of Australians voting in almost any manner likely to eject our current Board of Detractors and install a government more closely resembling a group of people with souls, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has really done damage to his credibility today for anybody willing to really think about it.

The Oz reports that while campaigning in a heavily Jewish Sydney electorate, Rudd committed to trying to bring charges of incitement to genocide against the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if Labor is elected at the next election.

This is the most outstandingly stupid thing that Rudd has yet committed to.

1. it's obvious pandering to a boutique interest group

2. it displays a lazy attitude toward fact-gathering (maybe he should consider this reportage of what Ahmadinejad actually said about Israel, this Islamic discussion of what he said in Farsi, this detail of the use of bogus human rights groups to generate anti-Iranian propaganda, this detail of how America is gearing up for another slaughter, or even just Wiki it)

3. any serious legal action against Iran will undo much of the good work that Rudd could achieve through aggressive diplomacy with China because of the Iran - China oil relationship.

4. this legitimises rather than challenges the current US propaganda line which is in effect for no other reason than justifying another illegal attack that has already been planned.

5. it suggests that some important lessons made available by decades of globally disastrous Western policy on Middle Eastern affairs really haven't been learnt.

6. and the idea of Australia pointing the genocide stick at anybody is a stretch, but at somebody who hasn't actually committed or actively encouraged genocide is just tragic.

Perhaps the final wonderful words should go to Professor Gary Leupp in his clarifying discussion of US foreign policy, media, and political values.

If you hate all of them (and are grotesquely ignorant of their vast contribution to human civilization), why not nuke them, and their monuments and treasures, and destroy their 3000 year history, and "wipe them off the map"? Why not prepare public opinion for that shattering scenario, and grind those boot heels into the brains of any sympathizers of those you call "sand-niggers" as you try to spread Bush's gospel of hate?

Thank the Lord for our free trade deal with Uncle Spam - we get 'gospel of hate' at 22% off!

"The Evil Has Landed" - Or Was He Already Here?

The visit to the United States by Ahlmadinejad prompted the predictable outrage by the American public. Headlines in national papers had a field day with their attacks on the America's latest bogeyman. The New York Daily News, for example, chose the fear-inducing:

"The Evil Has Landed"

Patriotic, yet fear-mongering, the perfect news headline. However, when taking an objective view of recent events across the globe, it is hard to sympathise with the current US position in the Middle East, and particularly in relation to Iran.

The current obsession of the US administration has clearly been the so-called nuclear threat that Iran may provide in the near future. They base this assessment, they claim, on Iran's aggressive policies in the region. If we look beyond the knee-jerk reaction to guffaw loudly at this belief, it is not hard to expose this standpoint for the ludicrous claim that it so clearly is. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has only been involved in one armed conflict, the Iran-Iraq war. It is worth pointing out at this point that Iraq were the aggressors on that occasion, supported by many Western powers as well as various Communist nations and Arab allies. The war itself was particularly costly for Iran. There were an estimated 1 million casualties on the Iranian side, a huge of chunk of which were killed due to the use of those infamous 'weapons of mass destruction'. The use of chemical weapons, with the tacit support of the West (including the US) led to the deaths of over 100,000 Iranians. As usual, the US tried their best to render the United Nations utterly useless. On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that:

"members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons."

The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement. The US refused to condemn the use of weapons of mass destruction on the Iranian civilian population, a refusal that caused much anger across Iran. Iran thus became one of the biggest victims to the use of these forms of weaponry in history.

This really highlights the hypocrisy of the current US position. Iran is apparently a threat and a danger to the world. However, they have only been the victims in any conflict, not the aggressors (they have never invaded a neighbour, despite the fact that many Arab nations backed Iraq in the long running war). Not only have they never been aggressors, they have also been the victim to one of the most horrendous examples of mass civilian casualties in history. Now, backers of Bush will claim that although Iran hasn't invaded her neighbours, she has been involved in covert action across the Middle East. This may well be the case, but hasn't the US been guilty of the same. Didn't the US government attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government in Venezuela in 2002? Hasn't American history throughout the post-war period been characterised by interference in other countries' affairs? Of course. Yet when it is the US they are benevolent, and when it is a foreign nation with a competing ideology they are malevolent and evil. Again, taking an objective view, wouldn't it be fair to say that when using Iran as a yardstick, the US government also appears to be a malevolent entity in global affairs? Bush alone has overseen two bloody wars of aggression (not to mention the failed coup attempts). What wars have the Iranians instigated in the past seven years?

Now, I am no defender of Iran (I am an atheist and therefore cannot support any state built on religious grounds) and I find some of Ahlmadinejad's statements a little unsavoury to say the least (note his comments about homosexuality in Iran at the recent college debate). However, I see no evidence that he is any more 'evil' than George W Bush (who hasn't exactly been noted for his liberal social views either). Perhaps before lobbing venom at the President of Iran, American people should look a little closer to home to see an establishment that is all to eager to utilise weapons of mass destruction, or encourage its use by proxies. After all, sixty-two years after the end of the war, only one nation has taken full advantage of its abilities to launch weapons of mass destruction and it's not Iran.

US and Israel Accuse Syria of Developing Nuclear Weapons

Another twist in the saga of the Israeli air strike in Syria. According to The Sunday Times:

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.

The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.

They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

How utterly convenient that yet another member of the 'axis of evil' is attempting to develop a nuclear arsenal. It matters not that diplomats close to the IAEA have no such suspicions of Syrian weapons development, the rhetoric involving the axis of evil is sure to be ramped up. How long will it be before threats are being made against Syria as well as Iran? Perhaps the US sees Syria as the weak partner in the apparent Middle East conspiracy. Knock out Syria and you damage Hezbollah and Iran becomes isolated in the region. Whatever the rationale behind this rhetoric, you can be certain that the pressure will rise over the coming days and weeks. And don't be surprised if talk of Iranian influence is ramped up.