South Ossetia Through the Looking Glass

We helped in Iraq - now help us, beg Georgians

So says the highly emotive front page of today's Times. Such a headline has reflected a broader trend across the media to represent Georgia as an innocent party in the current conflict. As ever, the story is far more complex than that, not least because the conflict was instigated by a Georgian leader eager to boost his ratings and please his Western allies.

Mikheil Saakashvili came to power in 2004 after the so-called 'Rose Revolution' that brought to an end the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze. Saakashvili rode into power on the back of a commitment to unite Georgia and usher in a new era of pro-Western Georgian politics (much to the alarm of the Russian government). Eager to appeal to the West, Saakashvili's party, the United National Movement, moved away from its previous centre-left positioning and took up the mantle of 'liberal conservatism'. The main focus of the post-revolution party was economic liberalism alongside civic nationalism - a recipe clearly designed to appeal to the West (particularly America, who had already referred to the 'Rose Revolution' as a 'powerful moment' from a 'key ally in the region'). In fact, so wide-ranging have their reforms been, that the World Bank has named Georgia as the number one economic reformer in the world, and the country is ranked 18 for 'ease of doing business'.

As a supporter of free market economics, it was clear that the Georgian leader would seek closer links with the West, and so it has proven. Since coming to power, Saakashvili has courted the EU and NATO in a bid to gain membership to these prestigious Western organisations. So keen has he been to seek America's favour, that he even agreed to double the number of troops Georgia sent into Iraq, making Georgian forces one of the largest outside the US and UK. Furthermore, the Georgian government, through it's attempts to court NATO membership, has also shown it's willingness to be utilised as a base for America's so-called 'missile shield' in Central and Eastern Europe. Certainly, Bush has been keen to give the Georgian government full NATO membership, although he has so far been defeated (incidentally, it is worth noting that NATO intends to vote on Georgian membership once more in December). There is no doubt that this is Bush's man. An economic liberal eager to open up markets and adopt a Western style of government in a region dominated by the former Soviet Union.

Despite the appearance of the Georgian leader in the Western media, Saakashvili is certainly not whiter than white. On July 1st 2005, Georgian police violently clashed with protesters in central Tbilisi over the detention of two athletes for blackmail. The initial demonstration soon turned into a demonstration against the central authorities, who had already stopped attempts at an earlier rally. Anti-riot police and special military forces armed with machine guns proceeded to violently disperse the rally and put an end to the anti-government protests. As a result of the rally, 25 people were arrested, including 5 opposition politicians.

Further demonstrations occurred in November 2007 when 50,000 demonstrators took to the streets to protest against the allegedly corrupt Georgian regime. Saakashvilli was accused of presiding over an authoritarian regime and there was a growing demand for fresh democratic elections. Once more the crowds were dispersed with armed riot police utilising tear gas, rubber bullets and water canons. Protesters were beaten and men dressed in black clothes and black masks also attacked protesters. As a result of the violence, some 508 people were admitted to hospital, most suffering with the effects of exposure to tear gas.

This is, of course, the kind of leader that Bush admires. As Naomi Klein has demonstrated in The Shock Doctrine, new liberal policies go hand in hand with violent crackdowns on the civilian population. Saakashvili has been instrumental in Georgia's neo-liberal development over the past four years (hence it's standing with the World Bank) whilst simultaneously crushing dissent and cementing his position at the head of an authoritarian regime. It comes, therefore, as no surprise to see the Western response to the latest crimes against humanity perpetuated by this Friedmanite Georgian leader.

Whilst it appears to have been forgotten by much of the media, it was Georgia that instigated the recent violence. Keen to recover the kind of popularity he received at the instigation of the Rose Revolution, Saakashavili has seen his approval rating plummet from around 86% when entering office to around 16% at the end of 2007. Given the problems in South Ossetia, an attempt to unify Georgia would surely boost approval ratings. All that was needed was the support of the US and other Western allies to ensure that it could go ahead without getting in the way of Georgia's broader ambitions (EU, NATO etc). Given the strategic significance of the region for the US (particularly in light of the missile defence program), there was no way that the US would stand in the way. In fact, there has been some evidence that the US had been actively involved in the assault on South Ossetia.

As recently as July this year, around 1,600 troops from the US, Georgia and other Eastern European countries had been involved in exercises near the Georgian border. Good old Condi Rice even visited the region recently during a particularly tense stand-off in the region during which time one US state official stated that:

"Moscow should realize its Soviet empire is gone."

And it even appears that Israel has been involved in training the Georgian army in what appears to be a repeat of the assault on Lebanon in 2006:

“In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert based in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military.” [hat-tip InfoWars]

The fact that Georgia had increased it's military spending from $30 million to $1 billion, and that the US was giving massive military aid, indicates that the Georgian government were preparing for open conflict. Furthermore, the US has further worsened the situation in South Ossetia by airlifting Georgian troops from Iraq into Georgia in an attempt to aid the Georgian government. Bush's finger prints are all over this one. Clearly they have pushed the boat out to aid a fellow economic liberal in yet another disastrous foreign intervention. Much like the situation in Lebanon in 2006, the US's actions will only lead to a strengthening of the power they were seeking to undermine. The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon led to the strengthening of Hezbollah and Iran. There is no doubt that this current conflict will lead to the strengthening of Russia within the region.

Putting aside the tactical error made by the Bush administration, there has been a series of serious human rights abuses perpetuated by the Georgian armed forces during the assault on South Ossetia. According to one source:

"Much of the city (Tskhinvali) was reportedly in flames Friday. The regional parliament building had burned down, the university was on fire, and the town’s main hospital had been rendered inoperative by the bombardment."

Vesti radio reported that Georgian forces burned down a church in Tanara in South Ossetia where people were hiding, to the ground, with all the people inside. The Deputy Director of an information agency as an eye witness reported that fragments of cluster bombs of were found in Tskinvali. There have also been reports by a South Ossetian reservist that civilians who were hiding in basements were shot dead by Georgian soldiers.

Wikipedia reports that, "Russian soldiers captured group of American mercenaries on territory of South Ossetia. Group was captured near of Zare village."

An estimated 1,500 people have died in the onslaught and 30,000 more fled across the Russian border. Large swaths of the city have been reduced to rubble including the one hospital that was pounded by Georgia bombers. Georgia has cut off the water supply to the city.The Red Cross now anticipates a "humanitarian catastrophe" as a result of the fighting.

“I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars,” Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, told the Associated Press after fleeing the city with her family to a village near the Russian border. “It’s impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged.”

At least 15 Russia peacekeepers were killed in the initial fighting and 70 more were sent to hospital. Georgia's army stormed the South Ossetia capital, Tskhinvali, killing more than 1,000 fleeing civilians. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin told news agencies in an interview how the hostilities began:

Russian peacekeepers "were killed by their own [Georgian] partners in the peacekeeping forces. There is a Russian battalion, an Ossetian battalion, and a Georgian battalion... and all of a sudden the Georgians, Georgian peacekeepers, begin shooting their Russian colleagues. This is of course a war crime. I do not rule out that the Hague and Strasbourg courts and institutions in other cities will be involved in investigating these crimes, and this inhuman drama that has been played out."

And yet, these human rights abuses seem to have underplayed whilst the US and her partners continue to attack Russian aggression, and simultaneously refusing to condemn the actions of the Georgian government. Saakashvili has shown his quality in the past. He is not afraid of abusing individual human rights to maintain his stronghold on the country and seek favour with the US. The fact that he is prepared to compare the situation with Kosovo when his own forces have behaved so barbarically in South Ossetia reveals the lengths to which he is prepared to go to win the PR battle, a battle that he certainly seems to be winning in the West when one glances at the media. Whilst there is no excuse for a Russian invasion of Georgia, observers must remember that the Georgian leader is behind this crisis and he has proven that he is nothing more than a war criminal with authoritarian tendencies. One can only hope that his gross folly will lead to his inevitable removal and the Georgian people can have a leader that cares about the interests of the populace and not neo-liberal global posturing to court favour with the West.

Cluster Bombs To Be Banned?

So rare to find anything to rejoice about with this government, but here is a rare opportunity:

Britain is to take cluster bombs out of service, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

The announcement came shortly before diplomats from 109 countries reached an agreement on an international ban on the use of the controversial weapons.

Mr Brown called it a "big step forward to make the world a safer place" and said he hoped more states would follow.

But some of the world's main producers and stockpilers - including the US, Russia and China - oppose the move.

The final draft of the new convention banning cluster bombs went before delegates in Dublin on Wednesday afternoon and the deal was reached much earlier than expected.


No real shocks about those who are opposed to such a move, but at least there is a glimmer of hope. The use of these weapons in Lebanon was a reminder of their indescriminate brutality. However, as RickB at Ten Percent points out, it's not all good news:

Gordon Brown has said the UK needs to increase its nuclear power capacity - raising the prospect of plants being built in new locations.

The prime minister said that with oil prices soaring, it was time to be "more ambitious" for nuclear plans.

No 10 sources said it was "open" as to whether new sites might be needed.

Ministers announced in January they backed new plants, but the focus was on replacing existing nuclear capacity as plants reached the end of their life.

And a review of possible sites published at the same time focused on 14 locations where there have been nuclear power plants before.

Of course, the fact that Gordon Brown's brother is Head of Media for EDF won't have any sway on awarding contracts, will it?

MOD To Keep Cluster Bombs

Remember the good old days of an 'ethical foreign policy'??? No? Neither do I. And here's a further reminder of this country's failure to operate ethically on the global stage:

The British government is deeply divided over its policy on cluster bombs on the eve of international negotiations about a ban, the Guardian has learned.

The split sets the Ministry of Defence, which wants to retain two types of cluster munitions in the British armoury, against Downing Street and the Foreign Office, which want to honour Gordon Brown's pledge last year "to work internationally for a ban" on those weapons that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.

An international conference on cluster munitions - shells or rockets which contain several smaller bombs - begins on Monday in Dublin. Officials said it was unlikely British divisions would be resolved by then. Instead, they hope the position taken by European allies could throw up a workable compromise.

Why not write to Des Browne and tell him what you think of this policy (in a polite way of course)? Here's his email address:

browned@parliament.uk

Now get cracking.

Melanie Phillips - Grasp On Reality Continues to Spiral Out of Control

Another classic moment from the Madness of Queen Mel:

Next, there was no ‘massive loss of civilian life’ — quite the contrary. As far as I know, some 1200 people in Lebanon died during the war. Although it is not known how many of them were Hezbollah soldiers since they disguised themselves as civilians, according to the Israelis 500-600 of these fatalities were actually Hezbollah fighters. Only relatively small areas of Beirut were bombed. Given the scale of the bombardment of Israel from Lebanon, with more rockets fired at it in some four weeks than during the Blitz on London during World War Two, the relative restraint and carefully limited nature of the Israeli response (which certainly had many faults) would never have been shown in similar circumstances by any other country. But the British media nevertheless viciously misrepresented the whole thing, inducing a national hysteria and madness — which was what drove Tony Blair from office earlier than he had intended. It was one of the most disgraceful episodes in contemporary British history. Patently false Hezbollah propaganda claims were uncritically regurgitated by the British media as fact, which I commented upon here.

She also quotes an Israeli army captain (entirely impartial of course):

This was perhaps both the most cynical and barbaric disregard for innocent civilian lives of all of Hezballah’s and Iran’s strategic choices. It was also the most successful. It was predicated not on its knowledge of its enemy (Israel) but its true genius lay in its knowledge of the press. The calculus was simple: launch a rocket from within a civilian population; if you kill Jews that’s a victory. If the Jews hit back and in so doing kill Lebanese civilians, that’s a victory. If they don’t hit back because they’re afraid to hit civilians, that’s a victory. Now repeat the process until you kill so many Jews they have to hit back and in so doing kill more Lebanese civilians. That’s the ultimate victory, because they know that in striking just those chords exactly what music the press will play. The awful truth, which the western press was manipulated to ignore or downplay, was that Iran, through its terrorist operational arm Hezballah, had invaded Lebanon from within. Hezballah did not protect Lebanon, they occupied it and they used those Hezballah occupied territories to launch Iran’s offensive in response to the West’s ultimatum to cease development of nuclear weapons.

Of course, this has proved to be an utter fallacy but that will not stop Mad Mel from perpetuating lies to further her own warped, hateful agenda. An independent report by Human Rights Watch has already exposed the truth behind the allegations of fighting from within civilian populations. As my earlier post reported:

Israel was accused yesterday of firing indiscriminately during last year's 34-day war in Lebanon in a report by Human Rights Watch which challenged Israel's claim that the high number of civilian casualties resulted from Hizbullah shielding itself among the Lebanese population.

In a 249-page investigation, the New York-based group said its research showed that even though the militants were also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that they systematically fought from among civilians.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, dismissed Israel's claim to have killed 600 Hizbullah fighters. He said the best estimate was that there were 250 Hizbullah fighters among the 1,109 Lebanese deaths. About 160 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed.
See? Bullshit.

Of course, loonies like Mad Mel would claim that Human Rights Watch is full of soft lefties who are hardly impartial. If that is indeed the case, perhaps Mad Mel could shed some light on why she is so keen to utilise HRW reports when they back-up her world-view, yet dismiss them when they challenge her. Look forward to hearing from you Mel (ps a post on Burma might be nice - wouldn't want people to think you support the military junta).

Phalangist Antoine Ghanim Killed in Lebanon

It always surprises me how little context the mainstream media give to various events in the Middle East. The BBC reported Ghanim's death thus:

Banks, schools and government offices are closed in Lebanon, as the country mourns an anti-Syrian MP who was killed in a car bombing in the capital Beirut.

Antoine Ghanim, of the Maronite Phalange party, died with at least six others in the blast in the mainly Christian Sin al-Fil district.

World leaders have condemned the assassination, while several Lebanese politicians blamed Syria for the bomb.

Lebanon is poised to choose a successor to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.

But the country has been mired in an ongoing political crisis, with a deadlock between pro- and anti-Syrian factions in parliament.

The reporting paints a very positive view on Ghanim within the context of Lebanon's bid to free itself from the clutches of Syria (a member of the infamous 'axis', don't forget). However, as with Pierre Gemayel's murder last year, little is reported of the party to which they belonged. The Kataeb Party was established in 1936 by Pierre Gemayel (the grandfather of his namesake). The party was founded after Gemayel had been impressed by the organisation and efficiency of the Nazi party after visiting the 1936 Olympics. On returning to Lebanon, Gemayel formed his party and named it after Franco's Falange party in Spain and organised it along similar lines. In short, the Kataeb Party is a fascist party.

Now, although any murder must be condemned as a criminal act, it makes you wonder: why do the mainstream media not give more background information about the Kataeb Party? Is it simply because they support the West's policy towards Syria? Is fascism seen as a necessary evil in the fight against another threat? Unless the media starts reporting within its proper context, these questions will remain unanswered.

Attack on Syria A 'Dry Run' For Assault on Iran?

That's the question in today's Observer. Despite Israel's refusal to comment on the incursion last week, Peter Beaumont claims that this was a 'major' incursion. According to Beaumont:

Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.

Beaumont also claims that the action by the Israeli air force was part of an attempt to address neo-conservative foreign policy concerns. Unsurprisingly, certified evil bastard, John Bolton, has been one of the key men pushing the propaganda for this raid. From the same article:

According to an intelligence expert quoted in the Washington Post who spoke to aircrew involved in the raid, the target of the attack, revealed only to the pilots while they were in the air, was a northern Syrian facility that was labelled as an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river, close to the Turkish border.

According to this version of events, a North Korean ship, officially carrying a cargo of cement, docked three days before the raid in the Syrian port of Tartus. That ship was also alleged to be carrying nuclear equipment.

It is an angle that has been pushed hardest by the neoconservative hawk and former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. But others have entered the fray, among them the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who, without mentioning Syria by name, suggested to Fox television that the raid was linked to stopping unconventional weapons proliferation.

As time goes on, this story is becoming more and more interesting. It would appear that this was part of a concerted strategy between the White House and Tel Aviv to flex a few muscles and send a warning to Syria (in terms of its activities in Lebanon) as well as Iran. It seems fairly obvious that at some point in the not too distant future, the Israeli airforce will conduct some military operation in Iran. After all, Cheney is already trying to drum up support for military intervention, any claims that this issue will be dealt through official channels (UN/IAEA) is nothing more than fantasy. Military action is clearly the preferred option for the US and her key franchise state in the region. The question is, how do we stop this folly.

Hezbollah Fighters Did Not Systematically Embed Themselves With Civilians in Lebanon

A little while back, certain commentators were jumping all over a report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) regarding the war in Lebanon last summer. According to reports:

"Human Rights Watch's report said it found numerous rockets fired by Hezbollah in which there was no apparent legitimate military target, indicating civilians were deliberately attacked.

The report also said Hezbollah's justifications that the rocket attacks were a response to Israeli fire into southern Lebanon and aimed at drawing Israel into a ground war had no legal basis under the rules of war.

"Hezbollah's explanations for why it fired rockets at Israel's civilian population utterly fail to justify these unlawful attacks," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "Hezbollah, like Israel, must respect the laws of war."

This was given as evidence, by the usual suspects (ie USS Neverdock), that Hezbollah was the only guilty party in the conduct of the war. Amongst the many other accusations of bloggers such as these, were claims that the reporting of civilian casualties in Lebanon was grossly exaggerated. Marc at USS Neverdock has gone so far as to call these claims 'lies'. Now a new report by HRW has exposed these counter-claims as lies themselves. According to The Guardian:

Israel was accused yesterday of firing indiscriminately during last year's 34-day war in Lebanon in a report by Human Rights Watch which challenged Israel's claim that the high number of civilian casualties resulted from Hizbullah shielding itself among the Lebanese population.

In a 249-page investigation, the New York-based group said its research showed that even though the militants were also guilty of serious violations of the laws of war, there was no evidence that they systematically fought from among civilians.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, dismissed Israel's claim to have killed 600 Hizbullah fighters. He said the best estimate was that there were 250 Hizbullah fighters among the 1,109 Lebanese deaths. About 160 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed.

So, the levels of civilian deaths would appear to be accurate after all. Not only that, it would appear that the oft-repeated claims of elements of the mainstream media (that embedding themselves within the civilian population was part of a systematic policy) was entirely fabricated in order to support Israeli bombing raids. This report was itself buried on page 8 of the international edition of The Guardian (I would be interested to know where it was placed in the domestic edition).

Of course, we shouldn't expect this report to make an appearance on right-wing blogs, unless they attempt to discredit it. This is the problem with many right-wing commentators when they use human rights organisations' reports to support their arguments. They spend too often discrediting them, it seems hard to believe that they would then take the report as gospel just because it 'supports' their tenuous arguments. There will, no doubt, be further attacks on HRW on blogs like USS Neverdock which rather undermines their arguments when they use them as evidence. Who decides when a report by a human rights organisation is worthy or not? You either support their findings in their entirety, or you do not. You cannot pick and choose which ones are valid based on political prejudice. Those that do, can never be taken seriously as a political commentator. But then I guess these bloggers have no intention of being treated as serious commentators, they are merely interested in spreading one-sided propaganda.

Iran's Strength Has Grown - I Wonder Why?

Following on from the news that the US administration is aiming to increase military aid in the Middle East, Condoleeza Rice has been in the region meeting America's allies. The whole thing is entirely laughable, were it not for the fact that some in the administration are after another war. According to the BBC:

The US will help its allies in the Middle East meet their security needs and counter the growing power of Iran, the US secretary of state has said.

Condoleezza Rice met key Arab allies a day after announcing arms deals worth $63bn (£31bn) for a host of Middle Eastern states.

There are two questions one must ask in response to this. Firstly, why has Iran grown in power in recent years? The answer is found in recent US foreign policy. Iran has grown in power because the US has eliminated its main adversary in the region. The removal of Saddam coupled with the ongoing chaos, has meant that Iran no longer needs to worry about a hostile entity on its border. With its main rival out of the picture, Iran has been able to grow in confidence and flex its muscle across the region. Which leads me neatly on to the second reason for Iran's strength. Israel's assault on Lebanon last year left only one real winner. Iran. As we know, Hezbollah has ties with the Iranian regime and its victory last summer has shown many across the Middle East that Iran is a key player in the region. The defeat also did much to undermine whatever strength the US had in the region (given that Israel was acting as America's proxy). Little wonder Iran's confidence is soaring. Almost makes you wonder if the current administration had planned for this particular outcome in preparation of a new wave of tub-thumping. But then I wouldn't want to put forward any world conspiracy theories. Still, it makes you wonder.......

The other question one must ask is why is the US funding Sunni regimes? It was Sunni Muslims behind the attacks on the US on September 11th, 2001. I don't recall Shia Muslims being implicated in any way. So the question remains, why is the US funding increased militarisation of nations who have far closer ties to those attacks than Iran? Isn't it the Sunni Muslim countries that we should be worried about?? Guess not if you want to foment a new war in the region and shift the balance of power in your favour.

Israel/Lebanon: War crimes without accountability

A year on from the start of the 34-day war between Hizbullah and Israel, Amnesty International today condemned the complete absence of any steps in the two countries affected or internationally to prosecute those responsible for war crimes and other grave violations committed during last summer's conflict.

"Without a full, impartial UN-led inquiry that includes provision for reparations to the victims, there is a real danger of history repeating itself. The total lack of political will to hold to account those responsible for the indiscriminate killing of civilians, more than one thousand of whom lost their lives, is both a gross betrayal of the victims and a recipe for possible further civilian bloodshed with impunity," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa programme.

During and after the war Amnesty International investigated violations of international humanitarian law – including war crimes - committed by both Israeli forces and Hizbullah fighters and published its findings in three reports last year. In the face of the patent unwillingness by all concerned parties to investigate the violations, the organization called on the UN to establish a comprehensive, impartial and independent inquiry empowered to investigate the evidence of violations of international law by both Hizbullah and Israel, and to make provision for reparation for the victims. However, the international community has lacked the political will to take the necessary steps to set up such an inquiry.

Partisan politics and selectivity in bodies such as the UN Security Council - the main body with the authority to decide such matters without the agreement of the concerned parties - has effectively left the Lebanese, Israeli and other victims without recourse to justice.

By contrast, the Security Council's decision to establish a tribunal to prosecute those accused of responsibility for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and other political murders shows that where there is political will the mechanisms for establishing the truth can be created despite the opposition of some of the concerned parties. Amnesty International welcomes the establishment of the tribunal but continues to stress the urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to address past war crimes and human rights abuses in Lebanon, including those committed during the war in July-August last year.

In Israel the investigation carried out into the conduct of Israeli forces into the war was limited to military strategy and made no attempt to investigate violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes committed by Israeli forces, or to establish a mechanism to bring to account those responsible for such violations. In Lebanon, no official investigation at all has been carried out. An inquiry appointed by the UN Human Rights Council was given a one-sided mandate, focusing only on evidence of violations by Israeli forces.

Israel, Lebanon and all other countries in a position to do so should investigate and prosecute those suspected of war crimes.

Although the conflict ended following a UN-brokered ceasefire agreed on 11 August 2006, its repercussions continue to weigh on the civilian population.

Scores of people have been killed or injured in south Lebanon as a result of cluster bombs, launched by Israeli forces mostly in the last 72 hours of the conflict after the ceasefire had been agreed but before it took effect. The United Nations Mine Action Coordination Centre (UN-MACC) has identified 922 sites over which unexploded but still lethal remnants of cluster bombs and other ordnance are scattered and estimates that the clearing will take a year or more. According to UN-MACC, from the time of the ceasefire up until 20 June 2007, 32 people - 24 civilians and eight de-miners - were killed and 210 people were injured in south Lebanon as a result of unexploded cluster munitions.

"Amnesty International repeats its call on Israel to hand over maps detailing the areas its forces targeted with cluster bombs. These are vital to assist bomb clearance and avoid further casualties," said Malcolm Smart.

The organization also calls on the Israeli government to impose a moratorium on the use of all cluster weapons and to provide maps of the locations of the land-mines its forces laid in south Lebanon in past years.

"The Security Council should declare and enforce an arms embargo on both Israel and Hizbullah until effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that weapons will not be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law," said Malcolm Smart.

Amnesty International continues to urge Hizbullah to provide information about the two Israeli soldiers its fighters captured on 12 July 2006 and allow them immediate access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Note to editors

For previous Amnesty International documents on the Israel/Hizbollah conflict, please see:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lebanonisrael-documents-eng

You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.
*****************************************************************
Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at
http://www.amnesty.org/news. Visit http://www.amnesty.org/
for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.

Privacy policy: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng

News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International

23 May 2007

Lebanon: Concerns on fighting between army and Fatah al-Islam group

Amnesty International is greatly concerned about the death of civilians as a result of the fighting in the Nahr al-Bared camp between heavily armed fighters of Fatah al-Islam and the Lebanese army. Amnesty International is particularly concerned about the army's use of artillery and other heavy weapons, including tank fire, against heavily-populated areas. Whatever the weapons used and the tactics adopted, including during any attempt that may yet be made to take control of the camp by force, the Lebanese army must use proportionate force and take the necessary precautions at all times to protect and ensure the safety of civilians.

Fatah al-Islam has an obligation to ensure that civilians are not unnecessarily exposed to the fighting and are allowed to leave the camp if they so wish. Civilians wishing to leave must be evacuated and their movement should be facilitated and protected.

Humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross and the United Nations must be allowed immediate and unhindered access inside the camp, where civilians face growing problems also because of cuts in water and electricity supply.

Countries that exercise influence on the Lebanese government must ensure that any weapons delivered to the Lebanese army do not contribute to human rights abuses.

There is a real fear that the clashes could spread to other Palestinian refugee camps or could develop into wider political violence in Lebanon, again raising fears of a return to the intercommunal violence that marked the 1970s and 1980s. Whatever the immediate cause of these incidents, they highlight the long-standing international failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict, a permanent cause of fear and polarization around the world as shown in the Amnesty International Report 2007 published today.

"It took the United Nations Security Council four weeks to call for a cease-fire in Lebanon during the conflict in 2006 - the UN must act more urgently this time," said Secretary General Irene Khan. "What is urgently needed is principled and sustained engagement by the UN and world leaders to deal with the situation in Lebanon and the broader Middle East."

Background

At least 70 people have so far been killed in the fighting which erupted four days ago between Fatah al-Islam, an Islamic militant group, and the Lebanese army. The fighting started in Tripoli, north Lebanon, then escalated at Nahr al-Bared camp which is home to around 30,000 Palestinian refugees. There are reports of the army's use of heavy weaponry, including tanks. The casualties included at least 13 civilians - the real figure is likely to be higher - in addition to some 30 Lebanese army soldiers and 25 fighters. Thousands of refugees were finally able to leave the camp last night during a lull in the fighting and many continue to leave.

AI Index: MDE 18/003/2007 23 May 2007

********************************

You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.

********************************

Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at http://www.amnesty.org/news/. Visit http://www.amnesty.org for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.Privacy policy http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng

The Blairite Legacy

As their seems to be a national obsession with defining what the Blair Legacy™ is, it seems only fair that I should also have a crack at what people will remember about Blair. Of course, it would be easy for me to just copy and paste what a thousand other commentators have written, but that would be just plain lazy. It would also be very easy to spend the entire post using the situation in Iraq with which to beat Teflon Tony. However, no matter how angry this decision made me, there are countless other examples of why this man has been such a disaster for this country and, in particular, for left-wing progressive politics in general.

Firstly, I want to take you back to 1997 and the general election. Now, I have to confess something to you. Something that seems to annoy many left-wing people I have encountered via this medium. However, it is something that I am proud of. I never voted for Tony Blair. There I said it, this is where you start hurling abuse at your monitor for my failure to vote for the only electable, left-wing candidate. As I said, however, this is something of which I am proud to say. I know this will sound a little 'I told you so', but I had bad feelings about Blair right from the very start. I was coming up to the end of my final year when the election campaign was underway, and I was looking forward to playing a part in my first general election (it's rather like the first time you go out on a date - only the end result is even more crushingly depressing than you might have feared). A friend and I watched some of the pre-election bullshit (sorry, I mean campaign) and we were both agreed - we couldn't trust Blair. At that stage it was for very superficial reasons. Remember the devil eyes poster by the Tories? Well, that was exactly what we thought of Blair - the only disappointment being that it was the dreaded Tories that had come up with such an appropriate image for our future Prime Minister. We were also very suspicious of the actual content of what he said, but it was the smile and the eyes that made me think that he had sold his soul to the devil (as it now seems). So, regardless of the consequences of not voting for the only credible opposition to the Tories, I voted Lib Dem. Not much better but at least it wasn't Blair.

Not long after the election, I began to realise that Blair was preparing to be the very thing I feared he might become - the spawn of Thatcher. And here is where his legacy begins. Barely two months after the election, on a wave of 'goodwill', Blair did the unthinkable. He introduced top-up fees. Essentially, he opened higher eduction up to market forces. Now, I know it is a controlled market at the moment, with no flexibility to set varying fees and thus create 'competition' and 'choice', but the foundations are certainly there. Besides, education is a right, not a privilege. Any attempt to put a price on education, makes it exclusive to those that can afford it. Surely this was the antithesis of a socialist government? Was this the Tory party in disguise? Of course it was. And as they have proved ever since, the re-branding of Labour as 'New' Labour might as well have been labelled Tory 'Lite'. Furthermore, under Blair's Labour party, the divide between the rich and the poor has become even wider. Who would have thought that this would be possible with a Labour government? It is very clear who truly inspired Blair.

Not long after the introduction of tuition fees, Blair then showed how close he was to big business. In October 1997, Blair decided to exempt Formula One from the ban on tobacco sponsorship. It then emerged that the decision was not as simple as was first thought. It transpired that Blair had accepted a £1 million donation from Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone before the general election. As part of his defence, Blair claimed that:

"I don't believe I have been tarnished - no ... I am a pretty straight sort of guy."

Aaah, hindsight eh? Again, the suspicions about his support of the business community (not to mention the accusations of being bought by business leaders), raised serious questions about where this country was heading under Blair. First, restricting universal, free education, then seemingly bowing to the will of big business. Were we in fact seeing a Tory 'Lite'? A government with roots in Thatcherite economics? A centre-right Labour party?

There then followed a series of scandals as Blair became embroiled in a culture of sleaze. This was turning into the Major years all over again. Blair resorted to spinning himself out of every mess he found himself in. However, many people were starting to see through the culture of spin that Blair had created around him. As one commenter put it on the BBC website in 1999:

Tony Blair and the New Labour Party now represent nothing more than the sneering face of New Thatcherism. How else can one describe a party which embraces privatisation of core public services (through the PFI), cynical pre-election tax cuts ahead of real investment in schools and hospitals (and New Labour is proud of the fact that it spends less on public services than any British government in 40 years), an "ethical" foreign policy which sees British weapons sold to some of the most opressive regimes in the world?

Privatisation became a massive priority for Blair over this period. The NHS and the education system both became prime targets for Blair's infatuation with PFI. Blair's determination to get the private sector involved in public services was the clearest indication yet of his passion for Thatcherite economics. Despite the protestations of unions and some backbenchers, Blair continued down the course of privatisation. In fact, one might say that privatisation was re-invigorated by Blair throughout his premiership.

Then there was his disastrous foreign policy. Not only has the war in Iraq itself proven to be such an unmitigated disaster, the conduct of Blair and his government in the run-up to the invasion led to numerous high profile scandals. First, and most importantly, was the death of Dr David Kelly. Dr Kelly was Andrew Gilligan's main source for the claim that the 45 minute claim was exaggerated by Alastair Campbell. After his subsequent hounding by the government, Dr Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill, having apparently committed suicide (although this has been disputed by some doctors). Perhaps one of the most shocking events of Blair's tenure, the sense of distrust of Blair over this was exacerbated by the revelation that Alastair Campbell and Cherie Blair had signed a copy of the Hutton report (which investigated Kelly's death) that was subsequently put up for auction. When questioned on the auction, Blair merely answered:

"I do not believe that any offence to anyone was intended".

Progressive? I guess not. Up until this point I had deep reservations about Blair's government. The events surrounding the death of Dr Kelly simply re-affirmed what kind of government we were dealing with here. A ruthless, hard government, that would steam-roller opponents in the most callous way possible. Perhaps it is no surprise that a man like Alastair Campbell would be central to just such a regime.

After the events of September 11th, Blair announced that the UK would stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US. It didn't take long to find out what this meant. Blair refused to speak out about many issues that concerned progressives around the globe. Guantanamo was ignored, renditions were permitted, Iraq was invaded, Israel's actions in Lebanon were effectively endorsed and a strategy of pre-emptive strikes was put forward. Blair was leading the country into a new and dangerous direction. No longer would the British government concern themselves with international law, now it would be a case of following the lead of Bush and the White House. Human rights were wilfully discarded as part of the fight against terrorism that Blair and Bush put at the centre of their ideologies. Out went any remaining semblance of socialism, and in came neo-conservatism. Blair had clearly lined himself up with the far-right, who were willing to accept Blair as an ideological partner. Was anymore proof needed that Blair had abandoned the progressive left and was making a play for the conservative right? Was it really a surprise given Blair's underlying conservative (and indeed, Thatcherite) tendencies at the very beginning of 'the project'?

So where does that leave us? Well, it seems clear to me that Blair's overriding legacy is consolidation. Consolidation of the very things that the Conservatives put in place over 18 years. In fact, in some areas, one could argue that the Blair has gone further than even the Conservatives would dare (particularly in regard to creeping privatisation in the NHS etc). He has proven to be an ally and a close friend to the business community. He has developed conservative allies across the globe. Bush, Aznar, Merkel, Berlusconi and now, Sarkozy have all been friends to Blair. It would be fair to say, that he has tried to distance himself from progressive left-wing leaders across the globe. In terms of foreign policy, he has put this country at risk like never before. His foolishness has cost the UK dear in terms of respect. Iraq and Lebanon have seriously damaged our abilities to conduct diplomacy throughout the Middle East, if not the world. By aligning himself with the neo-conservatives, Blair has shown how he views the world. Democracy is something that must be imposed. It does not grow organically from grassroots movements. It is brought to the people by blood and guns. Blair's legacy has been the shift in UK politics to the centre-right. When politicians talk of the 'centre-ground', they mean centre-right. It is this policy that pushed the Conservatives further to the right, and that dis-enfranchised millions of people who were left without a credible alternative to the voices of the establishment. This will be Blair's legacy. The consolidation of Thatcherite economics and the almost fatal blow to socialism. Thanks to Blair, the true legacy that will linger, will be the legacy of Margaret Thatcher - seventeen years after we thought we had seen the back of her.

(And I haven't even mentioned cash for peerages..., BAE or the recent Official Secrets prosecution.)

Change in the Air???

Encouraging signs have been emanating from the Middle East. Indications suggest that two of the destabilising forces in the region could be on the verge of losing their leaders. It would appear that the pressure is really starting to grow on both Olmert and Ahmadinejad from within their own countries. In Olmert's case it is hard to see how he can continue to hold on to power much longer. Already embroiled in corruption scandals, he has now been accused of incompetence in the Winograd Report. For Ahmadinejad, the forces of the opposition are starting to gain momentum and his disastrous policies look likely to seal his fate.

The Winograd Report, put together by a government appointed committee looking into the second Lebanon war, has been scathing of Olmert's handling of the crisis. The partial report accuses Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war. According to the report, Olmert acted hastily in leading Israel to war without a comprehensive plan. He was also criticised for failing to consult military experts before rushing into war. From Haaretz:

"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."

Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing."

"All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence." [my emphasis]

Despite the strong criticisms levelled at Olmert, he is refusing to stand down. In a live television address, he said:

"It would not be correct to resign and I have no intention of resigning."

Luckily, Olmert has some friends in very high places. In response to the report, Tony Snow claimed that George W Bush:

"works very closely with Prime Minister Olmert, and thinks that he's essential in working toward a two-state solution. The president remains committed to it."

Of course, the war with Lebanon had the full backing of Bush and Blair, who refused to call for a ceasefire as innocent people were killed in the ongoing conflict.

Despite this backing, it seems clear that the pressure is going to mount on Olmert until the inevitable occurs. The families of those who died will clearly need some serious questions answered by Olmert. What with this report, and the ongoing corruption scandals, it looks like time is running out for Ehud Olmert.

As for Ahlmadinejad, it also looks like the end is near for the West's favourite bogey man. According to a report in today's Guardian:

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

It would appear that opposition forces are coming together to ensure that his reign collapses sooner rather than later. Centred on the former president, Mohammad Khatami , the opposition intends to capitalise on the President's growing unpopularity to win control of the Majlis in the upcoming general elections. According to opposition spokesmen, the goal is to:

bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention.

And that is the key. The change that is necessary can be achieved without intervention from the West. In fact, it is very likely that any moves by the West will lead to a very hostile response by the Iranian people and a subsequent rise in support for Ahmadinejad's hardline policies. Given the West's background in the region, through support of the Shah, the Iranian people are very wary of Western influence and any attempts to influence the country should be resisted at all costs. Despite the eagerness of Bush and Blair to see another bombing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of people will die, the best solution is to allow the natural progression of Iranian politics to bring about a softening in rhetoric. Intervention is not the answer to the problem.

With the growth of opposition movements in Israel and Iran, there is hope that the end of days is coming for two leaders who have done much to damage their countries in the eyes of the world. It is hard to be optimistic in this part of the world, but maybe there is a glimmer of optimism amongst the darkness.

Further information: The main findings of the Winograd partial report on the Second Lebanon War, Inside the struggle for Iran and Reformists prepare to take on Ahmadinejad and his militias.

Mad Mel Continues Her Deceit

Two astonishing comments by Muslim hating Mad Mel on her website yesterday. Firstly:

But in the twisted world of BBC values, it appears, Israel has no right to defend itself. Because when Stourton says the US and UK refused to call for a ceasefire, that’s not quite correct. They actually called upon Hezbollah from the start to stop its aggression. What Stourton — and the UK media and Labour party — found so unacceptable was that Bush and Blair didn’t insist that Israel should stop defending itself. In other words, that they did not insist that Israel surrender. And surrender, what’s more, to an army of Iran which has declared not only its intention to wipe Israel off the map but also to destroy the west and conquer the Arab world too.

Doesn't it require pressure on both parties to achieve a ceasefire? Shouldn't pressure have been put on Hezbollah and Israel? Not in the twisted mind of Mad Mel. She clearly believes that he deaths of over a thousand civilians was not enough. Anything less than a continuation was 'surrender'. Besides which, hasn't the short-sighted attack on Lebanon actually increased the standing of Iran in the region? If, as Mad Mel suggests in her 'article', the goal was to reduce the power of Iran in the region, this action was always going to fail. And that is the fundamental point, she doesn't understand how this plays out in the region as a whole. It was in Israel's best interests to halt the attacks as they were never going to win due to the people of Lebanon rallying round Hezbollah.

As for the Iranian remark about Israel, this is becoming a standard line from Mad Mel and yet the truth is that this has been debunked several times over. Despite being a quite stupid thing to say, and open to mis-interpretation, that remark was never made.

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Not quite the same, eh? Once more, Mad Mel proves just how mad she really is.

Attack on Lebanon Pre-Planned

According to Olmert's testimony to the Winograd Commission. From The Guardian:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel began planning for war in Lebanon months before last summer's conflict against Hezbollah guerrillas, countering criticism that he was caught off guard and acted too hastily in launching the military operation, Israeli media reported.

Haaretz has more.

New Treaty Banning Cluster Bombs?

Hopeful news from a conference in Norway regarding the issue of cluster bombs. According to the BBC:

Forty-six nations, including the UK, have pledged to work towards a new treaty banning cluster bombs.

At the end of a two-day conference in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, the countries signed a declaration committing themselves to a ban.

As always, there is a dissenting voice:

The US has rejected any ban, saying the weapons have a place in its arsenal.

But the US aren't alone. Japan, Russia and China also refused to play any part in the efforts to ban their use. It is about time that these indescriminate weapons were banned. One only has to look at the situation in Lebanon to see the effects on the civilian population. They have no place in anyone's arsenal and there is no justification for their continued use.

US Admits Israel May Have Mis-Used Cluster Bombs

Although it comes from a preliminary report, the American government have conceded that Israel may have violated terms regarding the use of cluster bombs. From The Guardian:

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack would not provide details of the report, which was classified.

But he told reporters the department had made a preliminary finding "that there may - likely could have been some violations'' of the agreement by which Israel purchased the weapons from the U.S. He would not specify what those agreements were.

When Israel purchases cluster bombs and other lethal equipment from the United States, it must agree in writing to restrictions on their use.

The report, McCormack said, "is not a final judgment.'' He declined to speculate on what action may be taken against Israel if a violation is confirmed.

Since the end of hostilities in Lebanon, 16 civilians have died and 100 injured as a result of cluster bombs. Cluster bombs that were provided by the American government. The American and Israeli governments must take responsibility for any civilian deaths or injuries as a result of the use of these munitions.

Despite the admission by the US, it would seem highly unlikely that the American government would publicly berate Israel for their indiscriminate use of these weapons. More likely, the findings will be buried away with little or no public comment. Meanwhile, the Lebanese will continue to have their lives blighted by the daily threat posed by these weapons. No wonder the people are fighting back.

The Folly Unfolds......

Thousands of people went out in force on the streets of Beirut to protest against the US backed government in the Lebanon. The protests were called for by the Hezbollah led opposition. As a result of these protests, the pressure is mounting for fresh elections. Elections that are bound to alarm some in the West.

This is not the situation Bush and Blair would want at the moment. The likelihood is that, if elections were called, Hezbollah would be the most likely benefactors. This, in turn, would lead to Iran increasing it's influence in the region. An influence already growing as a result of the invasion of Iraq and the execution of Saddam Hussein. Meanwhile, the influence of the West will further diminish as the balance of power shifts away from Downing Street and the White House. There's just one tiny problem. This is all of our making.

We stood by silently whilst Israel went to war with Lebanon. Our leaders said nothing, hoping that the tactics employed by Israel would weaken the Lebanese opposition. The opposite has turned out to be true. Hezbollah were the undoubted winners of the conflict and they have turned this to their advantage. The attacks by Israel have weakened the Lebanese government to such an extent, it is on the brink of collapse. A bizarre tactic for a country that feels threatened by Iran and Syria. Of course, the Israeli government, as well as the people, are well aware of the damage that has been caused leading to heads rolling. It has also led to Olmert becoming one of the most unpopular leaders in recent history by his people. It is clear who the winner really is.

Of course, you will also read many comments in other blogs and in the media, that it is radical Muslims behind this so-called coup attempt. It is not. The opposition movement also includes many Christians. The BBC has already erased this fact from it's reporting (although I didn't much to get a screen grab before they did - you'll have to take my word for it). The balance of power is certainly shifting in the region, but not the way Bush and Blair had hoped. The folly magnifies day by day.

Poll Results

Thanks to everyone who voted in the poll in my sidebar. The results pretty much mirrored my own views on 2006. The Israeli attack on Lebanon (33%) was a highly significant moment. It has a massive impact upon the Middle East, further strengthening Iran's position in the region, as well as further highlighting the moral degradation in the West. It has also served to increase the popularity of Hezbollah as well as expose the incompetence of Olmert and the Israeli government. The events of that terrible attack upon Lebanon will be felt well beyond 2006.

Hamas Leader Acknowledges Israel is 'Reality'

In a move sure to be ignored (or spun) by the more wacky elements in the mainstream media, an influential leader of Hamas has, according to Haaretz, stated that:

"Israel is a "reality" and "there will remain a state called Israel, this is a matter of fact."

Khaled Meshal, the group's Damascus-based political chief, declared that there would be formal recognition of the state of Israel, once a Palestinian state is established. Meshal claimed that:

"As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land."

This is clearly an important step in the right direction. Hamas has always refused to acknowledge the reality of Israel, which has led to disastrous sanctions on the Palestinian people.

Israel has, of course, given a predictable response to this statement by Hamas. Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev responded that Hamas had said in the past it wanted to wipe Israel from the map and there was no indication it had changed its position. Furthermore, the incompetent Olmert, a man who has seriously compromised Israel in the region after the criminal attack on Lebanon, treated the comments with typical disdain. According to reports, when questioned on this matter, Olmert responded:

"Should I be expected to check what he said? Should I be expected to read what he said?"

I guess it is hardly surprising that Olmert would refuse the opportunity to grasp this opportunity. His total incompetence has already been well proven. Sadly it looks like, once again, Israel is refusing to change it's stance and continue down this disastrous path. Until the Israeli government is prepared to shift, the voices that speak out against the ongoing injustice will continue to grow louder and recruit ever more people to it's cause.

Increase in Developments in West Bank

Haaretz today reports that there has been a huge rise in settlers placing mobile homes and trailers in the West Bank. Despite Ohlmert's statements that outposts are being dismantled, some 200 mobile homes have been placed there since the end of the war with Lebanon. According to Haaretz:

Since the beginning of the month, nearly 90 trailers were placed illegally in the West Bank. A Defense Ministry aerial survey found new mobile homes in illegal outposts such as Givat Assaf, near Beit El, and Amona, near Ofra. Some of the new mobile homes were also placed in veteran settlements.

Despite some harsh words by the US administration, it is very unlikely that they will demand that Israel halts the building of settlements in the West Bank. In fact, it is very unlikely that anything will be done to counter-act this rapid development in the West Bank. Little wonder the Palestinians feel so aggrieved.