The Iraq War: "A Serious Violation of International Law"

The Guardian reports:

One of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante".

Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general's defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed.

Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief".

Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, Bingham said: "If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.

Of course Lord Bingham is right. The Iraq war was blatantly illegal, as I have always maintained. But it's not good enough, five years on, to merely state that the war was unlawful.

We need to make sure that the perpetrators of the war- namely George W. Bush and Tony Bliar- a man who is millions of pounds richer because of the conflict-and the neocon men and women who planned it, are bought to justice. The Nuremburg judgements held that to launch a war of aggression is the 'supreme international crime'- and it is obscene that five years on, those responsible for this outrageous crime- which has led to the deaths of up to 1m people, are still at liberty.

Furthermore, it's also important too that those journalists and writers, who propagandised for an attack on Iraq- in contravention of international law- are also are held accountable for their actions. The trial of Julius Streicher after WW2 sets the precedent.

How Barack can show some courage

"Have any of you ever seen a picture of Mr Obama, a heavy smoker, with a cigarette in his mouth? No, nor have I. Why is that?"

asks my friend Peter Hitchens in his weekly column.

Well, Peter, just for you, there's a picture of Obama smoking above, but it's true that he hasn't been pictured smoking for a long while. Is he intimidated by the anti-smoking fanatics who will denounce him as a man not fit to be President if he is seen to light up in public? (thank goodness they weren't around in the days of FDR and Winston Churchill, otherwise the Allies would never have won the Second World War).

There's been a lot of talk recently about whether Obama has courage, and he can show that he does by following the example of Maggie Gyllenhaal, this blog's choice for President in 2012 and light up live on prime-time tv.

But there's a second even more important thing he can do to show us all that he's courageous. And that's to resist the growing pressure- being asserted by certain powerful interest groups- to appoint the neocon's favourite Democrat Hillary the Hawk as Secretary of State. People voted for Obama because they wanted a clean break with the aggressive, pro-war policies of the past. Appointing a woman who played such a key role in the illegal NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, who supported the equally unlawful Iraq war, and who has threatened to "obliterate" Iran, would be a betrayal of all those ordinary Americans who wanted something different.

Don't do it, Barack.

Sir David Manning: War Profiteer

"Wars, conflict- it's all business"- sighs Monsieur Verdoux, the eponymous anti-hero in Charlie Chaplin's classic film. This report from today's Mail on Sunday hardly disproves the thesis.

The man who acted as go-between for Tony Blair and George Bush in the run-up to the Iraq War has been given a senior post worth an estimated £50,000 a year with U.S.-owned arms company Lockheed.

Sir David Manning (pictured above, on left, next to George Bush), Britain's former ambassador in Washington has also joined a shadowy UK intelligence firm set up by former spies.

Sir David was Mr Blair's foreign affairs and defence adviser. He stepped down as the UK's envoy in Washington two years ago.

He played a key role in planning the Iraq War, and secret memos published after the conflict revealed how he knew Mr Blair had promised to go to war with Mr Bush a year before the conflict.

Sir David has become a non-executive director of Lockheed's subsidiary, Lockheed UK. He will also act as personal adviser to the firm's chief executive, Ian Stopps.
A company spokesman said: 'He has joined because of his distinguished career and experience in diplomacy as well as in government.'

Lockheed is one of the most powerful defence firms in the world. It is proud of its role in the Iraq War and published an 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' brochure that described how its 'stealthy F-117 Nighthawk opened the Allied operation with a strike aimed at Saddam Hussein's leadership'.

Prince Charles at 60

The heir to the British throne (pictured above) is 60 today. Here's my piece from The Australian, first published in 2005, on why a King Charles III would be preferable to a more politicised Head of State. Do you agree?

Prince Charles: Victim of Slight Royal Treatment

George Orwell got it only half right. It’s not just some animals that are more equal than others. It’s royalty too- as last week’s events surely demonstrate. Royal 1 visits Australia: goes yacht racing with her husband, attends glitzy balls in designer outfits and is fawned over by even the most hard-core republicans. Royal 2 visits Australia: goes to see victims of the Bali bombings, addresses indigenous issues and is lambasted in Parliament for wasting tax-payers money.

Of course, there are important differences between Crown Princess Mary of Denmark and the heir to the British- and Australian throne. As the Sydney Morning Herald so succintly put it, one is young and beautiful and the other is not. Then there is the small matter of nationality. ‘Australia loves this uber couple because they are young, gorgeous and 50% locally made’ says Emma Toms of Fred and Mazz. Chazz, one the other hand, may have visited Australia ten times and spent two terms at Geelong Grammar, but is - and always will be a Pom.

But even allowing for the above, it still seems to me that Prince Charles has been given an unnecessarily rough ride- not only in Australia- but back in Britain too.
I write not as a die-hard supporter of hereditary monarchy, but as an unreconstructed leftist and staunch believer in meritocracy. But if we are to have a constitutional monarchy- and on consideration of all the other options, it still seems the least worst- then it is difficult to imagine a man more suited to the task than the 56 year old in a double-breasted suit who has been touring this past week.

For a start, unusually in this age of spin and counterfuge, insincerity and mock concern- Charles is a man of profound integrity. ‘Prince Charles cannot but tell the truth. I have never met anyone in public life who is quite like him in that sense’ is the verdict of his biographer, Jonathan Dimbleby. It takes courage to admit to committing adultery in a television documentary and when someone with such a track record for honesty says that he only did so when his marriage had ‘irretrievably broken down’, he must surely be given the benefit of any doubt.

Then there is the intelligent contribution Prince Charles has made to matters of national and international concern. While his critics seek to portray him as an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, hopelessly out of step with the spirit of the times, Charles’ line on many issues is far more progressive than that held by many so-called leftists. He was the first British royal to question the suitability of the monarch of a multi-racial, multi-faith country ( to say nothing of the Head of the Commonwealth)- to be the ’Defender of the Faith’ and not ‘the Faiths’. He has consistently championed the cause of alternative medicine and of a holistic approach to health. He has made speech after speech warning of the dangers of deforestation and global warming and has spoken out against the disastrous effect large scale capitalism has on both the environment and the social cohesion of communities. And the man who many dismiss as the epitome of privilege, has through his own Princes Trust and countless other charitable projects, helped thousands of disadvantaged people to achieve their goals in life.

On issues where Prince Charles has taken a more ‘traditional’ line, he has arguably not been behind the times, but paradoxically ahead of them. It’s the proponents of modernist and post-modern architecture and of 1960s teaching methods whose theories now appear hopelessly dated: Charles’ attacks on them -regarded as blasphemy when first made in the 1980s -now appear to most sane individuals as the voice of sheer common sense.

Prince Charles’ ingrained scepticism -and his understanding that so many of the great issues of the day are not black and white, but grey- is a huge plus point in an age where once again it is the cocksure and the Manichaeans who are calling the shots. Charles’ scepticism extends not only to modern architecture, trendy teaching theories and what he calls ‘militant humanism’, but also to the war in Iraq, about which he is reported to have had grave misgivings.

Then there are Charles’ other qualities to consider. As all those who met him this past week, will no doubt testify, he is a man of rare charm and wit. From his good-humoured reaction to being offered witchetty grubs and honey ants at Alice Springs to his quip to Vietnam veteran Gary Johnston that there was ‘no bloody room’ at his forthcoming wedding- the Goon Show-loving Royal Prince surely can’t be accused of lacking a sense of humour.

All in all, when you consider that Prince Charles has had to overcome the twin handicaps of a British public school education (to say nothing of two terms at Geelong Grammar) and a father for whom any display of affection is regarded as a crime on a par with murder- then the future King's well-roundedness is even more remarkable.

Should the fact that Charles is clearly a ‘bloody good bloke’ alter our view of the monarchy in general? In theory it shouldn’t- but as we’ve seen from the past week- the identity of the royal in question undoubtedly has an impact on the way the institution is regarded. And I for one would rather have a Head of State who combines integrity, humour and scepticism in equal measure, than a politicised President who would probably be lacking in all three.

The Russian 'aggression' that never was

Thank goodness, they might be thinking at the US State Department and the British Foreign Office, for the financial crisis. Were it not for the ever-blacker news about the Western world's economy, another scandal would be vying for the headlines – and one where the blame would be easier to apportion. It concerns our two countries' relations with Russia and the truth about this summer's Georgia-Russia war.

It's now clear that Georgia started the war in South Ossetia. Why did US and British accounts give the impression that Russia was the guilty party, and Georgia a brave little democracy that big bad Russia wanted to snuff out?

asks Mary Dejevsky in the Independent.

Well not all 'US and British accounts' gave that impression; this blog told it as it was- and so too did our good friend The Exile, who deserves the Orwell Prize for blogging for his round the clock posts on the conflict this summer

How were we so sure that Georgia and not Russia was the aggressor?

Well, I can't speak for The Exile, but for me it was an easy one. The neocons said Russia was the aggressor and as I’ve said before on many occasions-we always know when neocons are lying: they open their mouths or start typing on a keyboard.

Dejevksy then asks:

So why were British and US officials so cagey about acknowledging, or perhaps even believing, what had really happened? Why did the Conservative leader, David Cameron, rush to Tbilisi to support Georgia as the unquestioned victim? And why – except to trump Mr Cameron – did the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, give a tub-thumping speech in Kiev shortly afterwards that perpetuated the impression (without actually using the words) that the war was all about Moscow's supposed ambition to reconstitute its empire.

That’s another easy one to answer. Cameron and Miliband are both members of Britain's neocon/neoliberal ruling junta. Baiting the Russian bear- and cheerleading for ‘plucky little Georgia', the neocons favourite ex-Soviet republic- is a compulsory part of their shtick.

But what about the non-neocon commentators who still parroted the ‘Russian aggression/plucky little Georgia’ claptrap. Why didn’t they understand better what was going on, as the Exile, blogging thousands of miles away from the action in Mexico, did?

For the answer to that one, we need to turn to a great American writer. As Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it".

Hat-tip for the Mary Devesky article: Charlie Marks.

Let's Keep Iraq out of Remembrance Day

I was watching the Remembrance Day commemorations on television today with my father, who served in the army, when I heard something that neither of us much liked. The presenter Alistair Stewart said that while Remembrance Day was originally about remembering those who died in The Great War, and then World War Two, it's now about remembering other conflicts in which British forces were involved, including Iraq.

If that is indeed the case, then it's wrong.

Remembrance Day should only be about the two World Wars.

In neither the First, nor the Second World War, was Britain the aggressor. In Iraq, it was (alongside the US). While in the Second World War, Britain's role in helping to defeat Nazi aggression, was an honourable one, in Iraq it was not. A largely defenceless country, which posed Britain no threat, was attacked on the basis of a colossal lie. The Iraq war, together with the earlier, equally unlawful- and equally deceitful aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, was a dark moment in Britain's history. It was a shameful episode, and those who planned and orchestrated it should, if there was any justice in this world, be behind bars. The Nuremburg judgement after all, held that the greatest of all crimes was to launch a war of aggression.

So let's wear our poppies today and remember those brave soldiers who gave their lives in two world wars. But let's make sure that any attempts to 'normalise' the Iraq war and put it on a par with World War Two are resisted.

Wally of the Week: 'Philip Cross'

What do you call someone who spends hours and hours maliciously editing the wikipedia page of a journalist he doesn’t like (including at Christmas) and then sends the journalist in question six aggressive, abusive emails in a short period of time on one Saturday afternoon and then twelve the following night?

Well he goes by the moniker of ‘philip cross’ and he doesn’t like me very much at all (although he does seem to like a certain former hedge fund manager called Oliver Kamm very much).

'Philip' is also a very big fan of Henry Jacksonsite MP Denis McShane as you can see from his editing of McShane's wikipedia page. He's even edited the page of McShane's former wife, the late Carol Barnes. In fact so incensed was 'Philip' when I referred to McShane by his original name 'Denis Matyjaszek' that he darted over to my wikipedia page to insert the maiden name of my wife, failing to see the difference between a woman who takes her husband's surname on marriage, with a careerist politician who hypocritically berates the British for not being 'pro-European' enough, while changing his original Polish surname.

You can read some of 'philip cross’ contributions in the comments section of this thread: the idea that neocon columnists might become rarer in newspapers in the year ahead due to readers having had enough of reading their lies, really seemed to inflame him.

'philip cross' didn’t much like being called a ’sad little idiot’ and a ’sad little fxxxxx’ by other commenters so he took out his frustration by returning to my wikipedia page last night to make another edit. (strange how some people get their kicks, isn't it?)

That’s despite having already been warned by a senior wikipedia editor to stay clear of my page.

Actually, 'wally' is far too polite a term for ‘philip cross‘. ‘Pathological obsessive’ is far more accurate. Despite the warnings he's received 'philip' simply can't leave me alone. But as you’ll see from his other edits- this particular pathological obsessive is- however cranky he appears - following a very clear political agenda.

You can read more on philip cross' extraordinary obsessions here and here.

Market Madness Hits Hungary

This article of mine appears in The Morning Star.

If voting changed anything they’d abolish it, the old maxim goes.

If anyone doubts the truth of it, just visit Hungary.

Earlier this year the Hungarian people heavily rejected, in a national referendum, three key elements of the neo-liberal government's "reform" programme: the imposition of hospital and doctor's visit fees and the imposition of higher education tuition fees.

Hungary’s ruling elite were furious.

Janos Koka, of the fanatically neoliberal ‘Free Democrats’(SZDSZ), a party whose embrace of unbridled capitalism makes Thatcher’s Tory party look like social democrats, reacted by asserting that he would “like to assure the international money and capital markets that the government upholds its commitment to reforms and a strict and tight budget,"- in other words that the people‘s democratic will, as expressed in the referendum, counted for nothing.

After leaving the government in early summer after a row over the budget, the decidedly anti-democratic ‘Free Democrats’ spent the next few months calling for a ‘government of experts’ to be appointed in Hungary. We know the sort of ‘experts’ they had in mind- ‘free market’ ideologues like the notorious Dr Lajos Bokros, from the George Soros-funded Central European University- a man who supports the introduction of compulsory private health insurance and who has questioned "the subjective right to receive a pension".

The SZDSZ has now dropped its call for a ‘government of experts’, because they have got something even better.

Last month, Hungary applied for- and received a $25bn ‘rescue package’ from the IMF, World Bank and European Union. The collapse of the Hungarian economy is of course a shocking indictment of the hardline neoliberal policies that the ruling MSZP/SZDSZ coalition have been following over the past six years, policies that have been lauded by foreign capital and their political emissaries. But while Hungary’s bail-out is undoubtedly a national embarrassment, for the country’s ruling elite it has served a definite anti-democratic purpose.

It is widely accepted that the size of the rescue package- which dwarfs that of neighbouring Ukraine- far exceeds the amount the country needs. But by signing up to the deal- and to the strings attached- the Hungarian government is effectively stymieing the opposition’s plans to plot a different economic path when it comes to power in the election of May 2010. It's clear that the government intends to use the ‘rescue package’ as a excuse to carry out the ‘reforms’ and the swingeing cuts in public spending it always wanted to implement- and to end any political debate as to whether the ‘reforms’ and cuts should be imposed or not.

A classic example is the abolition of the totemic 13th month salary for public sector workers, paid at Christmas each year. “We did not need to cut the payments to get the IMF’s help. We did it to send a clear message to investors that the government is ready to make cuts.“ admitted government spokesman David Daroczi.

The rescue package gives the government the excuse to rush through the privatisation of those assets which in remain in public ownership. Late last month the SZDSZ/MSZP faction on Budapest council voted to sell of the city’s gas company. The national grid is also to be flogged off; bus and postal privatisation is in the offing too.

The rescue package also gives the government the opportunity to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the country’s chronically underfunded state health service. In its new budget, the government has proposed cuts of HUF35bn for the Health Insurance Fund- cuts which have been described as ‘fatal’ by the opposition. The country’s long-suffering pensioners, already facing massive hikes in their fuel bills this winter, are also in the neoliberals’ firing line- with a freeze on their annual bonus and the elimination of the annual bonus for early retirees.

It matters little that all these extremist policies are opposed by the vast majority of the public.

The reforms are described as ‘apolitical’- measures that simply have to be passed.

Interestingly though there is one item of government expenditure that the Hungarian government- and their Free Democrat allies do not support cutting back. After NATO’s two day conference in Budapest last month, Defence Minister Imre Szekeres said that Hungary would increase spending by 7% next year and by 0.2% of GDP annually over the next five years. The country that can’t afford toilet paper for patients in state hospitals, does it seem, have money to send Hungarians to take part in imperial adventures at the behest of Uncle Sam in Afghanistan.

What recent events in Hungary demonstrate is that democracy is inconsistent with neo-liberalism. The only democracy modern turbo capitalism allows is of the ‘Henry Ford’ variety- namely that the people can vote for any polices they like- so long as they are the ‘approved’ neoliberal ones which put the needs of capital- before people.

So even if people vote in their millions, as they did in Hungary in March against extremist neoliberal solutions, the elite finds ways of subverting their wishes.