On Friday 28th September, Grassroot Diplomat participated in The Private Military and Security Conference organized by the Royal United Services Institute. RUSI united members from private military and security industries to discuss this complicated and unpredictable issue in the modern international system.
As diversified as it is, the security and defense industry has been facing an increasing presence in privatized services that once used to be monopolized by state-owned agencies. The concept of security has become a lot more sophisticated. The wars of the past decades highlighted an increasing need of a wide range of services that vary from logistical support, operational services, to armed military or security services. Given the number of issues involved, security operations have developed a wide debate within academia, media and civil society groups, thus the conference provided a wonderful opportunity for these actors to engage with private companies in a multidisciplinary discussion about issues currently pertaining to the functioning of security operations.
Since civil society is the most prejudiced in conflicts zones, Grassroot Diplomat provided clarification on current issues faced in conflict areas, as well as insights to how to engage with projects in conflict zones. It was a wonderful opportunity to enhance our business network and to meet potential sponsors, so that we can continue strengthening new and existing projects with the intention of building sustainable relationships with national or international government bodies and the business community.
On 20th September 2012, the Sri Lankan High Commission invited Grassroot Diplomat to visit a special one-day photo exhibition to highlight the renaissance of Sri Lanka after a long history of terrorism and war.
The photographic exhibition was divided in two parts examining the violence of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE, or more commonly known as the Tamil Tigers) and the reawakening after defeating 30 years of terrorism.
During the reign of the Tamil Tigers, many policy-makers and academics died during the civil war but the main victims of such atrocity were local people who were unable to escape. Methods of terrorism included public transport attacks, suicide bombers and the enrolment of child soldiers – all of such violence were depicted in this illustrative exhibition. The second part of the exhibition led to the hope that arisen from violence. The end of violence and commitment of the government to reconcile the communities are highlighted in particular.
The Sri Lankan Government has initiated several social economic and cultural programmes to uproot communal differences. The other challenge for the government is to wipe out misunderstanding cultivated by the LTTE among the international community and certain sections of the Tamil Diaspora. Nowadays, massive development projects are being carried out in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. These regions are the paths of physical and social development. Moreover, the country as a whole is becoming a single tourist destination with focus on urban and rural development and the reconstruction of infrastructure to facilitate this.
There are still many things to do and the communities are still in need of help to overcome their past. Legal practitioners at the exhibition expressed their concerns to this issue with Mr. Fritz Kodagoda, Barrister Mediator, talking about how local law centres are in urgent need of funding for development. In its goal to bridge the gap, Grassroot Diplomat is interested in focusing its connections in building better relationships between the people and government of Sri Lanka and will continue to pay close attention to developments made in this region.
If Jean-Luc Picard, the revered Captain of Star Trek had one maxim alone, it was to treat every person, alien (or sentient object) he encountered with equal civility.
On 14th July at the UK United Nations Association Forum, it was announced that Sir Patrick Stewart, who famously played Capt. Picard is to become the first Patron of the UNA-UK.
The Emmy-award winning actor addressed an audience of hundreds from around the world who had one thing in common: a deep-seated appreciation for the valuable work of the United Nations.
Sir Patrick’s impassioned words were described as ‘icing on the cake’ for a day that was filled with stimulating discussions about the role of the UN in the future, the challenges of a world population of 7 billion, and the relevance of universal human rights.
A debate on the Olympic Truce highlighted the value of sport in peace-keeping and conflict resolution. The Olympic ideal – whereby nations can temporarily set aside their differences and live together in harmony – asks that if they can do it for one day, they can do it forever.
Many of us are familiar with the story of the British and German fighters who laid down their guns and emerged from their trenches on Christmas Day to play a football match. There are countless other examples of sport uniting otherwise hostile groups, highlighting the potential value of sport as a peace-keeping tool.
One of the most well attended sessions during the day was a seminar on ‘How to Work for the UN’ led by Dame Margaret Anstee - the first female Under-Secretary General, among others. Recounting experiences in the field in Philippines and as Head of the Mission to Angola, Dame Margaret presented a career that spanned the world and altered lives, whilst paving the way for women in a male-dominated institution.
The attraction to working for the UN, however, comes from more than just wanting to be part of an international organisation that changes lives. It is about being part of a vision of the world, where people are of equal worth, and humans stand side by side to support each other. It is a utopian vision, but one that comes closer to achieving day by day. For that reason, Sir Patrick couldn’t have put it better in his closing remarks when he said, “the United Nations and UNA-UK must live long and prosper”.
A country without trade is like a person without friends. Dialogue becomes unnecessary. Communication is non-existent. Amicability ranks second best. With all this, diplomacy has no justification without trade. For Britain, commercial diplomacy has historically provided investment, stability, security and alliances and such a strategy still applies to contemporary diplomatic governance.
Commenting on the February White Paper, BritishForeign Secretary William Hague addressed that “business is part of our commitment to inject a new commercialism into the Foreign Office, using our international influence to help British businesses secure new trade opportunities.” To this, he refers to high technology defence exports including the sale of arms, aerospace and security equipment to overseas markets that do not have their own defence industry.
Defence export accounts for about 3% of Britain’s manufacturing exports with a 20% market share in partnership with the US. The arms trade has an annual sale of above £17billion with the biggest customers placing orders worth £13bn. Although these figures are not as big as it was during the Cold War, Britain is seeking to become more competitive by broadening out its capacity to selling defence and security equipment to countries that clearly violate human rights policies.
Under the Coalition Programme, the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UK TIDSO) reasserts that the government will only permit responsible defence exports that are used for “legitimate purposes, not internal repression”. This policy is based on the EU Common Position on Arms Exportadopted in June 1998, which states that export licenses will be refused if there is a risk that defence equipment will be used:
- - for aggression and internal repression
- - to provoke or prolong an armed conflict
- - to assert territorial claim which may lead to war
Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that Britain has and continues to misjudge the risks appropriated to selling arms to allies and partners who break the promise to uphold their end of the bargain. Since the 80s, the UK has dealt extensively with Saudi Arabia totalling £1.7bn with the Al-Yamamah contract considered to be the largest deal made. According to the Financial Times, British export licenses since 2009 have covered submachine guns and tear gas in Bahrain, military components for helicopters in Algeria, hand grenades to Jordan, and machine guns to Egypt. Reports have also uncovered evidence that British defence contractors BAE Systems have sold shotguns to Morocco, tear gas and hand grenades to Saudi Arabia, night vision goggles and body armour to Yemen, and small arms ammunition to Syria.
The UK purposefully attempts to plug the gap in domestic sales in the Middle East as UK TIDSO regards oil-rich states of Algeria and Libya as their priority markets in the region. The agreement to supply Hawk, Tornado and other aircraft and support systems was the UK’s biggest ever export agreements, so the market gap is clearly evident. However, these Middle Eastern countries only elaborate the level of hypocrisy exercised by the government because such licences breach policies to the protection of civilians against internal threats. Official reports show that the British government approved £6.1million in arms export to Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Yet, we have seen Gaddafi declare war on his own people, using weapons supplied by Britain against civilians and journalists. The UK was surprised that a former ally had broken the lease of their contract but has argued that there was no evidence that British tear gas was used against peaceful demonstrators. To make matters worse, Prime Minister David Cameronwas forced to explain why he and his delegation were seen promoting the sale of arms to post-Mubarak Egypt instead of endorsing democracy.
In line with the EU Common Position on Arms Export, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office(FCO) revoked more than 50 arms licenses from Bahrain and Libya since the uprising as a means to protect civilians from aggression and war. However is it not too late to revoke licenses when uprisings and aggression has already begun? Apparently not, because during Tony Blair’s tenure, the government approved military licenses to human rights violators including Sri Lanka, Algeria, Zimbabwe, and Columbia which only exposed the hypocrisy to Robin Cook’s ‘ethical foreign policy’ strategy. In the Human Rights and Democracy Reportpublished in March 2011, the FCO recorded 26 countries with serious human rights concerns including the ones stated above. So why does the government not learn from its mistakes?
As set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the government will promote defence and security exports for ‘good’ commercial reasons which help to build the capacity of British partners and allies, potentially reduce their own acquisition costs and gain comparative advantage in key technologies, skills and know-how. Business seems to take the lead over the moral high ground particularly when considering its national interest and objective.
According to a government dossier, the UK security export is calculated at £1.5 billion with the value of defence contracts to be £7.2 billion. This makes UK TIDSO one of the leading defence and security industries having licenses with over 96 overseas markets, which helps to secure 300,000 jobs for British people. This means 1.2 million people rely on the arms trade to make a living.
In his interview with Total Politics, William Hague noted how important it is for Britain to retain a global presence, by using diplomatic networks to support UK business. He said that, “…the expansion of world trade, including our trade with growing economies, is one of our most fundamentally important national objectives… Good trading links and expanding economic links can often go along human rights and rule of law [which is why] …the commercial emphasis that we place in our foreign policy… is fundamentally important”.
In short, defence and security trade is important in connecting Britain to markets in key regions and will continue to be an investment to Britain’s trading infrastructure. Hague says: “You have to have a good legal reason to stop people exporting things…we can’t, just on a whim, say that there’s a whole list of things that we’re not exporting [just because] we don’t like the look of you. We have among the toughest criteria in the world for exports under successive governments”.
The government believe that its trading policy and restrictions are rigorous and fair as it complies with international commitments, but even government ministers have ordered a review into the issuing of arms export licenses. There is no doubt that the government needs to set out how it intends to reconcile potential conflict of interest between promoting arms export and upholding human rights but tighter regulations are required to minimise risk and errors of judgment. Trade is at the heart of diplomatic missions, but the danger of trading defence and security equipment is not knowing who you can trust.
Since the grassroots revolution to overthrow dictators in North Africa, it seems that Colonel Muammar Gaddafiof Libya is less willing to be toppled by his people like Zine El Abidine Ben Alior Hosni Mubarak. Referring to Wikileaks and Twitter as the‘Kleenex Revolution’ that holds no force, Gaddafi is determined to maintain territory via the use of military strength alone. While the world speculates on how long Gaddafi can carry on shooting his people down, my concern is mainly focused on the weapons that the Libyan army is carrying as the Western demise.
Arms trade is a source of deep-rooted capitalism and security, and unfortunately, Western countries like the United Kingdom rely heavily on the arms industry as a form of national income. Sourced from an article in the Guardian newspapers, the United Kingdom was responsible for gaining an armed export license worth €58.9m from Libya, soon after the Libyan arms embargo was lifted in October 2004. While our government is urging Gaddafi to leave quietly, I shake my head at Western countries that preach justice and democracy whilst hungrily exchanging arms contract with autocratic regimes. Italy is noted as Libya’s top arms exporter, having secured an income of €276.7m over the last five years with France and the UK following second and third.
One of the major global issues that have become part and parcel of everyday diplomatic discourse is the concern over human rights. The pressure of international opinion reinforces the pressures within individual countries for safeguarding human rights and the respect for the individual. As emphasised by United Nations doctrines, the respect, promotion and endorsement for human rights is the hallmark of a democratic society, placing special responsibility on democratic nations to uphold human rights domestically and abroad. Yet the willingness to trade arms forfeits the responsibility to protect, and avoiding the commitment to guarantee that British weapons will not be used against repressing local civilians is not a legitimate excuse to act 'innocent' against the atrocities that is befalling the Libyan people today.
At the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedomseminar in March 2010, Cynthia Cockburn presented a talk on the links between war and masculinity, which prompted greatly in writing my dissertation on “Women in Diplomacy”. I found that too often, peace organisations react to women’s experiences as victims and survivors of war but very little on the revelation on how women act as active peace-makers especially from positions of political power.
The seminar entitled“Militarism, Masculinity, and Men” prompted conversation on how gender is relevant in analysing the theory of war, violence and aggression. While causes of war include capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, corporate power, and nationalism, the seminar identified patriarchy as a defining factor to the make-up of war. Cockburn described patriarchy as “the gender order in which we live, the system through which men gain massively by subordinating women”. Considering that women have gained the right to break their silence only 100 years ago, it is not farfetched to blame patriarchy for creating discriminatory social systems that favours of masculinised ideals. Patriarchy has shaped predisposed ideas of society, the need to sustain the military, and justifying causes to go to war.
Think about what is happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Just a few days ago, Britain showed a TV documentary on Channel 4 about how the DRC is the most dangerous place for women, because women become tools of sexual violence as a means to intimidate the opposing party. Patriarchy survives and functions because women on the whole accept its values and play into men’s power. Think about the West’s obsessions about plastic surgery and body image as women’s ability to aesthetically please men. In the UK, the House of Lords was named in reflection to power belonging to men – the Lords, not the Ladies. In Japan, the geisha women dedicate their life to entertaining men. In Uganda, a portly woman is seen as a status symbol for men. In Morocco, women are forced to take lowly jobs that men refuse to do whilst also expected to look after family members. Why don’t we speak out more clearly that patriarchal gender power relations, especially men and masculine cultures, are implicated in militarism, militarisation, and war? Because it is a tricky subject! Patriarchy is embedded so deeply within societies that it is difficult to unravel, unless we visualise gender as set of forces, values and, expectations that we have to negotiate with.
To be a female soldier is not the same as being a male soldier, though men do pay a heavy price serving their country in times of war. Female soldiers have difficulty getting promotion, and are frequently harassed and raped by male colleagues and senior officers. Women are rarely in positions of power and are constantly operating in a male-dominant infrastructure. The overall gender order of the world we live in is made up of organisations and institutions each of which has its gender regime. Given the concentration of weapons and the practices of violence among men, gender patterns appear to be strategic. Masculinities are the forms in which many dynamics of violence take shape, and this must be identified as a strategy towards peace and security. Therefore, we must not take for granted the position gender has in revealing the ingredients and make-up of society, but use it as a force to understand and analyse how men and women together can create a more equal and peaceful world.
Through my diplomatic training, I have noticed that I am beginning to position myself more strongly on issues I care about. Recently, I have taken great interest in militarism and armed conflict - not that I support it, but on how to eliminate war and the violence women face by male combatants. In researching my dissertation of the topic of 'Women versus Militarism', I came across an interesting book that supported very strongly the ideas I would like to bring forth in international diplomacy when I finally reach that point in my career. Here are a few thoughts I would like to share with you which I would like to strengthen in diplomacy and international relations - and I fully welcome any comments in support or argument of these points.
1.Holding no official position does not relieve one of responsibility. Being a non-combatant does not make one innocent, nor does ignorance, especially not deliberate ignorance. “Conscious avoidance” or “deliberate ignorance” is a legal term which diminishes or negates a claim of innocence. Ignorance about one’s military does not make a citizen innocent.
2.Governmental secrecy does not absolve a citizen. Citizens who accept the necessity for government secrecy are complicit. In time of war, operational secrets are permissible. However, citizens should insist that every member of Congress have access to every government file, and that no file be kept secret longer than ten years. Withholding information from citizens subverts democracy. Lying to them is criminal.
3.If we can participate in choosing our government, we are accountable for the nature of our military and where and how it is deployed.
4.Military personnel kill on behalf of citizens. Citizens should be ashamed that the military is killing in their name.
5.In many developed countries military technology has created such impunity for its users that the moral question, “What is worth dying for?” has been replaced with “What is worth killing for”?
6.A military that “outsources” is a military which makes war profitable. Contracts let without standard procedures because of an “emergency” are not only enriching but a likely source of corruption.
7.In democracies, the military is sent to war by civilian officials who are charged with protecting the citizenry. The role of “protector” leads officials to authorise actions they might not take even in self-defence. The problem is that those charged with protection know that they cannot guarantee it.
8.Security means safety and well-being. It attaches to people not necessarily to the states, or to corporations, or religious or other institutions. Importantly, even “opponents” need to be and feel secure.
9.A crucial tool in diplomacy and warfare is to be able to think as the person one is dealing with thinks.
10.“Terrorism” has been used to justify pre-emption but terrorism is not special. It is experienced everywhere, including in democracies like England, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Spain. “Terrorism” is not necessarily more heinous than the random killing of non-combatants as “collateral damage”. Both involve the killing of non-participating civilians.
11.Instead of focusing on war’s cost and its horror, attention should be given to whether or not the outcome of a conflict fulfils its stated purpose.
12. The stationing of any country’s troops abroad should be prohibited unless they are part of a United Nations sanctioned force.
13.Article VI of the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty calls for nuclear disarmament. Even, if the US were to destroy 9000 of its existing nuclear weapons, it would still have enough left to destroy civilization. The goal of non-proliferation should be expanded to include the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons just as they treaty says.
14.“Gender” does not just mean the biological sex. In practice, a policy of “gender mainstreaming” involves bringing females into an institution.
15.The government is said to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. If men have a near monopoly on force, what can we learn from how women manage in a culture where they are, essentially, unilaterally disarmed?
16.When women focus on issues like rape in war, a military tactic, their energy and thoughts are diverted from the larger issues, which replacing strategies which select force as a legitimate means to achieving a goal. The goal should not be to make war more humane but to eliminate it.
17. Enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 which requires women's presence at all peace negotiations would serve as a useful reminder that women are participants in every conflict and have a stake in every conflict's resolution.
*Stiehem, Judith Hicks. "These on the military, security, war and women", in Sjoberg, Laura, ed., Gender and International Security: Feminist Perspectives. London, New York: Routledge, 2010. pp 17-23
Visiting the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Brussels was the highlight for many DAL students, although I walked in hesitantly. We were welcomed by the Deputy Head, Michael Rühle, who gave us an overview of NATO’s work and operations.
In general, NATO is a military organisation that has a membership of 28 sovereign states from Europe and North America. The organisation was set up to protect Europe’s “democratic half” and deter threats, but change in policy is expected in light of changing circumstances. There was fear that NATO would be deemed useless after the Cold War but the need for border security was required to protect countries from hostile invasion. It wasn’t until the Balkan War when NATO had to use force for the first time, and it must be stressed that NATO does not have its own army. As told by our host, NATO serves as a crisis manager, building a political and military network that tries not to burden the economy. Yet since the 9/11 crisis in 2001, NATO’s services have been heightened by its members, moving NATO from securing borders to “managing challenges of a global nature”.
First Secretary, Leo Tomlin shared information on UK Operations and Intelligence in NATO, which gave students a great insight to how intelligence is used in the military. While addressing NATO’s efforts in carrying out UN mandates, diplomats try to deliver UK policies to what NATO should be doing and how the military should interact with the civilian world – this applies to all member states. Maintaining an effective alliance is a political debate and issues are tackled with early consensus. The aim is not to make war an instrument to resolve issues, but it is apparent that coordinating military and civilian organisations is a great challenge. The gender issue was brought up, and were foretold that gender mainstreaming is part of NATO’s training and operation yet this is not completely transparent from my point of view.
Colonel Andrew Budd from the UK briefed us on NATO’s military strategies. In 2001, NATO declared Article 5 of the UN Charter to be embedded in their strategy - an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, which has shaped NATO’s operations since. Before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, war was an act of survival. The strategy to deter the enemy was to match capabilities. Today, the military acts as “peace enforcers”, just as the UN peacekeepers engage in hostile environments for humanitarian assistance.
Inevitably, the subject of Afghanistan surfaced, with Colonel Budd explaining that NATO expanded ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)around the Afghanistan mission. Troops were spread thin when first entering the terrain which caused problems in aiding any humanitarian efforts. The UN wants to lead and dictate a plan on the political side with NATO leading from a military angle. We were told that police force in Afghanistan will increase in the next 2-5 years as part of a civilian reconstruction effort, which makes me wonder what they are doing now. The Colonel had shown support in wanting money spent to train local police than to NATO, which is a small relief, nonetheless, with NGOs in the area reluctant to work with NATO, their work in Afghanistan seems far from over.
JAPAN AND THE UNITED NATIONS The Struggle for a Permanent Seat with the Security Council
Boutros Boutros-Ghali once quoted that "Japan [had] better qualifications for permanent membership than other countries", opening the question to why Japan has been struggling to gain a permanent seat within the Security Council of the United Nations. My paper examines the internal and external forces that is making Japan's application impossible to progress. This includes attitude of former Security Council members, Japan's historical atrocities caused upon neighbouring countries, democratic versus socialist ideals and Japan's constitution, each obstructing Japan's desire for permanent membership.
In the 21st century, the political world continually assert that they push for peace and security. To have 'peace' on the agenda, it seems unjust that the Security Council have been pushing Japan to militarise just so Japan can have a fighting chance to become a possible permanent member. If the United Nations is indeed progressing for reform to reflect today's world, surely Japan is the perfect example of a nation who have succeeded in looking after one's interest, while maintaining to grow as a big economic nation without construing to military means with nuclear weapons. The philosophy of Article 9 is the logical extension of the UN Charter's goal to save future generations from scourge of war. As a mighty economic power, Japan deserves a permanent place within the Security Council.
As part of an annual seminar hosted by Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, this year’s topic was based on our current campaign regarding women versus militarism and nuclear weapons. Speakers included Rebecca Johnson (Acronym Institute), Diane Perrons (LSE Gender Institute), Tamsin Osmond (Climate Rush) and Nicola Pratt (University of Warwick) discussing insecurities and how they impact women. The seminar was then followed by workshops with a close look at WILPF’s core campaigns: Voice of African Women, Human Security not Military Security, and Strengthening Women’s Rights.
To start, Diane Perrons introduced the affect economic insecurity has on women. At least 73% of world’s workers are affected by economic insecurity, be it the interference of climate change, the global economic crisis, food security or physical security. The financial crisis has been spread by highly paid men, and now we are seeing gender biased cuts in government expenditures. The percentage of women working in health and education sector is high, and it is these sectors that are suffering the most from budget cuts. Public sectors are in difficulty due to cutbacks as there are now shortages of staff in hospitals further burdening women to take on more responsibility for less pay. Nicola Pratt stated that $40-70 billion is being spent towards Trident renewal, money which could have gone towards expanding and improving public services which are led and supported by women. However, a society that fought for 20 years is a society that has become militarised, and as a member of the UN Security Council member, the UK’s military position is about power, placing public services at the bottom of the list. This situation is common for many countries, both developed and developing. In civilian war-torn countries like Afghanistan, women and girls are forced to pull out of work and schools for their own protection, which results in loss of earnings and education. Of course, war and financial crisis affect men too as shown by the increasing unemployment figures but men are overrepresented in regular employment in the labour market which explains why the number of female unemployment is barely mentioned. While the expansion of wealth to women have timidly gone up, income share of labour and workers earnings have fallen, leading to a rise in inequality.
Environment insecurity is also a challenge especially to women living in developing countries. Women engage in subsistent agriculture with 60-80% who grow their own food and collect fire and water. However, Tamsin Omondstressed that climate change should be viewed as a “one Earth way” that affects everyone in spite of gender and race. Just by living in western world, we expel too much carbon, even if one tries to live holistically. Over-consumption is one of the biggest problems in the West indulging in luxuries, as well as the rate of over-population across the world. 50 million unwanted pregnancies occur due to lack of contraceptives, education and the force of war. Educating children and women is key to reducing over-population, giving them the tools to take control, however educating soldiers too may help reduce the rate of rape and violence in war-torn countries, earning respect and common solidarity.
As Rebecca Johnson stated, military-industrial complexes drive human insecurity. Global military expenditure stands at over $1.46 trillion in arrival expenditure. Since the Cold War, the UK has been involved in the Korean War, Vietnam conflict, war in Afghanistan, Persian Gulf War, Iraq War and many others. The UK is ranked 4 on military sending in 2008 with a world share of 4.5%. The UK also has the largest arms producing companies which include Boeing as the number one arms investor with BAE Systems and Cockhead Martin leading second and third. Judging by these statistics, we need to start working on our nuclear policy in the West before moving into other regions to gain solidarity for disarmament and unjustified spending. Sixth of the people do not have enough food to eat as it is a lack of priority. Race and violence against women is a function of war. War itself is a destruction of the environment, and arms production and trade fuel conflict encourages patriarchy.
Female insecurity in economy, environment and militarism is a circle that has common links. Nuclear weapons cannot be abolished without demilitarising, therefore as a first step, we must try to reach a ‘Global Zero’ level and promote alternative policies that support victims of war, conflict and oppression. Challenging religious, political fundamentalism and racism is also a step towards challenging patriarchy and securing security for women all over the world.
In June 2009, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced an independent inquiry into the Iraq war, but the seriousness of the inquiry had already been jeopardised by claims of covering-up evidence. As an organisation that pushes for transparency and renewal of democratic processes, Action for UN Renewalheld a public meeting to establish the truth about the Iraq War and put forward recommendations for the investigation. The event attracted a large audience, which led to an emotionally stimulated debate driven by a handful of Iraqi activists. We would like to thank the World Disarmament CampaignandRita Payne (Chair) from the Commonwealth Journalists Associationfor supporting this event.
The Washington Post stated, “As of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, the US Intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed.” Therefore, what were Bush and Blair’s reason to instigate war? In the absence of an Iraq spokesperson, distinguished speakers, including General Sir Hugh Beach, Robert Fox (Evening Standard), Nick Grief (Prof., International Law), Nicholas Jones (Former BBC Political Correspondent ), and Vijay Mehta (Chair, Action for UN Renewal) explored various issues establishing the reasons, legality, and hidden agendas to the build-up to the war.
To open the debate,Vijay Mehtafirmly indicated that the war on Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and America’s War Powers Act.Over 1.3 million Iraqi’s were killed against 4,500 US troops and 179 British, and even till this day more than 3 million people are displaced refugees. The decision to invade Iraq was taken well before 2003, and was certainly a “crime of aggression.” The 9/11 attack was the perfect excuse for Britain and America to declare into a pre-planned military adventure; in Sir Hugh Beach’s view, the perfect excuse to overthrow Saddam Hussein. While the former Iraqi President committed numerous humanitarian crimes to his people, no humanitarian crisis like the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 had taken place in 2003. The argument begins whether the West had the right to declare war on the assumption that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. It seemed quite clear that the Bush administration was continually justifying its decision as a means to protect the nation from “the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” however even now, there is no evidence of this.
As a lawyer,Nicholas Griefsuggested that Tony Blair should be prosecuted for his ‘crime of aggression’ behaviour, however even British parliamentary law does not have the power to veto declaration of war, nor does it have set regulations in conducting ‘crime of aggression’ investigation. Former General Secretary Kofi Annan indicated the war “was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, [therefore] it was illegal.” Yet America to have declared war on Iraq despite pressure from the Security Council against the decision shows that the UN is in serious need of renewal as the US should not solitarily speak or act on behalf of the Security Council.
Robert Foxwas sceptical that the war inquiry would truly establish evidence for war, due to what Robert described as “media massage.” He asked whether intelligence about the inquiry is credible, especially with the amount of ‘phoney propaganda’ and false documentation that is planted in the British and American media. Robert affirmed that the media dominates controls and manages the news to deceive its country and people. To confirm Robert’s claim, Nicholas Jones read out a conversation between media mogul Rupert Murdoch and Tony Blair, with Murdoch praising Blair with the decision to go to war and his promise to back Blair through his media channels. It quickly became apparent that Murdoch was telling the truth when Nicholas exhibited front cover pages of The Sun supporting Blair’s re-election as Prime Minister and grand support for the Iraq War, with ridiculous headline news such as “The Sun takes on the Taliban”.
Recommendations
The Iraq inquiry should be a full transparent and accountable public inquiry with UN civil servants, weapons inspectors, leaders and others to come forward with evidence with its decision to war. The investigation should also include allegations of human rights violation and abuses committed by the British, while training remaining troops in peacekeeping, conflict prevention and reconciliation. The authorisation to go to war by the UK government and the Security Council urgently need to be reformed to prevent future conflicts. It was also recommended that the UK government should compensate the people of Iraq by restoring infrastructure and national heritage sites that were damaged or destroyed during the war.
The public will need to put pressure on the government to make sure the war inquiry has been fully investigated without the disruption of ‘media massage’ messages to enable full transparency. While it is important to hold the former Prime Minister account in co-leading the war, one person cannot take full responsibility for a near decade war, therefore the inquiry needs to establish allies and other instigators to take account.
Diplomatic consultant with a special focus on corporate social responsibility, climate change, UN reform, gender justice and nuclear disarmament. My vision is to one day close the gap between civil society and key decision makers for a common cause. I am also in the process of publishing my fiction novel, based on the popular video-game, Street Fighter. With any luck, Capcom will take this on next year.
"Smile and let the world smile with you"!
