Tuesday, 19 July 2016

MPs voting for Trident fail UK international commitments


Martin Deane put himself forward for arrest twice over the Trident issue at national protests in 2006 at Faslane near Glasgow where the Vanguard submarines are based. Here he comments on the Trident vote:

The UK is committed by international treaty to a world without nuclear weapons, but you wouldn't know it from last night's vote.

The 80% of MPs voting for Trident have failed to honour the UK's international commitments since 1970 and signing the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

The renewal of Trident is the second UK scandal this century. Instead of developing Britain's stance towards peace in the world, MPs have chosen to promote fear and war, in preparing for probably the worst war we will ever see.

Britain's second ever female Prime Minister underscored this in stark terms, when she confirmed she is prepared to launch Trident and "kill hundreds of thousands of people". I don't think any Prime Minister has gone that far before. Honest, staggering and frightening.

But that's the logic of these weapons. And it is WHY they should be banned. And it is WHY we promised in 1970 to eliminate them. There has been some progress. But look at what happened last century! And tell me what we've learned!

Behind the fake fear is a really stark point. We have committed to keep the worst weapons ever invented knowing that, in all human history, if these terrible weapons were NOT used, then that would be the first time! At some stage, we use them, and that should scare everybody and make us all disarmament nuts.

Trident is a theft! £205 billion could be spent in any number of ways, in the Britain of overstretched hospital wards, chronically underfunded NHS, foodbank Britain, the recent 5% cuts demanded of all schools. Trident is therefore a choice. A choice of war over peace.

As the late great Tony Benn often said:  If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.

--------------------------------------------
NOTES
472 MPs voted to renew Trident. 117 against (20%), but including very few Labour MPs.
138 Labour MPs (60% of the PLP) voted with Theresa May to spend £205 billion on weapons of mass destruction.
One solitary Tory voted no to Trident: Crispin Blunt MP
In 1970 we signed the NPT, Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, committing Britain to ridding the world of nuclear weapons.Proliferation - has happened, notably after Iraq, with India, Pakistan, etc, acquiring nuclear weapons. There's two good states to give nukes to: at war for decades over Kashmir!
Trident is aimed at becoming a first strike weapon - and it's American! UK defence documents confirm that Trident is essentially an American weapon and almost certainly would require their permission to launch. The document spells out that, like Iraq, the UK use of Trident would be on the basis of Britain joining in an American-led war.

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Chilcot - will it make any difference to how we've treated Iraq?


What can make it better? 

What can possibly make up for a million Iraqi war-related deaths? For 2 million sanctions deaths before that? Sanctions kept in place by Britain and the US at the UN. Deaths, deformities and cancers caused by depleted uranium bombs and shells? 600,000 child deaths related to sanctions by 1996?

Truth is a first step. We won't get that from Bush or Blair, from Jack Straw or Alastair Campbell, men committed to joining in a war that America was going to lead no matter what.

So what of the latest establishment inquiry?

Overall, Chilcot has surprised many by doing a reasonable job describing the matters surrounding the legality and so the morality of war on Iraq. In addition, there are his comments about other issues such as the lack of planning for the aftermath – one reason Iraq is still in flames now.
The Report is much harder hitting than many people feared, including myself. This is good. Blair should consider himself at least in hot water - if not Iraq as his 'epitaph' – a word he used himself to George W Bush in 2002.
Except for the pass regarding blaming the intelligence, this could be the first time ever that an inquiry by the UK establishment into the UK establishment concluded that UK establishment got it all wrong.

But there is no mention of sanctions deaths, for example - this still remains hidden from the establishment worldview. Nor any mention of the poisoning of the people through depleted uranium weapons the first time around and its legacy there (let alone 'Gulf War Syndrome' here), nor the second time round from 2003. Nor the use of illegal weapons such as white phosphorous as used at Fallujah (by the Americans). 

But Chilcot contains more thoroughness and honesty than the other inquiries to date. So that's progress. But at what stage will it make a difference to Iraqis? At what stage should it be the UK which begins to pay reparations to a country it deliberately and unprovokedly destroyed?

Legal basis for war
The Chilcot Report: "We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory."
This is the closest he comes to saying it was an illegal war! - Go on. Say it! You know you want to! However, what it definitely is is a 'blistering' attack from a Lord. He doesn't quite say it was illegal but he allows question marks over the legality. In other words there is good reason to suspect it was illegal. There is plenty more to say on this: a large number of international lawyers have little hesitation condemning Bush and Blair and their supposed interpretation of 1441 and other UN resolutions they (alone) claimed were relevant, or not.
Chilcot says: "the judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified."
Ie, they were WRONG to say Saddam had WMD! But Bush and Blair had to claim (or feign) certainty in order to remotely be justified in their pre-planned war.
Chilcot :"Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate."
Indeed! There were next to none. They made it up as they went along. Apart from tanks around the Oil Ministry... one of the very first places to be secured!
One thing being overlooked in the entire presentation is that Iraq had ALREADY suffered grievously after 13 years of medieval sanctions (which killed an estimated TWO million children, women and men). The country was already destroyed, everything didn't work or was threadbare. Whatever useful was left was destroyed in shock and awe bombing. It ALL needed reconstruction.
Chilcot: "The government failed to achieve its stated objectives."
This was presumably to disarm a country of WMD when it didn't even have ONE! Moreover, the country, through sanctions, and effective disarmament inspections, was already defenceless.
Chilcot: "It is now clear that policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence and assessments. They were not challenged, and they should have been."
- This is where he lets Blair off – claiming policy on Iraq was made on 'flawed intelligence'. Fine, but what if this intelligence was deliberately flawed, some of it going back years (the Niger uranium forgery), or cherry-picked to fit the case? But Chilcot does quote the Downing Street Memo of July 23 2002: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". – This underscores UK awareness that the US was indeed cherry-picking intelligence. The policy of going to war on Iraq was driven by America, however with Blair, readily, joining in and thus exposing the UK to whatever illegality, consequences and responsibility.
Chilcot: "The Joint Intelligence Committee should have made clear to Mr Blair that the assessed intelligence had NOT established 'beyond doubt' either that Iraq had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons or that efforts to develop nuclear weapons continued."
Here Chilcot is giving Blair a bye. He's blaming the intelligence when in actuality all Blair was interested in was content that worked to show he was right and that war was inevitable – Saddam – weapons – dangerous – a mantra readily repeated by an unquestioning mainstream media.
Chilcot has more on the "inadequacy" of the invasion plans.
"The failures in the planning and preparations continued to have an effect after the invasion."
"More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict in Iraq, Many more were injured. This has meant deep anguish for many families, including those who are here today.
"The invasion and subsequent instability in Iraq had, by July 2009, also resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000 Iraqis - and probably many more - most of them civilians. More than a million people were displaced. The people of Iraq have suffered greatly."
"and probably many more" - This won't play so well with the antiwar movement which has kept a close eye on the studies over the years of estimated deaths in Iraq. Empires will always downplay their massacres. Why has Chilcot revised downwards even the early study showing a likely 600,000 deaths? And a later one showing more? The antiwar movement's claim of over 1 million deaths due to war and its effects is well-founded.
Does Chilcot even mention sanctions? Yes he does, but only from the legalistic UN point of view. He doesn't mention these had a likely death toll of TWO million, half of them being children! Nor Denis Halliday, the UN Assistant Secretary General tasked with Iraq, resigning, calling sanctions "genocide" (1998). Nor his successor Hans von Sponeck, doing the same (2000) and using the same wording!
Action "may have been necessary at some point, but in March 2003, there was no imminent threat from Saddam"
- Good. This debunks the imminent threat - and the 45-minute claim (that Dr David Kelly died for). I remember being asked outside John Prescott's house in Hull, at a protest, what will I do when Iraqi missiles start landing here! I replied, How will he (Saddam) get them here? Post them!?
Chilcot: "Mr Blair said the difficulty encountered in Iraq after the invasion could not have been known in advance. We do not agree that hindsight is needed."
- Good. Immense difficulties, especially of a civil war, were predicted by various agencies, especially the antiwar movement. Blair is avoiding responsibility on that one. Bush, of course, had never any intention of taking any.
"Military action in Iraq might have been necessary at some point. But in March 2003 there was no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, the strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time, the majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring."
- The UN inspection route was working – and it was also shooting down Bush and Blair's claims on a regular and timely basis. You see, the reason they went to war - and why they didn't give the inspections any more time - is because the inspections had worked! Disarmament had worked! In fact, years previously! – This is what the 'peace movement' – ie in this case, the general UK population, maybe 80% of us, knew. And we were proved right. Even by 2004! Not one WMD was ever found.
- Finally Chilcot does include this quote -
'I will be with you, whatever' – from July 2002, from Blair to Bush in a memo, a letter which apparently went missing from the US presidential archive in 2014...
In other words, war was happening, whatever pretext is used, and even if it falls apart.  This intentionality is what makes it wrong and which should necessitate a trial here, somewhere, of Tony Blair for the war crime of aggressive war, which was the supreme crime of Nuremburg.
Martin Deane
Hull Green Party
Hull Stop the war Coalition

Top Ten Questions for Chilcot

Appearing on BBC Radio Humberside this morning, Martin Deane, chair of Hull and East Riding Green Party, and former 8-year secretary of Hull Stop the War Coalition, hoped the Chilcot report would be forensic and honest in its conclusions. He hopes it would show what the vast majority of Britain knew at the time – that war on Iraq was going to happen, that WMD was a pretext, that Blair had decided many months previously that Britain would fight alongside the USA, no matter what the justification.
 
Top Ten Questions for Chilcot
 
1. Will the Chilcot Report be a £10m whitewash? – Will it let Blair off the hook, and blame, say, the intelligence instead?
 
2. Why did Blair choose dodgy intelligence over the clear wishes of the people?
 
3. Was Blair going to go to war on Iraq anyway, justification or not? - When and on what grounds did Tony Blair decide to follow Bush to war on Iraq?
 
4. Was the Downing Street Memo of July 23rd 2002 correct in saying "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"?
 
5. What earlier evidence is there showing Blair's likely intentions?
 
6. Will Chilcot reveal Blair as disingenuous in trying to justify the invasion of Iraq under the UN Charter?
 
7. Will Chilcot conclude the WMD argument was unjustified?
 
8. Will Chilcot conclude that the WMD argument was ultimately irrelevant to the determined pursuit of war? Ie, that it was a ruse, a pretext, an attempt at a casus belli?
 
9. Will Chilcot conclude that it was an illegal war that the UK military should never have been asked to fight?
 
10. Will Chilcot conclude that it was an immoral war, that the Iraqi people had suffered incredibly already (an estimated 2 million dead from sanctions, half of them children)?
 
"What was Iraq ultimately?" asks Martin Deane. "An aggressive war on our part, a power play for imperialism, for oil, for territory and control of the ME. It was illegal, it was immoral and it was a failure. The man who executed the UK's role
 
For the military families of the 179 British soldiers who died, their questions will be similar. Why, precisely, was this war fought? How was it that the safety of many soldiers was compromised through a lack of the right equipment? What were they fighting for, now that the Middle East is in flames ever since?
 
"Our role in Iraq has been an ignominious one. There have been millions of deaths -  the 1 million who died in the invasion and conquest, and the 2 million who had already died under sanctions.
 
Chilcot is a battle for the soul of Britain
 
"Chilcot is a battle for the soul of Britain. Has Britain in the 21st century committed the supreme crime of Nuremburg and committed the act of aggressive war?
 
"Will the truth come out? Will we clearly see in this official, establishment report what the British people have known all along – that Blair was going to go along with Bush's intention to make war on Iraq, and that therefore the then Prime Minister Tony Blair should be held to account as a war criminal.
 
"Or, like so many official inquiries before it, the inquiry into Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland – only recently exonerating victims from 1972 – or the Hutton report rubber stamping the intelligence used for war – or the Hillsborough report – only this year exonerating victimised fans from 27 years ago – will Chilcot be another whitewash?"
 
Martin Deane
Hull and East Riding Green Party
Hull Stop the War Coalition

Iraq report must not be a £10m whitewash

I'm on Radio Humberside at 7.20am.
 
I'll be talking about the Chilcot Report – you know, that little report on whether we went to war under false pretences.
This £10 million inquiry of 2.6 million words and running to 13 volumes. We hope it's not a £10 million whitewash... but instead goes some way to honour peace and justice, the million plus lives lost in Iraq, the 179 UK soldiers dead, the thousands of US troops.
 
Here's one starting point that Chilcot could have used...
The 36 Lies that led to war – Glen Rangwala
 
And then there's the infamous Downing Street Memo ...
This site lists the contents of the memo – from July 2002 – nearly a year before war – and compares it with various public statements by officials
 
Chilcot should at least show a case to answer that Blair knowingly over emphasised any threat that Iraq posed in order to get a war – a war he knew America was gong to pursue anyway, whatever the facts.
 
Martin Deane

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Hull Green Party: Voting Recommendations 2016

 
Hull and East Riding Green Party: Voting Recommendations
 
 
Avenue Ward:   ROBINSON, John, Liberal Democrats   
 
Beverley Ward: Karen Mathieson, Lib Dem
 
Boothferry Ward:  COWARD, Maria, Liberal Democrats               
 
Bricknell Ward:  MCMURRAY, Shane, Labour Party                  
 
Derringham Ward:  PICKERING, Simon Bruce, Labour Party          
 
Drypool Ward:  Adam Williams, Lib Dem
 
Holderness Ward: Linda Tock, Lib Dem
 
Ings Ward:  THOMPSON, Denise, Labour Party               
 
Kings Park Ward: Charles Quinn, Lib Dem;  VAUGHAN, Theresa, Labour and Co-operative Party
 
Longhill Ward:  John Hewitt, Lab
 
Marfleet Ward:  BELCHER, Sharon Valerie, Labour Party     
 
Myton Ward:  SPOONER, Paul, TUSC
 
Newington Ward:  Helena Spencer, Lab
 
Newland Ward:  POCKNEE, Phil, Labour;   Mike Ross, Lib Dem
 
Orchard Park & Greenwood Ward:   Steven Bayes, Lab
 
Pickering Ward:   Claire Thomas, Liberal Democrats           
 
Southcoates East Ward:  Hester Bridges, Labour Party                 
 
Southcoates West Ward:  Mary Elizabeth Glew, Labour Party           
 
St. Andrews Ward:  Tracey Henry, Liberal Democrats   
 
Sutton Ward:  Ken Turner, Labour
 
-------------------
In the absence of a Green Party electoral stand in Hull this year, the party is taking the unprecedented step of making voting recommendations to members and supporters across the city.
The party's deliberations included a number of criteria:
  • Gender balance is regarded as important by the Greens. We note Hull City Council has done well in that respect this past year with near parity, and we seek to recommend similar.
  • Political differences are paramount - not only who is in power, but how that power is used. Those closest to our positions we hope will benefit.
  • Some strong candidates are omitted as they would strengthen a given party too much in the light of what that party is pursuing
  • Similarly, portfolio holders who have been instrumental in pushing through any number of cuts, including attempting to cut trade union convenor time, have largely been omitted
  • Some candidates, mostly sitting councillors, have a good track record in key fields, eg homelessness, NHS campaigns
  • Certain candidates have approached us and we have been minded to recommend these for this election, all other things being equal
  • Some candidates have particularly strong union links or anti-austerity platforms (Greens will be helping TUSC leaflet in Myton ward)
  • Some considerations are confidential
  • Certain areas have more than one recommendation
We particularly respect those candidates likely to resist mandatory city-wide fluoridation (threatened early last year) , as once this begins it is very difficult to undo. (We note that 60 schemes in the UK over the last 20 years have been beaten back by public resistance).
 
Some candidates have no readily available email which makes communicating with them, and between them and the electorate, more difficult.
 
These recommendation are merely an indication to supporters. They remain, as always, free to make up their own minds.
------------------------------

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

One month til local elections!

PHOTO: Martin Deane at April's Spring Fete in aid of refugees, Princes Ave, Hull.
 
1. One month til local elections
 
2. Greens greenlight Labour in Bricknell
 
3. Greens brand as truly anti-austerity party
 
4. Tax evasion – "an endemic problem for Britain"
 
5. Scrap Hinckley C – spend £40 bn less and go renewable instead!
 
6. Teachers rebel over SATs – government revision booklets full of mistakes!
 
7. Brexit will attack UK workers
 
Martin Deane, chair of Hull and East riding Green Party, and candidate for Avenue ward, writes:
 
1. One month to go – Sign up to vote!
 
"With one month go till local elections around the country – it's essential that everyone who wants to vote is signed up.  Millions were thrown off electoral rolls last year by changes brought in by government. This particularly applies to young people and how universities and colleges were told to change their practices."
 
"But it's easy to sign up - just search "voter reg uk" and you will get the sign-up page."
 
This is good for people who have changed address recently too.
 
DEADLINE - 18th April.
 
2. Green light for Labour in Bricknell
 
"Locally Greens will be standing across Hull for the second year in a row. Candidates will be announced shortly on the website.
 
"One exception is Bricknell ward where Greens are standing aside to give Labour the opportunity to take out one of the two Conservative councillors in the city.
 
"It is only right that Tory councillors across the country pay the price for what their government is doing to councils across the country.
 
"In almost every case, cuts have fallen disproportionately on less well-off areas, like ours."
 
3. Greens brand as truly anti-austerity party
 
"The Greens have always been a truly anti-austerity party. We will be leading on this in our campaign in Hull – one of the worst affected local authorities in the country.
 
"It's great that Corbyn is trying hard to change Labour policy on this – but they simply don't have the track record, like Labour in Hull cutting 600 council jobs, following vicious Lib Dem cuts of 1400 jobs before them.
 
"Across the region, year after year after year, Labour councils have knee-jerk voted down Green proposals to fight austerity."
 
"The Green Party is the people's choice."
 
4. Tax evasion – "an endemic problem for Britain"
 
In May Cameron will lead world leaders to London to tackle tax evasion globally. Allegedly.
 
"This will achieve as much as a wet flannel in the face of global tax evasion. The Panama Papers show Cameron's father, Ian Cameron, is a named tax haven user – one place David Cameron himself has got his fortune from!
 
"The Papers name British politicians, party donors and a dozen world leaders in the leaked files. There's a raft  of UK territories around the world which are still offshore tax havens. "
 
"We have an endemic problem! We're not leading in tackling tax evasion - we're leaders in providing it!"
 
5. Scrap Hinckley C – spend £40 bn less and go renewable instead!
 
A thinktank report out today outlines how the inordinate cost of proposed nuclear power station, Hinckley C, could be spent instead – for far greater energy at better value – on renewables.
 
"We've the opportunity to save tens of billions of pounds – simply by going into renewables and not into nuclear. It's a no-brainer! All we're left with is the stubborn Conservative commitment to nuclear.
 
"And at the same time as blowing billions on expensive nuclear power, government won't even contemplate a billion or two to save tens of thousands of jobs connected to Port Talbot steel! A vital industry."
 
6. Teachers rebel over SATs – government revision booklets full of mistakes!
 
As the NUT prepares to boycott the government's even more demanding SATs tests, they issue a Easter revision booklets full of mistakes!
 
"The Tories are testing Britain to destruction! Neither teachers, nor parents, nor children, deserve, or will benefit from these tests, especially this year. Greens, however, would scrap all SAT testing and reverse the insidious move to force all schools to become academies."
 
7. Brexit will attack workers
 
"The Green position is that the EU is far from perfect but without it, employers would be given free rein to ride roughshod over workers."
 
"Brexit plays into the hands of the most vicious rightwing government in Europe. Our own!"
 
------------------
Martin Deane

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

We Shall Overcome: Megan Greenwood's speech


This weekend saw Hull host our second great We Shall Overcome events. Here, the youngest contributor of the evening, sums up where many of us are in terms of finding our voice - and encouraging others. 

Our thanks to Megan Greenwood:

"We are powerful and we will no longer be silenced."

 "I'm absolutely thrilled to be taking part in such an iconic political movement like We Shall Overcome.

Now onto something a little less than controversial - age. At 15 years old, politics and social movements were the last things that interested me. All I knew on the subject was that my parents hated the government!

Fast forward to 5 months before the General Election, and now politics has become a main focus of my life and, dare I say,  potential career path!

This drastic change was caused by one stranger - one stranger and his faith in me, faith in my strength, faith in my generation.

Joe Solo. The man responsible for this weekend.

This man believes! And isn't that what this weekend is fundamentally about? Faith? The faith in ourselves, the faith in each other, the faith to know that we are powerful and we will no longer be silenced.

PHOTO: Joe Solo played Queens Gardens, Hull, earlier this year.

Time after time I'm told I'm no good. I cannot be taken seriously during family debates or in public forums - because somehow society believes my intelligence is devalued by the lesser amount of time I've spent on this earth.

This was particularly apparent to me shortly after the General Election. There was a popular anecdote floating around social media about the Tory election being reflected in a U2 album every iTunes user got, when the majority didn't really want it.

A family friend stated that due to my youth, I was wrong. Due to my youth, I was an irrational extremist. Due to my youth I was manipulated by the 'dream-like' ideologies of the left wing.

To this day, and every day hereafter, I will fight for the voices of young men and women in politics.
Young people care about their future. Young people care about the future of our country. Young people care about the future of their parents, grandparents, children and grandchildren. Young people refuse a world of poverty.

As a collective we have an overwhelming sense of strength to change - and with like-minded elders, we are even stronger. The strength we gain together can move mountains and our opinions will no longer be silenced in a supposedly democratic society.

We have a voice. Every person standing in front of me has a voice. So let's use it for the common good; and let's use it for the greater good.

So, I ask of you... Encourage your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and friends to have a voice in politics. Ensure them that there will be people who will try to silence them but they can shout louder. We all can.

We can live in a world of equality, tolerance and peace.

We can, and we will overcome."

Megan.