Showing posts with label British. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British. Show all posts

Saturday, January 03, 2015

Big Money, not the house of Lords, is the really big problem with our democracy - and it's not just a Westminster problem, it's an SNP problem too

I can see why Alex Salmond would suggest making the House of Lords elected, but on its own that will not fix the biggest problems with our democracy. The US has an elected upper house, and even more corruption in the system than the UK has. Nor will devolution, or even independence, fix the biggest problem with our democracy without other reforms (1).

That’s because the biggest problem is that we allow big banks, companies and the super-rich to buy up political influence. They do this partly by big donations to party funds and election campaigns.

The big political parties use the donations to pay advisers, advertisers, graphic designers and pollsters to design campaigns of leaflets, billboards and adverts to persuade people to vote for them. Then, when they’re in government, they pay the donors back many times over, with taxpayers’ money.

They do it with public contracts that massively over-pay companies and have no safeguards to ensure value for money for taxpayers, for instance with PFIs. They do it by permitting tax havens in UK dependencies like the City of London and the Channel Islands so the big donors can avoid taxes easily. They do it by letting them off with most of their evasion of tax even when they’re caught, through “sweetheart deals”. They do it by not enforcing anti-monopoly laws and de-regulating whole industries so a few large companies can dominate each economic sector and charge consumers what they like whether their own costs are going up or down. This de-regulation also led to the banking crisis.

In the last 5 years the Conservative party has got more than half its donations from the financial sector – mostly big banks and hedge funds. It has failed to bring in any proper regulation of the banks of the Glass-Steagall kind that would ban high street savings banks from also being “investment” (actually mostly stock market casino) banks (2).

To save on the millions every few years it would take to publicly fund the election campaigns of all candidates at a low and equal level, we end up losing tens to hundreds of billions every single year in big companies allowed to overcharge us for electricity, food and many other things ; in PFI contracts ; in lost tax revenues ; in companies allowed to grow too large so there is no longer real competition to reduce prices for consumers ; in de-regulation leading to everything from higher prices to banking crises.

The Revolving Door Between Government and Big Business

They also do it through the “revolving door” between government and the firms its meant to regulate. If government ministers, civil servants, MPs and advisers do favours for big donors to party funds, we allow them to leave government and go straight to work for firms they were regulating, deciding on taxation for, or giving contracts to.

For instance Sean Worth, an adviser to David Cameron on NHS “reforms” (largely contracting out services to private firms) left that job after just two years, to become an adviser to MHP Communications, which lobbies on behalf of the Priory Group, which runs mental health services for the NHS (3).

Labour in government were no different. Health Secretaries Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt both contracted out NHS services to the private sector, and both became paid advisers to private healthcare firms on leaving government (4) – (5).

 Many other former ministers and advisers, Labour and Conservative, have done the same (6).

And one of the ways the parties pay back donors to party funds is by allowing people employed by these firms to take up jobs in the same government departments, so that the biggest firms are able to scrap any regulations they don’t like, as well as avoid competition laws being enforced to break them up when they become too big.

Not just a Westminster problem – a Scottish and SNP problem too

And the problem is not just at Westminster. Even if Scotland was independent the same problem of big business and the super-rich buying up political influence would remain.

The SNP has already shown it can be bought by big donors too.

Within a month of receiving a £500,000 donation from Brian Souter, who owns much of Highland Transport group,  in January 2007, the SNP scrapped its policy of re-regulation of the bus network. And to this day the Scottish governments has no plans to renationalise or even seriously re-regulate bus services (7) – (8).

Legalised Corruption

All of this is political and government corruption by any other name. In legal terms it may not be corruption, because while there are laws against bribes in money, there are no laws against taking those bribes as big donations to party funds in return for favours at taxpayers’ expense, nor taking them in kind as paid employment, nor in letting representatives of the banks or companies into government to write their own regulations in return. But there should be laws against it. In moral terms, and in its effects on voters and taxpayers’ interests, isn’t it just as corrupt as taking a bribe?

The almost powerless House of Lords is a distraction from the big problems

The House of Lords has almost no power. The majority of what it does is to review bills sent to it by the Commons (often badly thought out laws rushed through by the government) and suggest amendments to them. It can do that twice. When it comes to the third time it has to approve them even if the commons has rejected all the Lords' amendments. That’s been the case for over 100 years since the 1911 Parliament Act.

Scrap it and don't replace it and the government can rush through half-arsed laws without any oversight or amendment and frequently no-one will even notice till it's too late.

Scrap it and replace it with an elected upper chamber, without having fixed all the other problems, and you end up like the US - with either a rubber stamp (if the same party or parties control both houses) or gridlock with almost no laws passed at all (if different parties control the two houses), and most laws only passed if they benefit big donors to election campaign funds.

I'm not saying there are no problems with the Lords - how Lords are appointed needs changed. Party leaders shouldn't just be able to hand seats to big donors to party funds, and there doesn’t seem much justification for hereditary peers.

Electing them is one possibility, but on it’s own will solve little and might well just hand the party machines and big donors to party funds as much influence in the upper house as they already have in the more powerful House of Commons.

Binning our votes unrepresented – First Past The Post Elections

Another problem is than the the First Past the Post electoral system used for UK General Elections, which often gives single parties big majorities on a minority of the votes and throws away any vote not cast for the winning candidate in a constituency unrepresented (and the winning candidate can win on the largest minority of the vote, doesn't even need 50%) .

In the 2010 General election more than half the votes cast were for losing candidates and were effectively binned unrepresented.  In 2005 and 2010 two-thirds of MPs didn’t even have a majority of the votes cast in their constituency. And it’s even worse than that, because of safe seats. The safer a seat the less voters bother voting at all  (9) – (10).

Lack of Democracy inside parties

A fourth problem is the lack of any written constitution or law requiring democracy inside political parties.
So for instance in the Labour party, the party leader can change policy to benefit big donors to party funds at any time, and ignore votes by party conference as “non-binding”.

Whether we are part of the UK or an independent country, private donations to political parties and the revolving door between government and big business are two of the biggest weaknesses in our democracy.

How to fix our democracy

Public funding of all candidates in elections at a low and equal level would allow the giving or receiving of any private political donation to be made a criminal offence. This would have to include any donation from any source, as otherwise companies could use phony “charities” or industry front groups.

Making it also a criminal offence with a stiff jail sentence to move between employment in a government department in any capacity and employment in any firm regulated by, given contracts by or whose taxes were decided by that department within a 10 year period would end the revolving door syndrome.

 Those two measures could take most of the big money influence out of politics and make politicians look to the people who elected them first.

We could end dodgy PFI contracts. It could end de-regulation of the kind that led to the financial crisis and allow the banks to be re-regulated to prevent another one (six years after the crisis there is still no law against high street savings banks also being “investment” banks). It could stop government letting big donors to party funds use government permitted tax havens in UK dependencies like the Channel Islands, and end “sweetheat deals” that let Goldman Sachs and others off with millions in tax at a time, even when they are caught evading it.

If we just have an elected House of lords, or get more devolution or independence, and think that’s democracy fixed though, business will continue as usual with the majority’s interests over-ridden by those of big donors to party funds.

A written constitution specifying internal democracy within parties (e.g constituency parties to have the sole right to select or deselect candidates ; votes of party conference must become party policy etc) would also be progress, but is similarly a minor issue as long as big money is allowed to controls our governments and opposition parties.

(1) = Guardian.com 20 Dec 2014 ‘Alex Salmond calls for ‘peasants’ revolt’ vote to abolish House of Lords’,
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/20/alex-salmond-peasants-revolt-type-referendum-abolish-house-of-lords

(2) = BBC News 09 Feb 2011 ‘More than half of Conservative donors 'from the City'’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049

(3) = Guardian 23 Nov 2012 ‘David Cameron's former NHS privatisation adviser becomes lobbyist’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/23/david-cameron-privatisation-adviser-health-lobbyist

(4) = Guardian 17 May 2011 ‘Former Labour ministers rushing to take private sector jobs, report finds’, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/may/17/labour-ministers-consultancy-private-sector

(5) = Telegraph 12 Jun 2012 ‘Social mobility man Alan Milburn is on the way to a million’,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9324145/Social-mobility-man-Alan-Milburn-is-on-the-way-to-a-million.html

(6) = Lobbying Transparency – Revolving Door is Unhealthy, http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/15-blog/general/62-revolving-door-is-unhealthy

(7) = Scotsman 22 Apr 2007 ‘SNP under attack after bus U-turn’, http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/snp-under-attack-after-bus-u-turn-1-744256

(8) = Scotsman 12 Feb 2011 ‘£500,000 war chest for Alex Salmond’, http://www.scotsman.com/news/163_500_000_war_chest_for_alex_salmond_1_1493699

(9) = Electoral Reform Society 6 May 2010 ‘The UK General Election 2010 In-depth’, page 35,
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/images/dynamicImages/file4e3ff1393b87a.pdf

(10) = IPPR 2011 ‘Worst of Both Worlds -Why First Past the Post no longer works’ , by Guy Lodge and Glenn Gottfried, http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/Worst%20of%20Both%20Worlds%20Jan2011_1820.pdf
and
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/first-past-the-post-no-longer-fit-for-purpose/

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Thatcher’s Falklands War got hundreds killed due either to incompetence or cynical manipulation – Callaghan avoided a war in identical circumstances 5 years earlier by sending a small fleet to the South Atlantic

The attempt to present Margaret Thatcher as a great war leader based on the Falklands War, with 800 members of the military to be present at her funeral, is bizarre once you know the historical facts.

When the Argentinians began talking of taking the Falklands in 1977, Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan and Foreign Secretary David Owen were persuaded by military chiefs to send a Royal Navy fleet to the South Atlantic to signal Britain would fight any invasion. In a similar situation in 1982 Thatcher’s government withdrew the last Royal Navy ship – the HMS Endurance - from the area during spending cuts, leading the Argentine military junta to believe Britain would not fight for the islands (1) – (2). They invaded – and then Thatcher declared war. Hundreds died as a result.

Some suggest that Thatcher, then the most unpopular Prime Minister in British history to that point, after increasing unemployment by over 50% to over 3 million after promising to reduce it during the 1979 election campaign, wanted a war to restore her popularity (3).

It’s impossible to know whether the decision to recall HMS Endurance was the result of blind ideology in imposing spending cuts and incompetence in not caring where they were made;  or whether Thatcher wanted the Argentinians to believe Britain wouldn’t fight in order to get a war to restore her political fortunes. If the latter she was betraying members of the British armed forces just as much as Blair with Iraq. Either way she was responsible for an easily avoidable war and all the deaths in it. By any rational standard she should be condemned for not preventing war as simply and easily as Callaghan did rather than lauded for winning a war against an inferior military that could have been avoided.

In the case of the 1990-1991 Gulf War against Iraq, which Thatcher committed British troops to shortly before her party got her to resign over the poll tax, there is no such doubt. The Bush (senior) administration and the Kuwaiti monarchy duped Saddam into war with the US over Kuwait. Bush and his advisers sought to repeat Thatcher’s feat of going from unpopularity on domestic unemployment and recession to election victory on a tide of war fuelled nationalism ; they failed.

(1) = BBC News 01 Jun 2005 ‘Secret Falklands fleet revealed’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4597581.stm

(2) = Freedman, Lawrence (2005) ‘Official History of the Falklands Campaign Volume 1’, Routledge, 2005, chapters 8 – 9

(3) = Lenman, B. P. (1992) The Eclipse of Parliament: Appearance and Reality in British Politics since 1914 (London: Edward Arnold)

Thursday, April 26, 2012

George Galloway has his faults - but compared to Blair, Biden, Bush, Cameron or Clinton he's a model of honesty and decency

Many of by-election winner George Galloway's political enemies condemn him for flattering Saddam in 1994 and saying Assad was a reformer in 2005. Like most people (most definitely including me) he has plenty of faults. He can be a bit over the top, seem arrogant, exaggerate sometimes, make mistakes, be intolerant of those who disagree with him and sometimes (e.g on Tibet) I completely disagree with him.

He also sometimes talks as though anyone who is an enemy of the US government and it's allies must basically be in the right or admirable (though not nearly as often as some of his critics suggest). Those faults pale in comparison with some of his political enemies' statements and actions and duplicity though, but his political enemies don't get nearly the same amount of condemnation that most of the media have for Galloway.

Tony Blair called President Mubarak of Egypt "immensely courageous and a force for good" even after Mubarak had protesters killed by police (1). US Vice President Joe Biden meanwhile claimed Mubarak was "not a dictator" on the grounds that he was an ally of the US and no ally of the US could possibly be a bad man (2). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's initial view of Mubarak's killing of protesters was that "the Egyptian government is stable and looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people" (3).

To be fair some Republicans were outraged by these statements - they wanted the US government to be even more supportive of Mubarak (4). The Obama administration did eventually call for Mubarak to step down - in favour of his vice President and chief torturer Omar Suleiman (5).

I must have missed Times columnist and Tony Blair fan David Aaronovitch's ringing condemnations of Blair, Biden and Clinton for this pandering to murdering dictators.

Aaronovitch, in one of his Times columns, claims Galloway praised Assad as a reformer in April 2011 during the Arab Spring uprisings (6). The only reports from any mainstream source which I can find of Galloway praising Assad as a reformer are from 2005 and 2006, when everyone thought Bashar Al Assad might turn out to be a reformer (at least compared to his father) (7). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton still said Assad was considered a reformer on 27th March 2011, two days after around 23 protesters were reported shot dead in a single protest in Syria (8) - (9). Again, I must have missed Aaronovitch's condemnation of Hillary Clinton for this - I did see him condemn Galloway for saying something similar though.

(Aaronovitch's article includes the line "Mr Galloway would not have stood in Bradford West had it not contained a very substantial Muslim population." which sounds a lot like the kind of prejudice against Muslims that was common against Jews before the Holocaust was widely known about after World War Two)

Galloway had written a blog post in August 2011 condemning Assad's forces' actions as terrorism and those of a police state and saying there was a "genuine popular uprising" in Syria, while also pointing to a minority among the anti-Assad movement of armed sectarian Sunni extremists who are being backed by various foreign powers for their own ends - a much more balanced analysis of what's going on there than Aaronovitch's ridiculously one sided one (10).

This was seven months before Aaronovitch's column, but Aaronovitch made no mention of it.

(Again, I don't disagree with Aaronovitch on everything. Sometimes he's right, but on most things to do with the Middle East, Muslims, Tony Blair or Iraq, Aaronovitch has either fallen for propaganda or else is one of the propagandists - which I don't know)

What's much worse than their statements of support for dictatorships is that the Obama administration (like the Bush administration before it) and the Coalition government, like 'New Labour' before it, have not only praised but also armed many dictatorships as they're committing massacres - just like all their predecessors.

When Saddam was actually committing genocide against Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s (during the Iran-Iraq war) the British and US and French and Russian and Chinese governments were arming and funding him against the Iranians under Ayatollah Khomeini. Funding from the US government continued after the gassing of Halabja in 1988 and arms sales and "dual-use" exports to Iraq continued to be quietly approved by the American and British governments until 1990 (see the blog post on this link and sources 5 to 10 on it as well as this document and this one from the US National Security Archive on sales of US helicopters and heavy trucks to Saddam).

While Galloway signed eight parliamentary motions condemning and calling for an end to US and British support for Saddam between the gassing of Halabja and 1990, Tony Blair MP refused to sign any of them (11).

Similarly today the US government has continued it's $1.3 billion a year military aid funding to Egypt (plus approving arms sales ) under it's military regime, just as it did under Mubarak, despite the fact that Amnesty International found Mubarak was having people tortured and killed ; and that they have since repeatedly reported that the military regime that replaced him is as bad or worse than Mubarak was . The decision seems to have been that heavily subsidised arms industry jobs in America were worth more than peoples' lives or democracy in Egypt (12) - (14).

The US and British governments have also continued arms and supposedly "non-lethal" tear gas sales ( with tear gas having killed dozens of people when used in high concentrations in Bahrain already) and military training to the forces of the dictators of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain (calling them 'monarchies' is supposed to make their torture and murder and dictatorship more legitimate somehow) as their forces torture and kill protesters (15) - (19).

Tony Blair, who claimed he sent British troops into Iraq to free Iraqis from a brutal dictator (before going on to involve them in US led war crimes and torture) ; accepted money from a South Korean oil firm looking for contracts in Iraq - and has since become a paid public relations consultant for the brutal dictator of Kazakhstan who has striking oil workers and protesters gunned down by security forces with machine guns (20) - (22).

So which is worse? Flattering one dictator once and saying another might be a reformer when most other people also thought that was a possibility? ; or arming and funding dictatorships as they torture, kill and even commit genocide?

I don't agree Galloway on everything - for instance his claim that Tibet has always been part of China sounds to me a lot like the argument made by extreme Israeli hardliners that the West Bank has always been part of Israel on the basis of some 4,000 year old biblical Kingdom of Israel.

However, despite all his faults, compared to most of his political enemies and rivals George Galloway is a fairly honest and straightforward man. Compared to snake oil salesmen like Tony Blair and David Cameron he's almost a saint.

(1) = guardian.co.uk 02 Feb 2011 'Tony Blair: Mubarak is 'immensely courageous and a force for good'',
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/02/tony-blair-mubarak-courageous-force-for-good-egypt

(2) = ABC News 27 Jan 2011 'VP Biden Calls Egyptian President Mubarak an “Ally” – and Would Not Call Him a Dictator', http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/vp-biden-calls-egyptian-president-mubarak-an-ally-and-would-not-call-him-a-dictator/

(3) = Reuters 25 Jan 2012 'US urges restraint in Egypt, says government stable',
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE70O0KF20110125

(4) = ABC News 02 Feb 2011 'Republican Presidential Hopefuls Critique Obama on Egypt',
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/egypt-protests-obama-response-draws-criticism-gop-presidential/story?id=12821036#.T5hsO9n86VR

(5) = Observer / guardian.co.uk 06 Feb 2011 ' Egypt protests: Hosni Mubarak's power fades as US backs his deputy', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/egypt-protests-hosni-mubarak-sulieman

(6) = Times 31 March 2012 'So why did he choose to stand in Bradford?' by David Aaronovitch http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3369984.ece

(7) = BBC News 19 Nov 2005 'Galloway praises Syrian president ',
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4451848.stm

(8) = Washington Post blog 04 April 2011 'Hillary Clinton’s uncredible statement on Syria' ,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/hillary-clintons-uncredible-statement-on-syria/2011/04/01/AFWPEYaC_blog.html

(9) = Haaretz 25 March 2011 'At least 23 said killed as protesters in Syria clash with security forces',
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/at-least-23-said-killed-as-protesters-in-syria-clash-with-security-forces-1.351815

(10) = Vote George Galloway blog 15 Aug 2011 'George Galloway on Syria',
http://www.votegeorgegalloway.com/2011/08/george-galloway-on-syria.html

(11) = Guardian 18 March 2003 , 'Diary' ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/mar/18/1

(12) = NYT 23 Mar 2012 'Once Imperiled, U.S. Aid to Egypt Is Restored',
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/world/middleeast/once-imperiled-united-states-aid-to-egypt-is-restored.html

(13) = Amnesty International 22 Nov 2011 'Egypt: Military rulers have 'crushed' hopes of 25 January protesters',
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-military-rulers-have-crushed-hopes-25-january-protesters-2011-11-22

(14) = Amnesty 22 Feb 2012 'Egypt: Recent security force policing 'reminiscent of Mubarak' era',
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=19958

(15) = Independent On Sunday 15 Jan 2012 'Britain accused of hypocrisy over Arab arms sales' ,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-accused-of-hypocrisy-over-arab-arms-sales-6289847.html

(16) = Amnesty International USA blog 30 Jan 2012 'U.S. Arms Sales to Bahrain: 4 Questions for the Obama Administration',
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/middle-east/u-s-arms-sales-to-bahrain-4-questions-for-the-obama-administration/

(17) = Physicians for Human Rights 'Tear-Gas Related Deaths in Bahrain : March 2011 - March 2012',
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/issues/persecution-of-health-workers/bahrain/bahrain-tear-gas-deaths.html

(18) = Observer 28 May 2011 'UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring' ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/28/uk-training-saudi-troops

(19) = Amnesty International 17 Apr 2012 'Bahrain: Reforms risk appearing hollow as violations continue',
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/bahrain-reforms-risk-appearing-hollow-violations-continue-2012-04-17
; 'But... in practice, the security forces remain largely unaffected by these institutional changes....security forces continue to face protesters with unnecessary and excessive force - particularly tear gas, which has resulted in several deaths in recent months. At least 60 people have now been killed in connection with protests since February 2011.....at the same time as police reforms are being introduced with much fanfare, detainees are facing torture'

(20) = Guardian 17 Mar 2010 'Tony Blair got cash for deal with South Korean oil firm',
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/17/tony-blair-cash-south-korea-oil

(21) = Independent 31 Oct 2011 'The two faces of Tony Blair',
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/the-two-faces-of-tony-blair-6255021.html

(22) = guardian.co.uk 16 Feb 2011 'Clashes between police and sacked oil workers in Kazakhstan leave 10 dead', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/16/clashes-police-protesters-kazakhstan-dead

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza should be tried here for the crimes they're suspected of - we shouldn't deport even our worst enemies to be tortured


I completely agree that Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza's views are extreme and morally wrong - and that if they have encouraged people to carry out terrorist attacks targeting civilians or helped fund or organise them they should be charged, tried and jailed. None of that can justify deporting them to countries where they will most likely be tortured and convicted based on statements made by other people under torture though.

"Assurances" from the Jordanian government (basically a dictatorship under the King of Jordan) that they will not do either of these things to particular prisoners extradited to them from European countries including the UK have been proven worthless. This has been established by investigations by Human Rights Watch and by Amnesty International (1) - (2). They've also found that torture in Jordanian prisons is routine and brutal right up to present (3) - (4). That makes Home Secretary Theresa May making a great show of seeking of "assurances" on Qatada just a pantomime done for the sake of appearances.

The right wing media circus in the US could to lead to Hamza, if he is deported to America, being sent to Guantanamo in Cuba for torture, or the US airbase at Bagram in Afghanistan, or secret US prisons in Afghanistan, where prisoners are tortured and tried by 'military tribunal' kangaroo courts (5) - (10).

If Hamza and Qatada have encouraged, funded or helped organise terrorist attacks on civilians, as they are alleged to have done while in the UK, they should be given fair trials here, with a jury. If they're found guilty they can them be jailed for their crimes.

There are excuses given by the Home Office about the supposed difficulties of getting a conviction in court, but British Historian Professor Mark Curtis in his book 'Secret Affairs' (on British government dealings with radical Islamists) and investigative journalist Richard Norton-Taylor say the real reason this option has not being taken is that British intelligence and the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch had many mutually beneficial dealings with Hamza and Qatada throughout the 1990s which would be likely to come up during a court case here and embarrass them, the British government and possibly senior members of both main UK parties (11) - (12).

Another likely reason that neither have been charged and brought to trial here is that the Conservative party are keen to create an easily avoidable dispute with the European Court of Human Rights as part of their propaganda against the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. Neither prevents us trying or jailing either of these men. Neither have anything to do with the EU - they existed long before the EU, were always separate from it and the European Community and are based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights which was written in order to ensure that we never slipped back into the horrors of the Holocaust and the Second World War.

The right wing of the Conservative party also have an irrational hatred of anything European or foreign which is so extreme that they might as well be calling for the abolition of foreign countries and foreigners.

Those who promote extreme interpretations of Islam often call those who disagree with them "hypocrites". We are more likely to deny them more recruits by showing their claims false by upholding the principles we say we stand for, than by ignoring them when they become inconvenient and so seeming to prove the extremists right.

If we throw away our principles of opposing torture, demanding fair trials and holding people being innocent until proven guilty, the moment they apply to someone whose views the majority of us dislike, then we will really have allowed our enemies to destroy our way of life in a way that no terrorist attack could manage to.



Sources


(1) = Human Rights Watch 06 Oct 2011 'Diplomatic Assurances: Empty Promises Enabling Torture', http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/06/diplomatic-assurances-empty-promises-enabling-torture

(2) = Amnesty International 12 April 2010 'Europe must halt unreliable 'diplomatic assurances' that risk torture', http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/europe-must-halt-unreliable-diplomatic-assurances-risk-torture-2010-04-12

(3) = Human Rights Watch 08 Oct 2008 'Jordan: Torture in Prisons Routine and Widespread - Reforms Fail to Tackle Abuse, Impunity Persists', http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/10/08/jordan-torture-prisons-routine-and-widespread-0

(4) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2012 : Jordan , http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-jordan ; 'Perpetrators of torture enjoy near-total impunity. The redress process begins with a deficient complaint mechanism, continues with lackluster investigations and prosecutions, and ends in police court, where two of three judges are police-appointed police officers. '

(5) = Scotsman 27 May 2004,'Soldier left brain damaged after playing unruly prisoner at Guantánamo', http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/soldier-left-brain-damaged-after-playing-unruly-prisoner-at-guant-225-namo-1-532722

(6) = Independent 14 Oct 2006 - ‘Guantanamo guards 'admitted abusing inmates',

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/guantanamo-guards-admitted-abusing-inmates-419992.html

(7) = Human Rights Watch 01 Jun 2010 'The Bagram Detainee Review Boards: Better, But Still Falling Short' , http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/02/bagram-detainee-review-boards-better-still-falling-short

(8) = CBS News 13 Nov 2011 'Bagram: The other Guantanamo?' ,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57323856/bagram-the-other-guantanamo/

(9) = BBC News 15 Apr 2010 'Afghans 'abused at secret prison' at Bagram airbase', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8621973.stm

(10) = BBC News 11 May 2010 'Red Cross confirms 'second jail' at Bagram, Afghanistan',

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8674179.stm

(11) = guardian.co.uk Comment Is Free 14 Feb 2012 'Why is Abu Qatada not on trial?' , http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/14/abu-qatada-not-on-trial

(12) = Mark Curtis (2010) 'Secret Affairs : Britain's collusion with radical Islam' Serpent's Tail/Profile Books, London, 2010 , chapter 16 (pages 265 - 276 of paperback edition)

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Repeating the Mistakes of the Past in Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain & Saudi – Backing murdering dictatorships to the end will backfire on the US UK & France

The US government and it’s allies are about to end up on the wrong side of history by backing dictatorships to the last gasp as they kill their own people, as they did with the Shah of Iran in 1979;  and so ensuring, as in Iran, that the new governments will have every reason to be hostile to them for decades to come, as in Iran.

They’re also increasing support for the Islamic extremists they claim to be trying to weaken – nothing boosted Khomeini more than the US backing the Shah as he had his own people killed.

In 1977 President Jimmy Carter, on a visit to Iran, made the following statement in a speech to the Shah – the western backed dictator of the country. “Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah, is an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world”(1).

Two years later the Shah had been overthrown and replaced by a government hostile to the US, which gained much of it’s support from the US government backing the Shah to the last moment, even as he had his army shoot hundreds of unarmed protesters dead (2).

Carter, like Obama, was seen as a dove and a progressive, but backed a dictatorship carrying out massacres to the last, just as Obama and Clinton are doing in Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen. (There’s even a widespread myth on the right in the US that Carter didn’t back the Shah to the end).

Earlier this year, just before Mubarak was overthrown by pro-democracy protesters in Egypt, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saidOur assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people” (3). Meanwhile Mubarak’s police were shooting protesters dead in the street, torturing others and Mubarak fell – and so did the US government’s favoured successor Omar Suleiman, Mubarak’s Vice President and notorious torturer in chief.

Now the US government and it’s allies are backing General Tantawi (Mubarak’s Defence Minister for 20 years) and a military regime – and even as it’s on the point of falling, they’ve not ended military aid, political support or ‘crowd control’ arms supplies to it. There are similar situations in Bahrain and Yemen, where the US and it’s allies have only called for the dictator Saleh to stand down in favour of his Vice President – following their usual practice of dropping figureheads when they become a liability but continuing support for dictatorships under their deputies.

The US, British and French governments pose as defenders of freedom and democracy, but in fact only back the overthrow of dictatorships where those dictatorships are hostile to them (e.g Syria) or demanding an increased share of oil profits from NATO governments’ oil companies (Libya).

The focus on Libya and Syria is partly about distracting attention for backing for other NATO government backed dictatorships as they massacre pro-democracy protesters ; and partly about distracting from mass unemployment and inequality permitted by governments bought up by senior bankers, big companies and billionaires at home.

The contrast between US, British and French government statements and the tone of media coverage of the torture and killing of protesters in Syria and Libya could not be more different to their statements on exactly the same situations in Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain, where they support the dictatorships.

In the first case the calls for military action and the end of the dictatorships never end – in the latter the most that’s ever called for is a dictator to be replaced by their Vice President or one of their Generals – maintaining the dictatorship, the torture and the killings under a new figure-head. British arms sales and training of militaries in many of these dictatorships has never ended either (the only exceptions being a suspension of British arms sales to Bahrain, Libya and Syria). US military aid to Yemen and Egypt has never ended either, despite constant killings of unarmed protesters by those countries’ militaries.

British government claims that it is not arming dictatorships are shown to be lies by it’s granting of arms export licences to Egypt this year and it’s invitations to representatives of the Egyptian, Saudi and Yemeni dictatorships and their militaries in September this year.

Egypt

General Tantawi - Mubarak crony and his current replacement as dictator of Egypt

In Egypt , British Prime Minister David Cameron pretended that the Mubarak’s Generals taking over from Mubarak and Suleiman was democratisation and visited Egypt, Kuwait and other dictatorships to proudly promote British arms sales to the dictatorships of these countries while making the ridiculous claim that “small democracies like Kuwait” need help to arm themselves (4) – (6).

Kuwait has never, ever, been a democracy. Even the US State Department’s reports say it’s an absolute monarchy with a token parliament that has no power whatsoever – and Human Rights Watch reports show that it’s record on human rights and democracy has been getting worse, not better (7) – (12).

As the Egyptian military pile up the bodies of democracy protesters they’ve killed in Tahrir Square, Amnesty International reports that the Egyptian military government has used exactly the same methods as the Mubarak government used – torture, jail without fair trial, killings of opposition supporters by the military, the police and hired plain clothes thugs – but on a larger scale (13) – (14).

The army is trying to whip up violence against the Coptic Christian minority in order to be able to claim that it has had to step in to restore order and protect minorities from extremists – but Coptic Christian marchers in the last march supposedly attacked by Muslim extremists say it was hired government thugs and the army who were firing at them and killing them and running them over with armoured personnel carriers – claims confirmed by videos of those events (15).

Even after this the US government didn’t end military aid funding to the Egyptian military.

The face of General Tantawi, the head of the grandly named ‘High Military Council’, has already been put up on posters across Cairo calling on him to stand for President in the promised elections, supposedly due to popular acclamation. The posters are being promoted by a group calling itself ‘Egypt First’ which is an obvious front group for the military (16).

 This flies in the face of military promises that they would field no General as a candidate in elections. On the HMC’s record so far elections will involve arresting opposition candidates and using the police and hired thugs to attack opposition campaigners and voters to ensure a Tantawi win – just as under Mubarak, who held similar elections.

In Egypt as in Yemen they have never called for an end to the dictatorships – only for a change of figurehead at the top of them when it became clear that Mubarak and Saleh had become liabilities rather than assets (scroll down to sub-heading ‘Suleiman the torturer as Mubarak Mark II ?’).

The pretence is that getting rid of the dictator and replacing him with his vice President or his Generals is democratisation. Of course it’s not. General Tantawi is the new ruler of Egypt and plans to rig the next election with continuing jailing, torture and killing of pro-democracy protesters and opposition party supporters and candidates in exactly the same way Mubarak ran elections.

Yet government approved British arms sales to Egypt have never ended; and Egyptian officials were invited to an arms fair in London this September (17) – (19).

Tantawi was Mubarak’s Defence Minister for 20 years and his days are now as numbered as Mubarak’s. The Egyptian military will not survive this – and British and American backing for them will backfire badly if it continues as they will end up facing a government made up of the friends and colleagues of people the Egyptian military jailed, tortured or killed.

Yemen

Photo: Dead and wounded protesters killed in Yemen by US and British trained and funded military units

In Yemen, where the US and British trained and funded military killed dozens of unarmed civilian protesters in the last few weeks – as they have every week since the Arab Spring began – there is no end US and British support for the military units doing the killing. The BBC reported in March thatWhile some other military units have joined the opposition, the elite US- and British-trained troops, headed by Mr Saleh's son and nephew, remain loyal to the president.(20)

In September Amnesty International reported thatsecurity forces used snipers and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) against protesters marching to demand the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.,,Around 26 people were killed on Sunday.’ (21)

AP reported 20 more killed on 20th October (22).

On 25th October AFP reportedIn Sanaa and in Yemen's second largest city Taez at least 15 people were killed, according to medical officials and tribal sources…..A seven-year-old child and a woman were among seven people killed in Taez, after what residents said was random shelling by government forces of neighbourhoods.’ (23).

The Arabic Al Arabiya newspaper reported that this was due to ‘mortars and artillery, hitting a hospital and a square where anti-government demonstrators were taking part in the Muslim Friday prayers’ (24)

On November 11th the US government’s Voice of America news service reported thatYemeni government forces have killed at least six civilians in Taiz, the country's second largest city….Medical officials and witnesses say the civilians were killed early Friday after forces renewed shelling in Taiz, where protesters have been calling for President Ali Abdullah Saleh's departure.’ (25)

Yet US military aid to Yemen has continued through almost a full year of this ; as have British arms sales which have also more than doubled in value from £300,000 worth in 2010 to £800,000 in 2011 ; and there’s not a word from the British or American or French governments on ending military aid to Yemen, never mind taking military action to stop the massacre of civilians there which has now been going on for 9 months; plus Yemen’s dictatorship was also invited to arms sales events in London in September this year (26) – (29).

(The £800,000 of arms or dual-use equipment sales to Yemen in 2011 were exported on a single licence, presumably so that British government spokesmen can say they reduced the number of export licences approved in 2011 to one, to sound as if less arms have been exported).

The most the US and it’s allies have come up with is a UN resolution based on a plan created by the Saudi dominated Gulf Co-Operation Council calling for Saleh to step down in favour of his Vice President and some waffle about the “need for dialogue” between the protesters and the government – in other words, as in Egypt, the US government and it’s allies have an aim of keeping the dictatorship but switching dictators to get rid of the one that’s become a liability (30) – (31).

While demanding Saif Al Gaddafi be handed over for trial for war crimes, the US government and it’s allies put forward a UN resolution that gives President Saleh and his allies total immunity from prosecution after months of having unarmed demonstrators killed every week (32).

Bahrain and Saudi Arabia

In Bahrain – another absolute dictatorship that has been torturing, jailing and killing pro-democracy protesters, the US government and it’s allies have similarly never called for the dictatorship to go, never called for action to stop the killing, Instead, as in Yemen and Egypt they call for “restraint from both sides”, express “deep concern” – and keep on backing the dictatorship.

The Saudi military has played a big role in Bahrain – the Saudi monarchy sent them in to help crush the protesters out of fear of a) constitutional monarchy (apparently even this is too much like democracy for the Saudi monarchy) and b) a Shia uprising (much of Saudi Arabia’s oil is in parts of Saudi with a large Shia Muslim population, while the monarchy are radical Wahabbi Sunni Muslims.)

The British government and military have continued training and arming Saudi Arabia’s forces all through this, including in the use of sniper rifles, knowing Saudi troops may then use them in Bahrain, train the Bahraini military in turn, or use them on Saudi pro-democracy protesters if protests begin (33).

A British Parliamentary Select committee was reported as finding that ‘military trucks sent by the Saudis to help suppress demonstrations in Bahrain were British.’ (34).

Bahrain, Libya and Syria are the only countries in which arms sales from the UK seem to have been suspended.

Only look at what we’re doing in Libya and Syria

The war in Libya and the constant demands for action on the similar mass torture and killing of civilians in Syria have never been about protecting civilians or promoting democracy or human rights, but about overthrowing governments which were either not clients of the US and it’s allies (Syria) or which were demanding a higher share of profits from oil companies (Libya).

Gaddafi was a dictator who had civilians tortured and killed, so is Assad – but so are all the dictatorships the US and it’s allies back – in Saudi, Bahrain, Yemen and Egypt.

The war in Libya served a propaganda function for NATO governments in distracting their past (and present) support for murdering, torturing dictatorships – from their past support for (and involvement in) torture by Gaddafi’s torturers ; to the French government’s offer to send riot police to help the Ben Ali dictatorship crush the first Arab Spring protests in Tunisia ;  and continuing support for the dictatorships massacring people right now in Egypt and Yemen (35).

Standard power politics – attacking governments who don’t do what they’re told and backing ones that do no matter whether they’re torturing and murdering civilians or not – is presented as if it was high principle.

Because we can’t do everything are you saying we should do nothing where we can do something?

This is the standard propaganda line of NATO governments when asked why they are overthrowing some torturing dictatorships that are massacring their people while actively supporting and arming others. Of course they could do something easily in the cases of the dictatorships they continue to support – they could condemn them, demand they stop killing, torturing and jailing their people, end all military aid and arms sales to them and demand free and fair elections. They don’t. They’ve temporarily halted arms exports to Bahrain and reduced the number approved to Egypt, which is welcome, but their only calls for change are for one dictator to step down in favour of another.

So, no, we’re not saying you should do nothing – we’re saying you should stop supporting dictatorships, torture and massacre in some countries while only selectively opposing them in a handful of others who aren’t your client regimes – and you should stop trying to dress up cold-blooded power politics that has no concern for human suffering or human life, never mind democracy or human rights, as if it was high principle.

Given the hugely different treatment of people and governments guilty of exactly the same crimes, can anyone really believe the NATO governments’ motivations really have anything to do with human rights, freedom or democracy?

Arms Fair events in London, September 2011, 9 months into dictatorships massacring protesters, most murdering dictatorships welcome


The Economist, Channel 4 News and the Campaign Against the Arms Trade all reported on that various arms fairs and arms sale events held by the British government and British arms companies in September this year. The governments invited included ‘Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Vietnam’ as well as Yemen (36) – (37).

Every single one is either a dictatorship or a one party state (Vietnam) with the exception of Nigeria, which is technically a democracy, but in practice a plutocracy where foreign firms can effectively hire government troops and private security forces to attack anyone who opposes them – and massacres of unarmed civilians by government forces are regular occurrences.

Are the profits for a few arms companies worth the torture and deaths of so many people? Will they be worth it if they alienate people from the majority in these countries who will form the new governments in these countries and so harm our foreign and trade relations with them for decades to come, as happened in Iran? Is it worth it if by backing dictatorships that murder their own people we boost support for radical Islamists at the expense of more moderate democrats?


Sources


Repeating the Mistakes of the Past

(1) = Freedman, Lawrence (2008) 'A Choice of Enemies', Weidenfield & Nicolson, London, 2008, Ch 4, page 66

(2) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(2004), ‘The Persian Puzzle', Random House, NY, 2005 paperback, Ch5, p127-140

(3) = Reuters 25 Jan 2011 ‘US urges restraint in Egypt, says government stable’, http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE70O0KF20110125

Egypt

 (4) = Independent 22 Feb 2011 ‘Cameron attacked for Egypt visit with defence sales team in tow’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-attacked-for-egypt-visit-with-defence-sales-team-in-tow-2221695.html , ‘David Cameron faced charges of hypocrisy last night after he arrived for a tour of the Gulf with some senior figures from the defence industry…. After leaving Britain early, Mr Cameron became the first world leader to visit Egypt since President Hosni Mubarak was toppled…. Mr Cameron is still taking a large delegation from business and industry, including eight representatives of defence firms attempting to secure contracts in the Gulf states. Among them are: Ian King, chief executive of BAE Systems; Alastair Bisset, group international director at QinetiQ; and Rob Watson, regional director of Rolls-Royce.

(5) = guardian.co.uk 21 Feb 2011 ‘David Cameron arrives in Egypt to meet military rulers’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/21/david-cameron-visits-egypt , ‘David Cameron has flown into Cairo amid tight security, becoming the first world leader to visit Egypt since Hosni Mubarak was ousted as president in the revolution 10 days ago….Cameron is due to meet Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, Mubarak's minister of defence, who is the head of the supreme council of the armed forces….Arms sales are expected to be on the agenda throughout the week, and Cameron insisted there was no contradiction in promoting trade and pushing for political reform, the two themes of the rest of his Middle East trip.

(6) = guardian.co.uk 22 Feb 2011 ‘David Cameron hits out at critics of Britain's arms trade’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/22/david-cameron-britain-arms-trade

(7) = US Department of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs  ‘Background Note : Kuwait’, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm

(8) = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Kuwait

(9) = Human Rights Watch 21 Jul 2010 ‘Operation Roll Back Kuwaiti Freedom’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/07/23/operation-roll-back-kuwaiti-freedom

(10) = Human Rights Watch 11 Dec 2010 ‘Kuwait: Permit Peaceful Political Gatherings  - Security Forces Violently Disperse Parliamentarians and Professors’,  http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/10/kuwait-permit-peaceful-political-gatherings

(11) = Human Rights watch 31 Jan 2011 ‘Kuwait: Free Speech and Assembly Under Attack’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/31/kuwait-free-speech-and-assembly-under-attack

(12) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2011: Kuwait , http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/kuwait ; ‘Freedom of expression markedly deteriorated in 2010. The government continued criminally prosecuting individuals based on nonviolent political speech, denied academics permission to enter the country for conferences and speeches, and cracked down on public gatherings. In April state security forces summarily deported over 30 Egyptian legal residents of Kuwait after some of them gathered to support Egyptian reform advocate Mohammed El Baradei.

In May prominent writer and lawyer Mohammad al-Jassim was detained for over 40 days and charged with "instigating to overthrow the regime, ...slight to the personage of the emir [the ruler of Kuwait],... [and] instigating to dismantle the foundations of Kuwaiti society" over his blog posts criticizing the prime minister. A judge released al-Jassim in June and adjourned the case until October.

(13) = Independent 22 Nov 2011 ‘Dozens die, the cabinet teeters – and chaos rules’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dozens-die-the-cabinet-teeters--and-chaos-rules-6265837.html , ‘At one point, the police appeared to fire live rounds in the direction of protesters…. five activists could then be seen…carrying a limp middle-aged man…Dr Magdy also said he had seen one dead body, of a person who appeared to have been hit by a live bullet directly through the spleen. "All we're asking for is our freedom," said Hassan Hani… Disturbing footage has since been uploaded on to the internet showing troops and police violently beating a man who appeared to have already been unconscious. Another showed an apparently lifeless protester being dragged across the square and dumped next to a pile of other bodies.

(14) = Amnesty International Nov 201 ‘Egypt: Military rulers have 'crushed' hopes of 25 January protesters’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-military-rulers-have-crushed-hopes-25-january-protesters-2011-11-22,‘Egypt's military rulers have completely failed to live up to their promises to Egyptians to improve human rights and have instead been responsible for a catalogue of abuses which in some cases exceeds the record of Hosni Mubarak, Amnesty International said today in a new report…. The report's release follows a bloody few days in Egypt that has left many dead and hundreds injured after army and security forces violently attempted to disperse anti-SCAF protesters from Cairo’s Tahrir square………. “By using military courts to try thousands of civilians, cracking down on peaceful protest and expanding the remit of Mubarak's Emergency Law, the SCAF has continued the tradition of repressive rule which the January 25 demonstrators fought so hard to get rid of," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Acting Director.

(15) = BBC News 10 Oct 2011 ‘Egypt clashes: Copts mourn victims of Cairo unrest’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15242413 , ‘Thousands of Egyptian Coptic Christians have gathered for the funerals of protesters killed during clashes with security forces in Cairo on Sunday. Many mourners expressed anger at the army, which they blame for the deaths.The protesters say they were attacked by thugs before the security forces fired on them and drove military vehicles into the crowds.’

(16) = Reuters 26 Oct 2011 ‘Posters back Egyptian army chief for president’, http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL5E7LQ3G720111026

(17) = CAAT Country Data Egypt - Approved UK export licences’, http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/countrydata/?country_selected=Egypt, shows 6 approved arms export licences to Egypt in first quarter of 2011

(18) = guardian.co.uk 21 Jul 2011 ‘MP attacks Hague over review of arms sales to Arab regimes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/21/uk-arms-sales-middle-east , ‘Senior MPs have delivered a severe rebuke to the government over its approval of the sale of a wide range of arms, including sniper rifles, machine guns and "crowd control goods" to countries in the Middle East and north Africa……….Britain supplied the weapons despite official guidelines stating that exports of equipment that could be used for internal repression must be blocked. In a damning report earlier this year, the Commons arms export controls committees demanded an urgent review of exports to "authoritarian regimes worldwide"………..They referred specifically to the Mubarak and Gaddafi regimes in Egypt and Libya, to Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Observers said military trucks sent by the Saudis to help suppress demonstrations in Bahrain were British.’

(19) = Channel 4 News 13 Sep 2011 ‘Arms fair opens in London amid protests’ , http://www.channel4.com/news/arms-fair-opens-in-london-amid-protests ,‘The countries invited from "authoritarian" regimes, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit are: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Vietnam.’

Yemen

(20) = BBC 26 Mar 2011 ‘Saleh departure in Yemen: A matter of 'when', not 'if'’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12868544 , ‘second last sentence reads ‘While some other military units have joined the opposition, the elite US- and British-trained troops, headed by Mr Saleh's son and nephew, remain loyal to the president.’

(21) = Amnesty International 19 Sep 2011Yemen violence surges as protesters are killed’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/yemen-violence-surges-protesters-are-killed-2011-09-19 , The Yemeni authorities must immediately stop the killing of peaceful protesters by security forces, Amnesty International said today following reports that dozens of people have been shot dead in the capital Sana'a since Sunday….Hundreds more are said to have been injured after security forces used snipers and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) against protesters marching to demand the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.,,Around 26 people were killed on Sunday. The continuing violence has seen more killed in Sana'a today.

(22) = AP 22 Oct 2011Clashes in Yemeni capital kill 20’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45000453/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/clashes-yemeni-capital-kill/#.TsvornKKyuI , ‘Clashes between Yemeni government troops and a renegade army unit killed at least 20 people, including three civilians, in the capital Sanaa on Saturday, officials said.’

(23) = Al Arabiya 11 Nov 2011 ‘At least 15 Yemenis killed as Saleh’s loyalist forces shell southern city of Taez’, http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/11/176529.html

(24) = AFP 25 Oct 201115 dead as Yemen truce fails, Saleh says ready to go’, http://news.yahoo.com/five-civilians-killed-yemen-protests-110515565.html , ‘In Sanaa and in Yemen's second largest city Taez at least 15 people were killed, according to medical officials and tribal sources…..A seven-year-old child and a woman were among seven people killed in Taez, after what residents said was random shelling by government forces of neighbourhoods. The interior ministry said four policemen also died.

(25) = Voice of America news 11 Nov 2011 ‘Yemeni Government Forces Kill 6 Civilians’, http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/11/11/yemeni-government-forces-kill-6-civilians/

(26) = AFP 05 Apr 2011 ‘No plans to suspend military aid to Yemen: US’, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/05/no-plans-to-suspend-military-aid-to-yemen-us/

(27) = Reuters 05 Apr 2011 ‘U.S. urges Yemen transition, no aid cut-off-Pentagon’,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/us-yemen-usa-pentagon-idUSTRE7346V720110405

(28) = CAAT Country Data Yemen, http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/countrydata/?country_selected=Yemen ,(shows £800,000 worth of arms export licences approved in 2011 – more than twice the value of approved arms exports in 2010)

(29) = Campaign Against the Arms Trade  (CAAT) 09 Sep 2011 ‘Government tries to hide embarrassing truth about arms fair invitees’, http://www.caat.org.uk/press/archive.php?url=20110909prsOn Thursday, 8 September, the government supported events promoting arms sales to countries including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.’

(30) = AP 15 Nov 2011 ‘UN envoy: Yemen president should transfer power’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9947242 , ‘Yemen's embattled president must speed up reforms and begin a transfer of power according to a plan backed by the international community, said a U.N. envoy on Monday. …..Jamal Benomar visited Yemen for a week to promote a Gulf-backed proposal that calls for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to transfer power to his vice president in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

(31) = guardian.co.uk 23 Nov 2011 ‘Yemen president arrives in Saudi Arabia to sign power transfer deal’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/23/yemen-president-power-transfer-deal

(32) = Amnesty International 22 Oct 2011 ‘UN Security Council resolution on Yemen falls short ’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/un-security-council-resolution-yemen-falls-short-2011-10-22

Bahrain and Saudi Arabia

(33) = Observer 29 May 2011 ‘UK training Saudi forces used to crush Arab spring’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/28/uk-training-saudi-troops , ‘Britain is training Saudi Arabia's national guard – the elite security force deployed during the recent protests in Bahrain – in public order enforcement measures and the use of sniper rifles… In response to questions made under the Freedom of Information Act, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that British personnel regularly run courses for the national guard in "weapons, fieldcraft and general military skills training, as well as incident handling, bomb disposal, search, public order and sniper training". The courses are organised through the British Military Mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, an obscure unit that consists of 11 British army personnel under the command of a brigadier…. Bahrain's royal family used 1,200 Saudi troops to help put down demonstrations in March.

(34) = guardian.co.uk 21 Oct 2011 ‘MP attacks Hague over review of arms sales to Arab regimes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/21/uk-arms-sales-middle-east

Only look at what we’re doing in Libya and Syria

(35) = Independent 27 Jan 2011 ‘World Focus: France favoured autocracy as a bulwark against radical Islam ’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/world-focus-france-favoured-autocracy-as-a-bulwark-against-radical-islam-2189240.html

Arms Fair in London, September 2011, all murdering dictatorships welcome

(36) = Channel 4 News 13 Sep 2011 ‘Arms fair opens in London amid protests’ , http://www.channel4.com/news/arms-fair-opens-in-london-amid-protests ,‘The countries invited from "authoritarian" regimes, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit are: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Vietnam.’

(37) = Campaign Against the Arms Trade  (CAAT) 09 Sep 2011 ‘Government tries to hide embarrassing truth about arms fair invitees’, http://www.caat.org.uk/press/archive.php?url=20110909prsOn Thursday, 8 September, the government supported events promoting arms sales to countries including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.’