Why sanctions on Iraq could have been ended without any war of invasion or occupation ; no threat from Saddam’s regime to Iraqis or other countries existed by 2000; the genocide against the Marsh Arabs was largely over by the late 90s and could have been ended by air strikes in the Southern No-Fly Zone

The tenth anniversary of the Iraq war has seen the repetition of many excuses for the invasion. One of the commonest is that UN sanctions on Iraq killed millions of Iraqi civilians, with the pretence that sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis through shortages of food and medicines couldn’t be lifted or else Saddam’s regime would become a serious threat. Another is that it was necessary to end Saddam's genocides and massacres. These are lies; the US could have stopped Saddam's genocides and massacres but either kept supporting him (while he committed genocide against the Kurds) or did nothing (while he massacred Shia and Marsh Arabs); and sanctions could have been lifted at any time ; here’s why.

Saddam couldn’t even defeat Iran in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s; and that was with almost the entire world’s governments supporting him with arms, funding, intelligence and political support. This included as Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranians and in his genocidal Anfal campaign against the Kurds, even after Halabja (see post on this link for sources and more details).

(The Halabja attack used US Apache Bell helicopters, whose sale was approved by the Reagan administration, supposedly for “crop spraying”, even though they already knew Saddam was using chemical weapons (1) – (3). After Halabja the US government issued one statement of condemnation, then continued supporting Saddam and suggested that maybe the Iranians had done it (4).)

Saddam showed during the 1991 war that he didn’t dare to use chemical weapons on other countries or the Iraqi Kurds after 1991. He had chemical warheads for his scud missiles, but only used conventional warheads (5).

He could only massacre Shia rebels and their families in Southern Iraq (including Marsh Arabs) at the end of the 1991 war because Bush senior ordered his troops not to intervene ; a massacre that would never have happened if Bush hadn’t given Iraqis the false impression that his forces would aid them if they rebelled (he actually wanted a military regime to replace Saddam) (for details and sources see this post).

Saddam did carry out one horrific campaign of torture, massacres and genocide against Iraqis after 1991; against the Marsh Arabs and other Shia rebels and their families who fled to the southern marshes in 1991 (6).

However US and British aircraft patrolling the Southern No-Fly Zone could have stopped most of this by bombing Saddam’s artillery, trucks, tanks and bulldozers; but made no attempt to do so, probably for the same reason Bush senior didn’t help the other Shia rebels ; the Marsh Arabs are also mostly Shia and so they were seen as potential allies of Iran (7).

Throughout the 1990s Saddam’s forces shelled Marsh Arab villages and towns with tanks, artillery and mortars, including chemical weapons according to some reports, drained the marshes by diverting rivers, killed many rebels, bulldozed houses, left many civilians to die in deserts; and forcibly relocated most of those who didn’t leave to live elsewhere in Iraq, or weren’t among the unknown number who were killed (one estimate being 120,000), or the estimated 40,000 to 120,000 who fled to Iran (8) – (11).

By comparison dozens of Coalition offensives on Iraqi cities during the occupation killed hundreds of civilians in each assault – e.g  600 in the April 2004 assault on Falluja alone (12). Coalition offensives, Saddam’s earlier campaigns and sectarian fighting had left 2.8 million Iraqis “internally displaced people” (homeless refugees inside Iraq) and 2.2 million refugees in other countries at the highest point (during the occupation in the late 2000s). Today an estimated 1.3 million Iraqis remain “internally displaced” and 1.4 million are refugees in other countries While some have returned home , unfortunately other reasons for the reduced numbers include Iraqi refugees who fled to Syria deciding it’s even more dangerous there (13) – (15).

By the end of the 1990s Saddam’s campaign of genocide against the Marsh Arabs was complete. All but an estimated 20,000 Marsh Arabs were gone from the area they had lived in, compared to an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 in 1991, the last major rebellion being crushed in 1998. Only 1,600 still lived in their traditional reed houses on floating platforms in the marshes (16) – (18).

That’s why Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch concluded in 2004 that the 2003 invasion of Iraq “was not a humanitarian intervention” as no massacres or genocide were being planned or carried out by Saddam’s forces (19).

He could have added that none had been carried out or planned for over a decade. Any war was now bound to kill far, far more Iraqis than Saddam was killing. That’s before we even get into the constant firing on civilians and ambulances in many US offensives on Iraqi cities during the occupation which led western aid workers and Iraqi doctors and civilians to conclude they were being deliberately targeted – e.g Fallujah in April 2004 and in Samarra in October 2004 ; or the US trained Iraqi paramilitary torture and death squads, of which more in my next post  (20) – (21).

(Many Marsh Arabs, who have survived only by becoming bandits or extortionists, also went to war with Coalition forces after the invasion in a rebellion against attempts to disarm them – many joining Al Sadr’s Madhi army or other anti-occupation militias. (22)

Dennis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck, two successive heads of the sanctions programme who resigned in protest over it, said it was not Saddam's regime causing the starvation and shortage of medicines under sanctions, but that the sanctions imposed a limit on oil sales too low to support Iraq’s population ; both opposed the war (23) – (25).

The UN sanctions on Iraq had been demanded by the US and British governments at the end of the 1991 war – a war which began with an invasion of Kuwait which resulted largely from US and Kuwaiti co-operation to put economic pressure on Iraq by slant-drilling across the border into Iraq, by Kuwait exceeding it’s agreed OPEC quotas for oil sales and by it demanding immediate repayment of loans made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (see this post for sources and details).

We’ve already shown that their reason for not wanting them lifted was not that this would end Saddam’s “containment” and allow him to conquer the Middle East or massacre Iraqi rebels again.

The real reasons were avoiding loss of face; and ensuring US and British firms got oil contracts on favourable terms. The US had punished Saddam in 1991 and put him on their enemies list. If his regime now survived, the US would look weak and this would encourage other governments to defy it.

Even worse, after the 1991 war Saddam had negotiated oil contracts with Russian, French and Chinese oil companies. If sanctions were lifted and Saddam survived in power they would get the oil contracts, with US and British firms excluded.

As the Washington Post reported on the 15th of September 2002 ‘A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition...."It's pretty straightforward," said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. "France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them." But he added: "If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."’ (26).

The US however failed to get the Oil Law it wanted the Iraqi parliament to pass during the occupation (it’s main reason for it’s war with the Shia Iraqi nationalist Al Sadr, whose Shia Sadrist MPs joined Sunni parties’ MPs in opposing the oil law;) and as a result failed to get contracts on the terms it wanted for most US oil companies (27).

Anglo-American oil giant BP  has managed to get a very lucrative contract for one giant Iraqi oil field on terms extremely favourable to it ; and is seeking others in Iraqi Kurdistan which is in disputes with the central government in Baghdad over the regional government negotiating oil contracts rather than the central government ; and over how favourable the terms of contracts are to oil companies (28) – (31). BP took over the US oil firm Amoco (formerly Standard Oil of Indiana and one of the ‘Seven Sisters’ oil giants) in 2001.

Oil and arms company profits and global power were the US aims in Iraq, not protecting Iraqis or promoting democracy – as I’ll show in my next post on how US and Coalition forces and the new Iraqi government still torture and kill Iraqis using all Saddam’s methods short of actual genocide.

 (1) = Mark  Phythian (1997) Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, Boston: Northeastern University Press

(2) = Washington Post $1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq; Technology Products Approved Up to Day Before Invasion’,

(3) = LA Times 13 Feb 1991 ‘Iraq Arms: Big Help From U.S. : Technology was sold with approval--and encouragement--from the Commerce Department but often over Defense officials' objections.’, http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-13/news/mn-1097_1_commerce-department-approved-millions/3 , page 3 of online version of article

(4) = Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting 01 Sep 2002 ‘The Washington Post's Gas Attack -Today's outrage was yesterday's no big deal’, http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-washington-posts-gas-attack/

(5) = Nye , Joseph S. & Smith , Robert K. (1992), ‘After the Storm' , Madison Books , London , 1992 , - pages 211-216 (Nye is a former member of the Clinton administration)

(6) = Chicago Tribune 05 Aug 1993 ‘Briton: Iraq Is Wiping Out Arabs In Marshes’,
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-08-05/news/9308050117_1_marshes-chemical-weapons-arabs ; 3^rd Paragraph ‘She said doctors and other experts aiding the Arabs estimate that 120,000 may die from the terror campaign being waged against them by the regime of Saddam Hussein. There are an estimated 200,000 marsh Arabs, and she said more than 300,000 other people from nearby towns and cities fled to the marshes for refuge when Hussein crushed a Shiite Muslim uprising after the Persian Gulf war.’

(7) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Nov 1998 ‘Rebellion in southern marshes is crushed’ ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/nov/17/2

(8) = See (6) above

(9) = See (7) above

(10) = BBC News 03 Mar 2003 ‘Iraq's 'devastated' Marsh Arabs’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm ; 6^th to 7^th paragraphs

(11) = The Oregonian 14 May 2003 ‘IRAQ'S MARSH ARABS, MODERN SUMERIANS’,
http://www.simplysharing.com/sumerians.htm

(12) = Iraq Body Count 26 Oct 2004 ‘No Longer Unknowable: Falluja's April Civilian Toll is 600’, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/9/

(13) = Internal Displacement Monitoring Center ‘Iraq: Response still centred on return despite increasing IDP demands for local integration’,  http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/iraq

(14) = 2013 UNHCR country operations profile – Iraq,
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486426.html

(15) = BBC News 29 Oct 2012 ‘Iraqi refugees flee Syrian conflict to return home’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20131033

(16) = Juan Cole (2008) ‘Marsh Arab Rebellion : Grievance, Mafias and Militias in Iraq’ Fourth Wadie Jwaideh Memorial Lecture, (Bloomington, Indiana : Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University, 2008),   Page 7,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/iraq/iraqtribes4.pdf

(17) = BBC News 03 Mar 2003 ‘Iraq's 'devastated' Marsh Arabs’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm ; 7^th to 8^th paragrahs

(18) = Guardian.co.uk 19 Nov 1998 ‘Rebellion in southern marshes is crushed’ , http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1998/nov/17/2

(19) = Human Rights Watch 26 Jan 2004 ‘War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention’,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/25/war-iraq-not-humanitarian-intervention

(20) = BBC News 23 Apr 2004 ‘Picture emerges of Fallujah siege’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3653223.stm

(21) = Independent 04 Oct 2004 ‘Civilians Bear Brunt as Samarra 'Pacified'’,
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1004-02.htm (no longer exists on the Independent newspaper’s website – is this connected to Tony Blair’s biographer and apologist John Rentoul being the paper’s Politics Editor?)

(22) = Juan Cole (2008) ‘Marsh Arab Rebellion : Grievance, Mafias and Militias in Iraq’ Fourth Wadie Jwaideh Memorial Lecture, (Bloomington, Indiana : Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Indiana University, 2008),   Pages 7-17,
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/iraq/iraqtribes4.pdf

(23) = BBC News 30 Sep 1998 ‘UN official blasts Iraq sanctions’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/183499.stm

(24) = BBC News 14 Feb 2000 ‘UN sanctions rebel resigns’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/642189.stm

(25) = Guardian 29 Nov 2001 ‘The hostage nation - Former UN relief chiefs Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday speak out against an attack on Iraq’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/29/iraq.comment

(26) = Washington Post 15 Sep 2002, 'In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue : U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool',
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/177755831.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+15%2C+2002&author=Dan+Morgan++and++David+B.+Ottaway&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=In+Iraqi+War+Scenario%2C+Oil+Is+Key+Issue%3B+U.S.+Drillers+Eye+Huge+Petroleum+Pool ; or read full version at
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-03.htm

(27) = Greg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the Fire – Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq’, Bodley-Head 2011

(28) = Observer 31 Jul 2011 ‘BP 'has gained stranglehold over Iraq' after oilfield deal is rewritten’,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/31/bp-stranglehold-iraq-oilfield-contract

(29) = Wall Street Journal Online 27 Jan 2013 ‘Iraq, BP Considering Kirkuk Field Deal’,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578247013430825632.html

(30) = BBC News 20 Mar 2013 ‘Kurdish oil exports stall in row over revenue-sharing’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21793783

(31) = CNN 12 Dec 2011 ‘Oil power struggle as U.S. leaves Iraq’, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/world/meast/iraq-oil

A non-binding consultative referendum on independence or increased devolution for Scotland would still have democratic legitimacy

David Cameron and the UK government can certainly refuse to make the results of any referendum including increased devolution legally binding under UK law, but they can’t prevent the Scottish government holding a consultative, non-binding, referendum. It would be impossible to deny the democratic legitimacy of the result.

 The only questionable part of the SNP’s plan is allowing 16 and 17 year olds to participate. This would give the Unionist parties an open goal to say the results of the referendum weren’t valid, since 16 and 17 year olds can’t vote in UK General elections.

Labour and the Lib Dems have joined with the Conservatives in insisting any referendum must be a straight choice between the status quo or independence, yet both parties supported devolution in the 1997 referendum. How can they argue that Scottish voters be entitled to choose to devolve some domestic powers, but not others, especially when polls show 67% want more powers devolved to the Scottish government including full powers to decide how taxes raised in Scotland are spent? (1) – (2)

Devolving more powers could reduce the amount of taxpayers’ money that Westminster parties could hand to billionaire and corporate patrons. If Scottish governments gained the powers to issue bonds, borrow money, or spend a higher share of taxes raised in Scotland, PFI gravy trains here might end.

If Scots are refused the increased devolution option, more will vote for independence. This would lose the UK revenues from oil and gas off Aberdeen and Shetland. UK governments fiddle the figures to pretend an independent Scotland would be bankrupt, by assuming oil revenues would be split proportionally to population. In fact under international law they would be split by proximity, giving Scotland far more than it’s 10% of the UK population.

An independent Scotland would be a small neutral country on the North-Western edge of Europe, so would not need a nuclear deterrent any more than Norway or Sweden, and would avoid the costs in money and lives of involvement in US-led wars. These costs would then be paid solely by the rest of the UK. So Scotland would be better off and the UK (unless it gets a much better government with better policies) much worse off.

We might even avoid future financial crises. Both Norway and Sweden avoided any crisis or recession and both of their economies are still growing, as they never de-regulated their financial sector to the degree that the Conservatives (from Thatcher’s 1986 ‘Big Bang’ on) or Labour governments in the UK have.

Is Cameron trying to provoke Scots into independence in the hope the Coalition will have a permanent majority if 50 Scottish Labour MPs are gone?

If so this is unlikely to work.

Labour’s last three majorities exceeded the number of Labour MPs elected in Scotland (3) – (8). Three quarters of Lib Dem voters surveyed at the time of the last election and again recently no longer support the party (9). Cameron should realise that independence will hurt his party far more than increased devolution would.

 (1) = The Politics Wire / British Future 10 Jan 2012 ‘Support for devolution across Britain is growing as ‘national’ identity outweighs feelings of ‘Britishness’ ’, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/blogs/thepoliticswire/985/Support-for-devolution-across-Britain-is-growing-as-national-identity-outweighs-feelings-of-Britishness.aspx , ‘During this period, support for independence in Scotland has grown. This is illustrated in recent Ipsos MORI polls and is reinforced by our latest survey for British Future, which shows around a third of Scots now backing a breakaway from the UK….At the moment, however, a majority of Scots prefer to remain part of the UK, albeit favouring substantial new powers for the Scottish Parliament. Ipsos MORI polling in Scotland shows that over two-thirds would vote in favour of giving Holyrood further legislative and tax-raising powers.’

(2) = STV News 21 Dec 2011 ‘Most Scots back complete revenue raising powers for Holyrood’,http://news.stv.tv/politics/291223-most-scots-back-complete-revenue-raising-powers-for-holyrood/

(3) = BBC News Last updated Sep 2005 ‘Blair win historic third term – majority of 66’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/constituencies/default.stm

(4) = BBC News 23 May 2005 ‘Election 2005 – results: Scotland’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/region_7.stm (shows 41 Labour MPs elected in Scotland)

(5) = BBC News ‘Vote2001: Results & Constituencies’http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/default.stm ; Labour majority 167

(6) = BBC News ‘Vote 2001 : Results & Constituencies UK Breakdown – Scotland’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/uk_breakdown/scotland_full_1.stm , – shows 56 Labour MPs elected in Scotland in 2001 General Election

(7) = BBC News ‘Vote 2001: Election battles 1945-1997’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/in_depth/election_battles/1997_over.stm , ‘In 1997 Labour…Tony Blair's New Labour had gained a staggering 179-seat overall majority.’

(8) = Denver, David (1997) ‘THE 1997 GENERAL ELECTION IN SCOTLAND:AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS’ in Scottish Affairs, no.20, summer 1997 (table 1 on page 2 shows 56 Labour MPs were elected in Scotland in 1997), http://www.scottishaffairs.org/backiss/pdfs/sa20/SA20_Denver.pdf

(9) = Independent 06 Jan 2012 ‘Lib Dems lose three out of four of their voters ’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-lose-three-out-of-four-of-their-voters-6285640.html

Citigroup aren’t fit to give advice on banking never mind energy policy

One of the main critics of government investment in renewable energy in Scotland – the Citigroup investment bank – failed to predict the financial crisis, was one of the four banks most involved in and hardest hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis – and invests heavily in tar sands, oil and coal (1). Given it’s inability to know what it should invest in itself in it’s own area of expertise – banking – why should anyone accept Citigroup as experts in an entirely separate area – energy policy?

The New York Times website reports that Citigroup required not one but three government bail-outs in the US, totalling $45 billion. The US Securities and Exchanges commission also charged Citigroup with telling investors it had invested only $13 billion in subprime mortgages, when the real figure was $50 billion (2).

This makes me less inclined to take their advice on anything. These are bankers who can’t run a bank and lie to investors, offering advice (with likely ulterior motives) on energy policy – something they have no expertise in.

Their other ulterior motive is likely to be their own heavy investment in coal, oil and tar sands compared to a relatively tiny stake in renewable. The Rainforest Action Network found that in 2010 Citigroup invested $34 billion in the former and less than 2% of that amount in renewables , including heavy investments in tar sand projects in Canada (3).

It could well be that some of the investment banks who are writing reports praising the Scottish government’s renewable energy targets also have ulterior motives (perhaps having invested in renewable themselves) and wanting to promote them as a result.

There are other more reputable groups criticising the Scottish government’s renewable energy target of 100% by 2020 as being unrealistic and likely to increase fuel poverty – like the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - but I still wouldn’t trust a company with a record like Citigroup’s to advise me on picking my nose never mind on energy policy.

(1) = CNN 15 Oct 2007 ‘Citi profits tumble as execs scramble’, http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/15/news/companies/citigroup_earnings/index.htm , ‘Citigroup is among a handful of banks that have been hard hit by this summer's subprime mortgage crisis. Three other banks - JPMorgan Chase (Charts, Fortune 500), Washington Mutual (Charts, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500) - are scheduled to report quarterly results this week.’

(2) = NYT.com Business 19 Oct 2011 > Companies > Citigroup Inc, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/citigroup_inc/index.html

(3) = Dirty Oil Sands blog 11 Mar 2011 ‘Citi needs an intervention’ By Brant Olson | Rainforest Action Network, http://dirtyoilsands.org/blog/article/citi_needs_an_intervention

(4) = Institution of Mechanical Engineers ‘Scottish Energy 2020? A target too far?’,http://www.imeche.org/Scottish-Energy-2020?WT.mc_id=HP_110661

Any third round of quantitative easing money should by-pass the banks and go straight to businesses and people to restore employment and growth

then we have to deal with our energy and waste crises

The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee have said there may be a third round of Quantitative Easing, after the first two failing to provide any benefit except increasing the banks’ reserves (1).

They failed because the banks are not passing the money on in loans at an interest rate that businesses can afford, partly because they’re afraid of not having big enough reserves to meet another crisis; and partly because their top managers have decided they can get off with that because politicians aren’t willing to risk any bank going under in case it sets off others like a string of dominoes and they take the rest of the economy with them.

Quantitative easing has been much derided because it’s a euphemism for printing money, but printing money is not always a bad idea – it depends on the circumstances and who the money is going to.

Printing money when inflation is low, deflation is a serious risk and the economy is on the edge of another recession and banks are refusing to loan is not unreasonable. Since banks across Europe are private creditors of the Greek government, which may be forced to default on it’s debts unless it’s creditors forgive the majority of them (with either option involving losses for the banks), quantitative easing is also seen as a way of ‘recapitalising’ the banks (i.e boosting their reserves) to avoid runs on them in the event of a default.

However if we’re going to print more money it should go in loans directly from the government to small and medium sized businesses at reasonable interest rates to boost employment; and in payments to the unemployed, the disabled and people on low and middle incomes. That way it can keep viable existing businesses going, start new ones and increase demand in the economy, rather than just padding out banks’ reserves. It would also involve a modest redistribution of some of the wealth spent on bank bail-outs back to the majority.

This could restore growth and employment levels in the short term, but we also need to re-regulate the banks, undoing decades of de-regulation from the 1980s on, or else another financial crisis could happen at any time.

That could restore at least some of the economic stability of the early post-1945 period. However we also face problems now that we didn’t face then.

Avoiding an Energy Crisis

There is the coming crisis of energy as remaining oil reserves becoming increasingly costly in money and energy to extract, along with increasing demand from China and Asia. To meet this we need increased taxes on oil and energy use to reduce waste of energy. We also need government subsidies and tax breaks for research and development of new energy sources.

Basically, long before oil reserves run out, we will hit ‘Peak Energy’ running short of energy due to the increasing energy costs of extracting oil. In the 1930s when we were extracting mostly the easiest to get at and easiest to refine oil reserves there was a return of 100 barrels of oil for every barrel of oil used to extract it (in fuel for vehicles, drilling, setting up pipelines, oil tankers etc). Today that has fallen to about 11 to 18 barrels for every 1 barrel used. (For more on ‘Peak Energy’ and ‘Net Energy’ see Mandy Meikle’s blog post here and Chris Martenson’s here, as well as this one).

That’s before you even take into account the climate change and other pollution caused.

If you think petrol prices are already high you’re right. However we can’t afford to reduce them if we want to make alternatives to oil based transport and electricity economically viable to develop soon enough to avoid a Peak Energy crisis – and if we don’t do that we’re going to be looking at rationing electricity and being unable to get anywhere by car, train or bus at all except at insane prices at best - and societal collapse into some kind of former Yugoslavia or Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome at worst. Either will make expensive petrol look like a picnic.

Having said that, far more of the taxes on petrol should be going to improving public transport and reducing thecost of using it. It’s no use telling people to use public transport more while making it more and more unaffordable and over-crowded and without more railway stations opened and more trains running.

The Rubbish and pollution Crises

On top of this there is a waste management crisis as we run out of space for landfill of rubbish (which in any case can pollute groundwater and release methane and other gases harmful to people living nearby). Government responses so far have focused on either shipping waste to developing countries which don't have the same regulations, causing illnesses and deaths there, or else incinerators as the cheapest option in the short term and a quick fix, ignoring the waste of energy and resources (especially oil based plastics)  involved and the toxic emissions. These emmisions are likely to increase the incidence of cancers, especially among children and may pollute farmland and so food and water supplies.

Instead we should have a recycling tax on all companies in Scotland or the UK, with companies producing the least waste and the most easily recyclable products and packaging paying a lower rate – plus an import tax on foreign imports that don’t meet the same standards. Recyclable or re-useable products can then be given back to firms for re-use at no further charge, their recycling and delivery funded by the tax.

Taxing the businesses that produce products and packaging which can't be cheaply and safely recycled is the only way to impose a financial cost linked to the cost in terms of peoples' health, lives and environment which will force the worst companies to change their behaviour and allow the better ones, who were already making an effort, to avoid being put out of business by firms who only look at their own costs and profit

We have to act to prevent all the crises - we can't pick and choose which to deal with as if the others don't matter

To get a political climate in which we can deal with the energy and waste crises we first have to avert a second longer and deeper recession in which hunger, poverty and mass unemployment would lead to lots of suffering themselves and could lead to 1930s style politics with the extreme right and/or extreme left gaining support. People who are left scared about whether they can feed themselves and their children and avoid losing their homes will ignore everything else to get those and will be vulnerable to propaganda.

Providing them with some security in the short term has to be the number one priority, but as soon as that’s done we have to start dealing with the energy and waste crises before they lead to disasters just as bad.

(1) = Guardian.co.uk 09 Oct 2011 ‘Third round of quantitative easing possible, says MPC member’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/09/third-round-quanititative-easing-possible

Why Gaddafi running out of fuel or money or being killed would not guarantee an end to the war in Libya

There have been reports that Gaddafi’s forces may be close to running out of fuel altogether, mostly assuming that this will force his side to surrender. This assumption is based on the North African campaigns in World War Two, in which Rommel was eventually forced to surrender due to lack of fuel for his tanks (1).

However, while that’s possible, there is no guarantee of Gaddafi’s forces surrendering if this happens. They might, but it’s as or more likely that without a negotiated peace they would switch to using guerrilla, insurgent, terrorist or resistance tactics (choose whichever term you prefer), as happened in Iraq after the defeat of it’s military. The fact there are no large numbers of foreign troops occupying Libya (only a few special forces trainers and spotters for airstrikes)  might make this less likely or a smaller insurgency than in Iraq, but it’s still a possibility that has to be taken into account.

Gaddafi’s forces seem to only control one functioning refinery – at Zawiyah – and the oil pipeline to it has been cut by the rebels (2). This should certainly mean that sooner or later his forces will run out of fuel for their tanks, truck mounted Grad rocket launchers, mobile artillery and pick up trucks. How soon (or not soon) is still anyone’s guess, as no-one knows how much oil Gaddafi has stored in reserve in barrels in Tripoli that could be sent to the refinery. (This also raises the question of why NATO hasn’t bombed the refinery and why it tried to persuade the rebels not to cut the pipeline – issues I’ll cover in a separate post).

The claims by Libyan defectors that Gaddafi was running out of fuel and money were made before the 13^th of June though (and seem to mostly have been made by one defector – the former head of Libya’s central bank). He claimed that this would happen within days or a couple of weeks (3). So either it’s going to happen very soon, or else these claims are just based on guesses, wishful thinking, or are propaganda designed to encourage any of Gaddafi’s people hearing it to defect.

Fuel prices have certainly gone up massively in the parts of Libya controlled by Gaddafi’s forces (starting even in May), but it’s possible this is partly due to Gaddafi prioritising supplies to his armed forces (4) – (5).

Similarly reports that Gaddafi is running out of money are no guarantee of his regime falling, nor would an airstrike killing him (a strategy which has failed for over 100 days now and has never worked anywhere else). The assumption that Gaddafi running out of money will lead to the surrender of his forces assumes their primary motivation is money. That may well not be the case.

Assuming killing Muammar Gaddafi alone will end the civil war may be an assumption that turns out to be true, but could equally be as false as the assumption in Iraq that all the insurgents were Sunni and Ba’athist ‘dead enders’ who supported Saddam and that they would surrender when he was gone. In fact most of the insurgents weren’t hardline Ba’athists at all and many of them were Shia.

Bombing carried out by the US air force and the British RAF from 1991 to 2002, combined with sanctions, repeatedly failed to either kill Saddam or generate a military coup against him, so hopes of Gaddafi’s own forces, generals or ministers overthrowing him may be wishful thinking too.

US and NATO military planners are generally meant to plan for the “worst case scenario”, but instead most of their plans (and those of the governments giving them orders) are hugely optimistic and ignore the possible pitfalls and false assumptions involved. As a result most of them either fail, or only succeed at great cost in lives.

Saif Al Gaddafi has repeated that his father will accept elections overseen by international observers in return for a ceasefire (6) – (7). He may or may not be telling the truth, but given all the potential ways this war could drag on with heavy civilian casualties without a peace settlement, taking up the offer might be a sensible course for the rebels and NATO.

Even if it doesn’t work they at least get more Libyans and more people and governments around the world on their side by showing they were willing to try for a peaceful solution. Currently their refusal to accept any offer of negotiations that doesn’t include Gaddafi and his sons giving up power entirely before negotiations even begin is making a long civil war more likely. They have plenty of justifiable reasons to be angry at the Gaddafis’ dictatorship and to want rid of them, but the reality is that at least giving negotiations a try would be the best option.

(1) = The Economist 16 Jun 2011 ‘The colonel is running on empty’,http://www.economist.com/node/18837167?story_id=18837167

(2) = Channel 4 News 29 Jun 2011 ‘Tripoli Pipeline Attack ‘endgame’ for Gaddafi’, http://www.channel4.com/news/tripoli-pipeline-attack-signals-endgame-for-gaddafi

(3) = Bloomberg Business Week 5 Jul 2011 ‘Qaddafi Running Out of Money, Fuel, Ex-Central Bank Head Says’, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-13/qaddafi-running-out-of-money-fuel-ex-central-bank-head-says.html

(4) = See (1) above

(5) = Guardian.co.uk 05 May 2011 ‘Libya faces fuel crisis as oil supplies dwindle’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/05/libya-fuel-crisis-oil-supplies

(6) = Guardian 4 Jul 2011 ‘Gaddafi's son says western powers attacking Libya are 'legitimate targets'’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/gaddafi-son-western-powers-legitimate-targets

(7) = Independent 16 Jun 2011 ‘Gaddafi would agree to supervised election, says son’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-would-agree-to-supervised-election-says-son-2298234.html

More on the oil motive for NATO's intervention in Libya

The difference between the Gaddafi government’s oil policies and those that oil importing governments (such as NATO countries) and companies based in them would prefer are one of the main motives for NATO’s military intervention in Libya – and certainly more of a real motive than protection of civilians.

(A previous post covered some of this and the parallels between US intervention in Libya and in Iran and Venezuela – all primarily due to disputes over oil profits and control of production levels.)

Libya experts like Geoff Simons and Ronald Bruce St. John have described the Gaddafi government’s oil policy as one of playing foreign oil companies off against one another to ensure the best returns for Libya, in deals that get the country the investment and expertise it requires for oil exploration and production. From the beginning Gaddafi’s government used the threat of possible nationalisation in negotiations – a threat that has remained credible as they have sometimes carried it out (e.g in September 1973). (1) – (2).

St. John wrote that ‘In retrospect it seems obvious that the RCC [Revolutionary Command Council including Gaddafi] was determined from the start to reduce oil production to conserve supplies, increase oil revenues by maximising the price, develop upstream and downstream capabilities, and use oil revenues to diversify the economy’ (3).

(‘Upstream’ refers to exploration to find oil and production (i.e extraction) , ‘downstream’ usually means storage, refining e.g oil into petrol, distribution and sale.)

While the details of Gaddafi’s policy have varied, the key aims have remained the same. These aims have often conflicted with the aims of oil importing countries (including all NATO countries) and the oil companies based in them. In his book ‘Fuel on the Fire’ Greg Muttit quotes a report by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies, written by former members of the CIA, US government and American oil companies in 2000. They concluded that, with the increase in demand from developing economies like China, India and Brazil, the ideal scenario from the point of view of oil importers and oil companies based in them would be a 50% increase in production by 2020 to allow oil companies to profit fully from the growing demand and to maintain oil prices at a level low enough to allow continued economic growth in oil importing countries (4).

It’s also likely that Libya developing it’s own refineries (and it’s acquisition of the European oil refining firm Tamoil in 1986 (5)) cut into profits the oil companies could make from refining oil and selling the more valuable final products such as petrol back to Libya, as they do in some oil rich countries (e.g Nigeria ) (6).

The three countries who the CSIS report said would have to maximise production to achieve the 50% increase were Iraq, Iran and Libya – whose production levels were all limited by US government and/or UN sanctions (7). Lifting these sanctions without getting governments who had defied the US either replaced or made to make big concessions would result in huge loss of face and influence for the US government. So the US and it’s allies invaded Iraq and got contracts with their oil companies negotiated while the occupation and insurgency continued, forcing the Iraqi government to negotiate from a position of weakness. They’ve imposed sanctions on Iran and continue to threaten possible military action against it; and they’ve imposed Iraq style sanctions on and carried out air strikes in Libya.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein failed to promote democracy in the Arab world, but it certainly promoted the interests of US and British oil companies. They got contracts on very favourable terms with the government of Iraq, while hundreds of thousands of their troops and mercenaries were still there (8) – (9). A week after Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces Gaddafi agreed to inspections of it’s nuclear facilities which would be accompanied by the return of US oil companies to Libya, later followed by BP (10) – (12).

While Gaddafi had allowed western oil companies contracts in Libya before the current fighting he was also haggling for a higher share of oil profits from them and hinting at the possibility of nationalisation if they refused. American oil companies became worried he might kick them out (13) – (14).

Oil profits, prices and supplies are one of the real motives for NATO’s intervention in Libya.

(1) = Ronald Bruce St. John (2008) ‘Libya From Colony to Independence’,  Oneworld Paperback/Oxford, especially Chapter 8, p145 -148; Chapter 7, p174 – 177;Chapter 9, p250-254, p 260

(2) = Geoff Simons (1996) ‘Libya the struggle for survival’ 2^nd edition, MacMillan, London, 1996, paperback

(3) = St. John (see 1 above), Chapter 6, page 145

(4) = Center for Strategic International Studies  (2000) ‘The geopolitics of energy into the 21st century’ cited by Gregg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the fire’, The Bodley Head, London, 2011; chapter 3, pages 35 and 370

(5) = St. John (see 1 above), Chapter7, page 176

(6) = BBC News 6 Jul 2010 ‘China to build $8bn oil refinery in Nigeria’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10527308

(7) = See (4) above

(8) = Gregg Muttitt (2011) ‘Fuel on the fire’, The Bodley Head, London, 2011

(9) = AP 1 Jul 2009 ‘Iraqi government approves BP oil field offer’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iraqi-government-approves-bp-oil-field-offer-1727287.html

(10) = Jordan Times 23 Dec 2003 ‘Libya could provide intelligence bonanza’,http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/December/23n/Libya%20could%20provide%20intelligence%20bonanza.htm

(11) = See sources (55) to (59) on this link

(12) = CNN Fortune 28 Jun 2004 ‘Libya's Black Gold Rush With sanctions lifted, Big Oil is lining up to do business with Qaddafi’, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/06/28/374397/index.htm

(13) = CNBC 03 Mar 2009 ‘Libya Wants Greater Share of Its Oil Revenue’, http://www.cnbc.com/id/29494495

(14) = Forbes Magazine 01 Jan 2009 ‘Is Libya Going To Boot U.S. Oil Companies?’,http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/libya-gaddafi-oil-biz-energy-cx_ch_0122libya.html

Yemen and Bahrain : What about the responsibility to protect civilians and support democracy in Yemen and Bahrain?

We’re hearing a lot of talk about protecting civilians and promoting democracy in the Arab world. This focuses largely on Libya and to a lesser extent on Syria, as if these two were the only dictatorships killing their own people.

Meanwhile, in Yemen, over 130 of the thousands of people shot by snipers on behalf of dictator Ali Abdullah Al Saleh have been killed, thirteen of them this week. Victims include 26 children killed and 200 wounded so far on UN figures (1) – (8). Far from backing the protesters, US military aid to Saleh and American and British training of his forces continues (9) – (11). It’s significant that while some of the Yemeni military has turned against Saleh over the killings the US and British trained special forces remain loyal to him (12). So much for British and American training promoting respect for democracy and human rights. While Syria's ambassador had his invitation to the royal wedding revoked over massacres of civilians by President Assad's forces, Yemen’s ambassador was still invited to the Royal Wedding.

In Bahrain, journalists, Physicians for Human Rights and Amnesty International report King Khalifa’s forces have shot and killed unarmed protesters, hijacking ambulances , and entering hospitals to beat, threaten, arrest, torture wounded protesters and doctors, nurses and ambulance crews. Some of those arrested have died in suspicious circumstances. Some protesters say they have witnessed the summary execution of arrested protesters. Amnesty International report 500 people have been ‘disappeared’ (13) – (25). The US fifth fleet is anchored in sight of the Pearl Roundabout, yet no marines have been ordered to protect Bahraini civilians.

Far from the British government placing any sanctions on Bahrain’s monarchy and it’s forces, Bahrain’s ambassador, Khalifa Bin Ali al-Khalifa (likely a relative of the King from his name) and the former head of the torturing Bahraini National Security Agency, was invited to the Royal Wedding (26). Bahrainis who protested peacefully in London against the killings have had pilot training lessons cancelled by Gatwick Aviation Authority at the request of the government of Bahrain (27).

Foreign Secretary William Hague pretends Bahrain is “completely different” from Libya as King Khalifa has offered “dialogue” and a referendum on a new constitution (28). Yet Gadaffi’s government has also offered “dialogue” or “negotiations” with the rebels repeatedly, including on a new constitution (29) – (30). Gaddafi, Khalifa and Saleh are all unelected dictators who made these offers after having unarmed protesters killed.

NATO governments call on both sides to show restraint, as if unarmed protesters and the people killing them are equally to blame. They lie about the “violence” in Bahrain being “sectarian”, ludicrously implying that the Shia majority in Bahrain are Iranian agents, which incidentally is the same story about ‘foreign agents causing Sectarian violence’ that was used by Mubarak in Egypt and is still used by Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria.

NATO governments also buy Saleh’s lies about how Al Qa’ida will take over Yemen if he falls, despite many of Saleh’s own party’s MPs having joined the protesters – and despite Saleh having himself  backed Al Qa’ida in the 1990s when it was fighting against southern rebels in Yemen. NATO have also carried out missile strikes on people who they claimed they suspected were Al Qa’ida, but turned out to be Yemeni politicians and tribal leaders who were trying to negotiate a peace deal to end the civil war between the government and southern separatists, which has been exacerbated by NATO and Saudi special forces and air and drone strikes. (31) – (36) .

Either Al Saleh is playing NATO governments like a fiddle, or else NATO governments are lying about the real reason they’re backing him.

As long as the civil war continues Saleh can point to the supposed threat of an Al Qa’ida takeover – and cream a bit for himself and his supporters from US financial aid. He can remain dictator. Firms from NATO countries including GE Oil and Gas and Transocean of the US and the British based Orion Group can keep getting contracts to drill in Yemen and it’s territorial waters too – along with some others who’d rather remain anonymous. Others include Nexen (Canadian), Total (French), Occidental (American) and Hunt Oil (American).

According to the US Energy Information Agency , Yemen has relatively small oil reserves (about 3 billion barrels estimated), but, ‘because of its location on the Bab el-Mandab, one of the world's most strategic shipping lanes, through which an estimated 3.5 million barrels of oil passed daily in 2010. Disruption to shipping in the Bab el-Mandab could prevent tankers in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden from reaching the Suez Canal/Sumed pipeline complex, requiring a costly diversion around the southern tip of Africa to reach western markets.’ (37)

Yemen’s oil production is minor in terms of global production (only 0.22% of the total), but that doesn’t mean the profits made there aren’t significant for certain firms. Yemen is not a member of OPEC, an organisation the US has planned to break up in the past.

Our governments are backing allied dictatorships while they murder civilians even as they condemn hostile ones for the same crimes. They “intervene” only when a government which refuses them military bases or oil contracts, or runs economic policies that threaten maximum profits for their oil and arms companies is in place. If they really support democracy and want to protect civilians, they should prove it by ending all support for all the dictatorships – from Libya and Syria to Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar – and giving at least full verbal support to the protesters instead.

Some of the media have asked why the Arab governments aren’t sending more of their forces to help protect civilians in Libya. The fairly obvious answer is that they’re too busy killing their own civilian pro-democracy protesters, who, unlike in Libya, are pretty much entirely un-armed – and doing so with the continued support of our own governments. The Qatari government, which is widely praised for it’s role in supporting the Libyan rebels, is,  as Craig Murray points out, a monarchy not a democracy, even according to the US State Department. It permits Al Jazeera to report freely about events in other countries. but, according to Human Rights Watch it allows absolutely no freedom of speech or assembly within Qatar itself and allows migrant workers to suffer exploitation and abuse (38) – (39).

 (1) = Amnesty International 18 Mar 2011 ‘Yemeni authorities must act over sniper killings of protesters’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/yemeni-authorities-must-act-over-sniper-killings-protesters-2011-03-18 ; ‘The Yemeni authorities must immediately act to bring to justice those responsible for an apparently co-ordinated sniper attack on protesters in Sana’a today that has left dozens dead. At least 40 people were killed and more than 200 wounded.’

(2) = Amnesty International 6 Apr 2011 ‘International community must help probe Yemen’s protest killings’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/international-community-must-help-probe-yemen%E2%80%99s-protest-killings-2011-04-06

(3) = Amnesty International 20 Apr 2011 ‘Yemeni activist at risk as death toll mounts’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/yemeni-activist-threatened-death-toll-mounts-2011-04-20

(4) = BBC News 19 Apr 2011 ‘Yemen: Three killed at Sanaa and Taiz protests’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13130330 ; ‘Yemeni security forces have opened fire on anti-government protesters in the capital, Sanaa, and the southern city of Taiz, witnesses and medics say…At least two protesters were killed in Sanaa, while another died in Taiz. …More than 120 people have been killed in two months of protests demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down…Security forces fired live rounds and tear gas "indiscriminately" at the crowd, witnesses said.’

(5) = AP 19 Apr 2011 ‘UNICEF: 26 children killed during Yemen protests’,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42658636/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

(6) = UNocHA IRIN news 05 Apr 2011 ‘YEMEN: Children killed, traumatized by upsurge in violence’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=92378

(7) = Reuters 05 Apr 2011 ‘Armed men, police fire on Yemeni protesters’,http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110405/tpl-uk-yemen-clashes-81f3b62_2.html

(8) = Guardian 28 April 2011 ‘Yemen security forces kill 12 in anti-regime demonstration’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/27/yemen-campaign-against-president-saleh

(9) = 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/

(10) = 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

(11) = BBC 26 Mar 2011 ‘Saleh departure in Yemen: A matter of 'when', not 'if'’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12868544

(12) = See (11) above, 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.’

(13) = guardian.co.uk 16 Mar 2011 ‘Bahrain unleashes forces on protesters' camp’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/16/bahrain-protesters-military-operation-manama ; Military troops have opened a large-scale assault against hundreds of anti-government protesters occupying a landmark square in Bahrain's capital. At least two protesters and three policemen were reported to have been killed, and hundreds injured when riot police overran Pearl roundabout, the focal point for a two-month anti-government uprising.

Gunfire was heard throughout the capital and at least five helicopters were circling scenes of clashes, amid widespread panic on the streets below.

Riot police also entered Manama's Salmaniya medical centre for the first time since the demonstrations began and doctors reported they were being prevented from reaching the hospital and treating patients inside.

(14) = BBC 15 Mar 2011 ‘Bahrain king declares state of emergency after protests’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12745608

(15) CNN 16 Mar 2011 ‘Witnesses: Security forces attack protesters and doctors in Bahrain’, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/16/bahrain.protests/index.html Security forces blocked highways leading to the capital and formed a ring around the country's main hospital, Salmaniya Medical Complex, not letting people enter or leave, witnesses said. Security forces then stormed the hospital and beat staffers, several doctors there said.  Doctors have been hiding in rooms, said Yousif Sharaf, a doctor at the hospital. "We are trapped," Sharaf said. "We are asking for the security forces to please stay outside the hospital. They are beating the staff." Fatima Haji, another doctor, also said she was trapped in the hospital."We are in a small group hiding," Haji said, her voice rising with emotion. "This is a government hospital. How can this happen in a government hospital?"Haji said two people had died in the hospital Wednesday morning, and she feared for the other patients there because the doctors were not able to work.

(16) = BBC News 20 Feb 2011 ‘Bahrain protests: Your stories’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-middle-east-12504658

(17) = BBC World Service 16 Mar 2011 ‘Bahrain security forces in crackdown on Pearl Square’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/03/110316_bahrain_sl.shtml

(18) = BBC News 16 Mar 2011 ‘Bahrain crackdown on protests in Manama's Pearl Square’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12755852

(19) = Independent 17 Mar 2011 ‘Bahrain protesters driven out of Pearl Square by tanks and tear gas’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahrain-protesters-driven-out-of-pearl-square-by-tanks-and-tear-gas-2244165.html

(20) = Amnesty International 17 Mar 2011 ‘Evidence of Bahraini security forces’ brutality revealed’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/evidence-bahraini-security-forces%E2%80%99-brutality-revealed-2011-03-16

(21) = Amnesty International 21 Apr 2011 ‘Bahrain: International pressure needed now to halt spiralling human rights crisis’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/bahrain-international-pressure-needed-now-halt-spiralling-human-rights-crisis-2011- ; On disappearances - ‘More than 500 people have been arrested in the last month…In virtually all cases, weeks after their arrest, their whereabouts remain unknown….Some detainees have reportedly been tortured or otherwise ill-treated following arrest. At least four detainees are known to have died in custody in suspicious circumstances.’

(22) = Amnesty International 20 Apr 2011 ‘Bahrain urged to stop targeting protesters as two more die in custody’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/bahrain-urged-stop-targeting-protesters-two-die-custody-2011-04-11

(23) = Amnesty International 24 Mar 2011 ‘Bahrain: Ensuring accountability for excessive force and protection for protesters’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/bahrain-ensuring-accountability-excessive-force-and-protection-protesters

(24) = Independent 21 Apr 2011 ‘Bahrain's secret terror’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahrains-secret-terror-2270675.html ; ‘The intimidation and detention of doctors treating dying and injured pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain is revealed today in a series of chilling emails obtained by The Independent. ..At least 32 doctors, including surgeons, physicians, paediatricians and obstetricians, have been arrested and detained by Bahrain's police in the last month … One doctor, an intensive care specialist, was held after she was photographed weeping over a dead protester. Another was arrested in the theatre room while operating on a patient… Many of the doctors, aged from 33 to 65, have been "disappeared" – held incommunicado or at undisclosed locations. Their families do not know where they are. Nurses, paramedics and ambulance staff have also been detained.’

(25) = Independent 22 Apr 2011 ‘Bahrain security forces 'tortured patients'’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahrain-security-forces-tortured-patients-2272618.html ; ‘Bahrain’s security forces stole ambulances and posed as medics to round up injured protesters during a ferocious crackdown on unarmed demonstrators calling for reform of the monarchy, an investigation by a rights group reveals today. ..The first major report on repression of the medical profession during the country’s crisis details how a doctor was abducted during an operation and injured patients lying in hospital were tortured and threatened with rape. ..The investigation by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR).’

(26) = Guardian 28 April 2011 ‘Bahrain 'torture service' official to attend royal wedding’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/28/bahraini-linked-to-torture-royal-wedding

(27) = guardian.co.uk 28 Apr 2011 ‘Bahraini trainee pilots suspended from UK flying school after attending protests’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/28/bahraini-trainee-pilots-suspended

(28) = = Foreign and Commonwealth Office 20 Mar 2011 ‘UN intervention in Libya: Foreign Secretary on BBC Radio 5’, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?id=569183782&view=News ; ‘Yes Bahrain is a different case from Libya, it’s clearly a different case…In Bahrain the Government has offered a national dialogue to the opposition forces, they have offered a referendum on a constitution, you don’t see Colonel Gaddafi offering a referendum on a future constitution.’

(29) = Bloomberg 21 Feb 2011 ‘Libya Violence Deepens as Protestors Claim Control of Second-Largest City’,http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-20/libyan-revolt-widens-as-attacks-on-protesters-draw-condemnation.html ; ‘Saif Qaddafi offered dialogue with the opposition, a national debate on the constitution, higher wages and unemployment benefits and legal changes to “open up the realms of freedom,” and said the army had made errors in handling the protests’

(30) = Ha’aretz (Israel) 07 Mar 2011 ‘Gadhafi regime offers olive branch to rebels while fighting to regain control over east Libya’, http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/gadhafi-regime-offers-olive-branch-to-rebels-while-fighting-to-regain-control-over-east-libya-1.347653?localLinksEnabled=false ; ‘A leading member of Libya's ruling establishment appealed to rebel leaders for dialogue on Monday, in the clearest sign yet Muammar Gadhafi may be ready to compromise with opponents challenging his rule…Jadallah Azous Al-Talhi, a Libyan prime minister in the 1980s who is originally from eastern Libya, appeared on state television reading an address to elders in Benghazi, the main base of the anti-Gadhafi rebels…He asked them to "give a chance to national dialogue to resolve this crisis, to help stop the bloodshed, and not give a chance to foreigners to come and capture our country again."’

 (31) = Foreign and Commonwealth Office 20 Mar 2011 ‘UN intervention in Libya: Foreign Secretary on BBC Radio 5’, http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?id=569183782&view=News ; ‘Yes Bahrain is a different case from Libya, it’s clearly a different case…In Bahrain the Government has offered a national dialogue to the opposition forces, they have offered a referendum on a constitution, you don’t see Colonel Gaddafi offering a referendum on a future constitution.’

(32) = William Hague MP, Hansard 17^th Feb 2011http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110217/debtext/110217-0001.htm#11021765001329 , ‘We urge all sides to avoid violence and for the police to exercise restraint. The Bahraini Government should move quickly to carry out their commitment to a transparent investigation into earlier deaths, and extend that to include today's events and any alleged human rights abuses…I also said to the Foreign Minister that this is a time to build bridges between the different religious communities in Bahrain. I said that we would strongly oppose any interference in the affairs of Bahrain by other nations or any action to inflame sectarian tensions between Bahrain's Sunni and Shi'a communities. ‘

(33) = US Department of State – Remarks by Sec. of State Clinton – Remarks with Egyptian Foreign Minister Al-Araby 15 March 2011 ‘Remarks With Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Al-Araby’, http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/03/158404.htm ; ‘Well, we call for calm and restraint on all sides in Bahrain. We’re particularly concerned about increasing reports of provocative acts and sectarian violence by all groups. The use of force and violence from any source will only worsen the situation and create a much more difficult environment in which to arrive at a political solution.’

(34) = ABC News 27 Mar 2011 ‘Defense Secretary: Yemen Gov’t Collapse 'A Real Problem'’, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-yemen-govt-collapse-a-real-problem.html; ‘“Secretary Gates, you said this week we have not done any post-Saleh planning,” Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper said. “How dangerous is a post-Saleh world -- a post-Saleh Yemen to the United States?” he asked…Gates replied, “I think it is a real concern because the most active and, at this point, perhaps the most aggressive branch of al Qaeda -- al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula -- operates out of Yemen…“And we have had a lot of counterterrorism cooperation from President Saleh and Yemeni Security Services,” he said…“So if that government collapses or is replaced by one that is dramatically more weak, then I think we'll face some additional challenges out of Yemen.  There's no question about it.  It's a real problem,” Gates told Tapper.’

(35) =BBC News 23 Feb 2011 ‘Yemen protest: Ruling party MPs resign over violence’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12557617

(36) = The Nation 18 Apr 2011 ‘The Dangerous US Game in Yemen’, http://www.thenation.com/article/159578/dangerous-us-game-yemen

(37) = US Energy Information Administration – Country analysis – Yemen Feb 2011,http://www.eia.doe.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=YM

(38) = Human Rights Watch 24 Jan 2001 ‘U.S. Should Block Qatar Venue for WTO Meeting’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2001/01/24/us-should-block-qatar-venue-wto-meeting

(39) = Human Rights Watch 20 Jan 2008 ‘UAE: Meetings Should Address Migrant Workers’ Rights’,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/01/17/uae-meetings-should-address-migrant-workers-rights