Power, wealth, judges, rights, Giggs, misogyny, Murdoch and Goodwin

The media and lawyers specialising in media law are showing great ingenuity in trying to present their reporting of sex gossip stories as issues of high principle. First there was ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of the press’, now a lawyer writing in the Sunday Herald claims it’s a feminist fight against misogynist judges.

You may think that women being raped and murdered at the rate of one a day in Honduras, while the police refuse to do anything about it, is a more serious issue and that the papers should campaign against that instead. You might have thought that 420,000 women a year being raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a civil war that the big powers allow to continue because big firms based in their countries profit from it would be bigger news, if women’s rights were the issue. Unarmed women, men and children are all being shot down by tanks and snipers in Syria and Yemen (over 1,100 killed in Syria so far and over 150 in Yemen, thousands wounded).

The real outrage though, the most terrible oppression of all, is apparently that oppressive misogynist judges in the UK have tried to prevent newspapers and TV stations reporting on who a bank manager who is unpopular for completely unconnected reasons slept with. Even worse, these monsters went on to try to prevent them reporting a second earth shattering atrocity – footballer Ryan Giggs had consensual sex with reality TV star Imogen Thomas. Worst of all, as lawyer Paul March points out, is that Thomas was initially prevented from ‘commoditising’ the affair.

This is an interesting word to use though because it gets down to the real issue. These evil, evil judges were trying to stop newspapers, television stations and lawyers from making money by revealing the details of other peoples’ private lives –and that’s what it’s all about – money, profits, not principles. Rupert Murdoch and other newspaper owners having the right to spy on other peoples’ private lives (e.g by phone hacking and paying people ridiculous amounts of money for sordid details) in order to make himself wealthier and more politically influential is not freedom of speech. It’s not standing up to the powerful and wealthy either – it’s them throwing their weight around to send the message that no courts, laws or legal systems are going to stand in the way of them getting even richer by any means they feel like.

Now to be fair the Sunday Herald is way above the Murdoch press. In fact the Sunday Herald is mostly an excellent paper that doesn’t get involved in the fear and hate mongering, but it and the rest of the broadsheets and TV news stations seem to be moving towards the tabloids reporting priorities because they want a share of the sex gossip market.

The Sunday Herald even ‘commoditised’ the thing further (in a very minor way) by selling limited edition t-shirts of their ground breaking front cover that broke the startling news that some people have affairs with celebrities and sell their stories to newspapers.

Look at the damage it does to peoples’ families when they have affairs, most of the media say, as if plastering it all over the headlines of every newspaper and TV news bulletin for a week will make it so much better for them. Ryan Giggs’ wife has asked the reporters to f*** right off and doesn’t want the media to cover it, but the papers’ attitude seems to be - never mind her, there are bigger principles involved.

Even former Mossad and Shin Bet chiefs say negotiate with Hamas without preconditions

The claim that Hamas refuses to recognise Israel’s right to exist and that this makes negotiations with them impossible has been made again, this time by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Neither the first part of the claim nor the second are true  and negotiations should start without preconditions.It’s not just me that says so but many Israeli experts including the former heads of Mossad and of Israel’s Shin Bet military intelligence.

 In 2005 Mohammed Ghazal of Hamas said “The Charter is not the Koran. Historically, we believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we're talking now about reality, about political solutions ... The realities are different...I don't think there will be a problem of negotiating with the Israelis” (1).

In 2006 Hamas signed up to a document proposing a Palestinian state only on the land annexed by Israel in the 1967 war (2)

In April 2006 CNN reported that a spokesman for the Hamas government "Mahmoud Zahar even mentioned the possibility of a “two-state” solution in which Palestinians have “freedom and independence side by side with our neighbours.”" (3)

In April 2008 Khaled Meshal of Hamas said Hamas would accept the result of any referendum of Palestinians that decided to accept Israel's existence, including on some land taken in the 1967 war. (4).

Photo: Khaled Meshal

In January 2009 Ghazi Hamad of Hamas said “We accept a state in the '67 borders...We are not talking about the destruction of Israel.” (5)

On 11th May this year Hamas' foreign minister (part of the Fatah-Hamas unity) government said he accepted the 1967 borders as the borders of an Israeli state (implying a two state solution, with Israel existing on the rest of its current territory) (6).

(Given the periods of all out war, politicians' tendencies to tell every audience what they think it wants to hear, the different factions in Hamas and Palestinians's anger after the 2008/9 Gaza "war" some Hamas spokesmen have also said the opposite, but realistically they know they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of destroying Israel even if they wanted to)

Strictly speaking many of their offers have been of long-term 'hudna' or 'ceasefire' for 10 years or longer, but if there was peace for 10 years that'd give more influence to moderates on both sides and reduce the influence of hardliners. One expert has said the difference between a hudna and recognition is “semantics” (7) – (8).

As former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami and Israeli professor Yossi Alpher (among others) have said, full recognition comes at the end of peace negotiations, it shouldn't be a pre-condition for them. Israel never demanded Jordan or Egypt formally and fully recognise Israel before negotiations began (9) – (10).

Israeli historian and IDF veteran Avi Shlaim has written that “The only way for Israel to achieve security is…through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with [Israel] within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years.” (11)

In case you think all of the above people are some kind of unrealistic liberals, Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad says Israel should talk to Hamas, who have have proven they can relied on to abide by and enforce peace agreements and negotiations ; and the former head of Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence) Shlomo Gazit says the pre-conditions the Israeli government have placed on negotiations are "ridiculous, or an excuse not to negotiate.” (12) – (13).

So Hamas does not need to recognise Israel before negotiations can take place.

Above - Efraim Halevy ; Below - Shlomo Gazit

Not negotiating with Hamas, even after it won Palestinian legislative elections found free and fair by election observers from the EU, the Carter Center and others, has resulted in the political wing of Hamas sometimes losing control of some factions of it’s military wing, the Al Qassam Brigades (14). This shifts influence in Hamas towards those who believe only force will work and undermines the position of those who want to negotiate.

The Israeli government thought that by using military attacks (including targeting civilians and the wounded) and blockades against Fatah under Arafat in the West Bank and Gaza they would force Arafat out of power and get a Palestinian leadership who would be willing to make peace on whatever terms Israel dictated. Predictably, this did not happen. Palestinians reacted to military attacks killing civilians along with combatants (and to many Fatah officials’ corruption) by electing Hamas (15) – (17).

Israeli government attempts to bomb, shell or blockade Palestinians into getting rid of Hamas have similarly failed so far – and if they succeed by continuing these methods the replacement will not be more moderate, but more extreme. It’s hard to believe the Israeli government don’t know this. Do we really expect Palestinians to react differently than Americans or Israelis would to the same treatment? Did September 11^th make Americans more moderate?

 (Christian Palestinians iGaza say it’s not Hamas they fear, but those more extreme than them (18).)

UPDATE 5th June 2011 : A second former head of Mossad - Meir Dagan - has said recently that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak are "reckless" in threatening to attack Iran and irresponsible in refusing to make serious offers of peace to the Palestinians.(19)

Dagan is not in the least liberal or left wing. He was appointed head of Shin Bet by the notorious serial war criminal Ariel Sharon (then Israeli Prime Minister) in 2002 and Sharon never replaced him. So if Dagan thinks the Israeli government is heading too far to the right, be worried. The thought that Sharon was moderate compared to his successors is frightening.

Photo : Meir Dagan (left) and Ariel Sharon (right)

Dagan also implied another former Shin Bet head - Yuval Diskin (who has also recently been replaced) was equally at odds with Netanyahu and Barak.

This suggests Israeli governments attempts to keep replacing intelligence agency heads to get ones who'll accept a harder line is spinning out of control. They may end up with the equivalent of George Tenet as CIA director before and during the US invasion of Iraq - men who are more politicians than agents or analysts who tell them what they want to hear, rather than the facts, with potentially disastrous results.

Barak was also Defence Minister under the Labor party led coalition government during 'Operation Cast Lead' or 'the Gaza War' in December 2008/January 2009 and was previously Prime Minister in the 1990s. Dagan classing Netanyau and Barak as equally reckless is a confirmation of what many critics of Israeli government policy have been saying for a long time - the differences between the leadership of the Labor and Likud parties in foreign policy and in relation to the Palestinians are minimal. Both are hardliners.

With two former heads of Mossad and one former head of Shin Bet already openly condemning Israeli policy (under both Labor and Likud led governments) the Israeli government and it's blind adherents will have difficulty presenting this criticism and calls for more constructive policies as "anti-semitic' or "anti-Israeli" or biased. No doubt they'll try though. "Self-hating Jew" is the standard propaganda charge used against Jewish or Israeli critics.

(1) = Reuters/Ynet(Israel) 21 Sep 2005 ‘Hamas: We'll rethink call to destroy Israel’,http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3145475,00.html

(2) = BBC News 27 Jun 2006 ‘Hamas 'implicitly accepts Israel’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5121164.stm

(3) = CNN 05 Apr 2006 ‘Hamas official suggests 'two-state' solution’, http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/04/mideast/index.html

(4) = Guardian.co.uk 21 April 2008 ‘We can accept Israel as neighbour, says Hamas’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/israel

(5) = AP/Haaretz 01 Jan 2009 ‘Hamas: We will accept long-term truce if Gaza borders opened’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059873.html

(6) = NPR 26 May 2011 ‘Hamas Foreign Minister: We Accept Two-State Solution With '67 Borders’,http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/24/136403918/hamas-foreign-minister-we-accept-two-state-solution-with-67-borders

(7) = AP 21 Apr 2008 ‘Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders’,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24235665/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/hamas-offers-truce-return-borders/

(8) = Forward 09 Feb 2007 ‘Experts Question Wisdom of Boycotting Hamas’,http://www.forward.com/articles/10055/

(9) = Times 26 Feb 2009 ‘Peace will be achieved only by talking to Hamas’,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5804266.ece

(10) = Forward 20 Oct 2006 ‘Preconditions for a Problematic Partner’,http://www.forward.com/articles/5948/

(11) = Guardian 07 Jan 2009 ‘How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

(12) = Interview with Efraim Halevy in Mother Jones Magazine 10 Feb 2008 ‘Israel's Mossad, Out of the Shadows’, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/02/israels-mossad-out-shadows

(13) = Forward 09 Feb 2007 ‘Experts Question Wisdom of Boycotting Hamas’,http://www.forward.com/articles/10055/

(14) = International Herald Tribune 21 July 2006, ‘Gaza militants don't follow Hamas political leadership’, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/21/news/hamas.php

(15) = Guardian.co.uk 08 Apr 2002 ‘Sharon defies calls to end offensive’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/08/israel2

(16) = CNN 12 Mar 2001 ‘Sharon defends West Bank blockade’ http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/03/12/israel.blockade/index.html

(17) = The Economist 26 Feb 2002 ‘Arafat confined’,http://www.economist.com/node/1010042

(18) = AFP 25 Oct 2007 ‘Gaza Christians fear 'those more extreme than Hamas'’,http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdmJ6do6ctFlmorCNXunZ7ajZGaw

(19) = guardian.co.uk 03 Jan 2011 'Israel government 'reckless and irresponsible' says ex-Mossad chief', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/israel-government-reckless-mossad-chief

The outcry against super-injunctions on reporting private lives is about selling papers to make money

The newspapers’ outcry over the super-injunction against reporting which footballer had an affair has nothing to do with the public interest and everything to do with trying to sell papers and make money. Bank executives and footballers are over-paid and under-regulated, but knowing who they had sex with does nothing to sort that.

As I said in my last post (on the injunction taken out by banker Fred Goodwin) the appeals to the public interest are just playing with words. The public interest refers to things that affect the public’s interests – i.e which might harm them if they didn’t know them, or which they have a right to know (e.g because taxpayers’ money is involved). It does not mean whatever gossip some of the public might be interested in.

If newspapers win their battle to keep reporting sex gossip then the public interest will be seriously harmed as media coverage which should be about serious issues that do affect us all will go to who shagged who instead.

I’m pretty sure the original tweets on Giggs will have been sent by Sun or New of the World journalists who were looking to get round the injunction so they could keep publishing their grubby “investigations” of celebrities private lives to make money from them. The twitter users who then responded to the supposed threat to "online freedom" when Giggs tried to sue the original culprits were unwittingly helping out Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie and their kind. That's apart from the fact that there's no more moral right for anyone to make other peoples' private lives public online than there is anywhere else.

The press should be pushing for the lifting of some Ministry of Defence D-notices which have been used to cover up issues relating to torture and failure to equip troops properly and ‘commercial confidentiality’ clauses in PFI and PPP contracts which are used to prevent the public knowing how much of their money is going to PPP consortia.

No amount of sex gossip will prevent another financial crisis or reduce the unfairness that sees bankers and footballers paid millions while the average person in the UK earns around £20,000 per year, with many much, much worse off – unemployed, in poverty, or homeless.

Only re-regulation of the banks will prevent another financial crisis. This would have to include a legal ban on high street savings banks being involved in high risk investment banking, a ban on financial derivatives such as the CDOs which package good debt with bad – and a delay of say 10 years for receiving bonuses to force bank executives to look to the long term. The deregulation from the 80s on has forced them to prioritise high profits and high share dividends this quarter or else be replaced by someone who will.

To deal with inequality and unfair pay the minimum wage needs to keep rising above the rate of inflation; and there could be a 90% tax on individual income above £250,000 a year.

For either to work we need to close down the tax havens which allow the wealthiest and the biggest firms to both avoid tax and keep their financial dealings secret so that they can’t be effectively regulated by anyone.

There is no public interest involved in publishing gossip about sex – only money grubbing and distracting from real issues

Whatever Fred Goodwin's faults, the whole world does not have a right to hear every detail of his private life, or anyone else's

I'm not an admirer of the job Fred Goodwin did as head of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), but who he had an affair with is none of anyone's business except maybe his wife.

There's a ludicrous idea in Britain, promoted by tabloid hacks who profit from it, that if someone is famous, a politician, or was in a high paid job the entire world has the moral right to know about every detail of their private lives. They don't. There's no public interest involved, because 'public interest' does not mean 'anything some of the public are interested in knowing - including gossip about peoples' private lives', it means something that affects the public's interests - i.e which would harm them if they don't know it and/or benefit them if they did.

All this coverage of peoples' sex lives is just a distraction from the real issues - and anyone who thinks the banking crisis was just down to who was running the banks at the time and their personal failings simply doesn't understand the problem.

The problem is deregulation, which results in any executive of a company that doesn't only look to how they can maximise profits this quarter (whatever the long term risks or losses) being replaced by someone who will - or being put out of business, or being taken over by a company that will.

Unless the banks and other firms are regulated properly – which will also require closing down the tax havens that allow enough secrecy to make regulation impossible - this will happen again and again and again.

The money grubbers like Rupert Murdoch, former Sun editor Kelvin Mackenzie and the bin raking ‘private detectives’ the Murdoch empire hire, like Glenn Mulcaire, pretend that they are upholding moral values, serving the public interest and exposing hypocrisy. No-one could be greater hypocrites than they are, as they peddle gossip to make money, distracting attention from real issues such as how much tax (if any) billionaires, newspaper editors like Kelvin Mackenzie and big firms like News International pay in the UK.

Kelvin Mackenzie

In fact we know Murdoch’s News International used (legal) tax avoidance to avoid paying any net tax whatsoever in the UK between 1989 and 1999.

We also know that in addition to being involved in buying information obtained by illegal illegal phone hacking, Murdoch’s papers have also paid police for information on peoples’ private lives. Rebekah Wade (now Brooks) slipped up in 2003 by admitting as (then) editor of the Sun that the paper paid police for information on celebrities which it then published. Brooks is now Chief Executive of News International (the UK subsidiary of Murdoch's News Corp).

We also know MacKenzie and the Sun have often printed outright lies based on rumours, such as their stories about Elton John having had sex with underage rent boys and removing the voice boxes of his guard dogs. John Pilger wrote of one headline in The Sun under Mackenzie referring to Australian aborigines as ‘The Abos – brutal and dangerous’.

In fact MacKenzie has sunk so low so many times in his hate-mongering, lies and gossip about others that he really has no moral high ground from which to criticise other people.

There are some real private investigators who investigate the serious issues by looking at the business and political frauds committed by some of the most powerful people, political parties, governments, criminals and companies. These are people who risk vilification and sometimes death to give people the truth – people like John Pilger, Greg Palast, Robert Fisk, Peter Maass, the late Veronica Guerin and Shane Bauer (currently being held as a highly unlikely ‘US spy’ by Iran’s government.) Kelvin Mackenzie and his associates are a joke compared to them, a sad travesty of what real investigative journalists and editors should be.

Some of the other things you will never see raised in most tabloids are the vast rip-off of taxpayers and the NHS through PFI and PPP contracts, which make taxpayers pay more for cut services; the double subsidy they’re paying to privatised rail companies (above inflation fare rises plus government subsidy), the subsidy to the nuclear industry and the subsidies to arms manufacturer British Aerospace; and tax havens used to avoid paying income and corporation tax, pushing up taxes for the majority.

These are all cases of the majority subsidising the very richest on a scale that makes the expenses scandal look like a baby pissing into the Atlantic. Instead the tabloids will tell you that your money is being “stolen” by the unemployed, even though there have never been enough jobs for everyone in booms or recessions, that “immigrants” are “stealing” it (even though many are fleeing death by starvation, lack of medical care or being tortured or shot – and benefits paid to them are well below the amount paid to citizens) , or that trade unions are. Then they’ll tell you who shagged who (or who some false rumour says shagged who) – and sadly many people are taken for mugs, while Murdoch and friends play them for every penny they’ve got.

I remember as a teenager in 1986 seeing a Sun front page with the headline ‘Freddie Starr ate my hamster’. Not long afterwards Reagan bombed Tripoli in Libya, with Prime Minister Thatcher giving the planes permission to refuel in Britain without even informing parliament never mind having a vote on it. The raid killed a small girl among others. There was a tiny column on this in The Sun that day with a picture of a plane on one side of the page covering this story in two sentences. That sums up the methods of Kelvin Mackenzie and those like him – blind people with bullshit to distract them from the real issues.

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

The hypocrisy of governments that let protesters be murdered in Bahrain while talking of the responsibility to protect and freedom to protest in Libya

There is a stench of utter hypocrisy and double standards emanating from the British, French, Canadian and US governments on the murder of unarmed protesters by dictatorships in the Arab revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa. We know that in Bahrain the dictatorship’s forces have been murdering unarmed protesters and medical staff trying to treat them, just as Gaddafi’s forces have in Libya. Yet British Foreign Minister William Hague claims that Libya and Bahrain are “qualitatively different” because the King of Bahrain has offered dialogue with the protesters. Hague said that ““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.” (1)

You miss out, William, that, as with Gaddafi’s government (which has also repeatedly offered “dialogue” or negotiations with the rebels) this was while the King of Bahrain was (and is) still having unarmed protesters and medical staff killed and using riot police to beat up hospital staff and to prevent wounded protesters getting treated (2) – (3). So Bahrain is not one tiny bit different from Libya, other than the failure of hypocrites like you, Clinton and Obama to do anything to stop murder by a dictatorship there or in Yemen or Oman or Egypt (and soon likely in Saudi).

The US Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain within sight of the Pearl Roundabout where most of the killings have taken place. Obama or Clinton could easily have asked UN Security Council authorisation to put some marines in to protect the protesters from the police and military (4). Have they? Have they fuck. That and similar mass murder by government forces in Yemen and Oman has gone without anything but empty words from Clinton and Hague about “deep concern” and how “both sides should show restraint” (as if unarmed protesters and the armed people murdering them are equally responsible for their deaths) (5) – (6).

Clinton claimed that “We’re particularly concerned about increasing reports of provocative acts and sectarian violence by all groups.”  (7). What “sectarian violence by all groups”? Sunni and Shia protesters demonstrated against a dictatorship together – and Bahraini police and soldiers killed them. That simple. So could you and William see your ways to please stop lying through your teeth please Hillary? Or have you become two more conscience-less robots, for whom truth is whatever suits the most powerful at the time?

So all the talk about the Libyan intervention showing that the “responsibility to protect” principles (developed by an expert panel for the UN in 2001) have finally been taken seriously and enforced is bollocks (8). The US and it’s allies are intervening where regime change would suit them (Libya, with the world’s tenth largest oil reserves and a government that haggles too much on it’s share of oil profits) while not even threatening to intervene where it’s allies are murdering protesters and medical staff. It’s business as usual.

I completely support the ‘responsibility to protect’ principles under which a government’s sovereignty is not absolute but depends on it protecting the lives and welfare of it’s people by providing basic services, disaster relief and not massacring them (9). If it fails in any of these ways or does target it’s own people, other governments are justified in intervening to help them. What we have so far is just the usual opportunism though – applying the principle where it suits big business and governments’ interests and not bothering where it doesn’t.

When an actual Rwanda or Bosnia takes place - or the slow motion ethnic cleansing by air and artillery strike in Gaza and the West Bank, there is no interest in intervention from the “international community” states led by the US. There’s no interest from them in humanitarian intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo either as long as the massacres, torture and gang rape of civilians, as well as their use as slave labour for mining by militias trading with multinational firms in the Democratic Republic of continue to make big profits for US and European based multinational companies doing deals with those militias – as they have for decades now (10) – (11).

 (To be fair in Bosnia the US did eventually intervene from the air, after spending several years blocking UN action to ensure the UN looked useless and the US-led NATO had a role. Their Croat allies ethnically cleansed thousands of Serbs from the Krajiina region in the final offensive that ended the war, backed by NATO air forces. The US ambassador to Croatia at least came out of it with some credit – he drove with a convoy of Serb civilians to try to stop Croat attacks on them (12) – (13)).

When the Israelis killed a thousand Palestinians – over 700 of them civilians often in deliberate targeting of civilians and ambulances – in a few weeks in December 2008 to January 2009, as revenge for the death of one Israeli civilian killed in rocket attacks before the offensive, by a Palestinian terrorist group, the US and British governments responded, as they had during Israeli bombing of the whole of Lebanon in 2006, in which ambulances and civilians were again targeted, by refusing to back a UN Security Council resolution calling for an end to the assaults. In the Lebanon war they were even sending the Israeli military plane loads of extra bombs to drop on those ambulances and civilians, in case they ran out (14) – (17).

Craig Murray and Democracy Now report Clinton also showed her hypocrisy by smirking as her security detail dragged ‘Veterans for Peace’ member McGovern out of a press conference for making a silent protest by standing up with his back to her while wearing a ‘Veterans for Peace’ t-shirt (you can see this part on CNN) (18). Clinton’s heavies then beat McGovern up. Clinton was making a speech railing against Gaddafi’s oppression of the Libyan people – including his refusal to give them the right to free speech and the right to protest peacefully. She may not have had McGovern shot by snipers, but her actions don’t exactly show her as a great defender of free speech either.

 (1) = 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

(2) = 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

(3) Haaretz (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

(4) = Al Jazeera 20 Feb 2011 ‘Bahrain protesters remain in square’, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/20112206279487320.html

(5) = 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

(6) = 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. We recognise that Bahrain has made important political reforms alongside its growing economic success. We strongly welcome such steps within the context of the long friendship between Bahrain and the UK under successive Governments. I was assured in Bahrain last week and again this morning that the Bahraini Government intend to build on these reforms’

(7) = 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

(8) = LA Times 28 Feb 2011 ‘Clinton denounces Kadafi, calls on leader of Libya to step down’,http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/28/news/la-pn-clinton-un-20110301

(9) = International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty Dec 2001 ‘The Responsibility to Protect’,http://www.iciss.ca/pdf/Commission-Report.pdf

(10) = Human Rights Watch 01 Jun 2005 ‘D.R. Congo: Gold Fuels Massive Human Rights Atrocities’, http://www.hrw.org/node/70588

(11) = Guardian 22 Oct 2002 ‘Multinationals in scramble for Congo's wealth’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/22/congo.rorycarroll

(12) = NYT 13 Oct 2002 ‘America's For-Profit Secret Army’,http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7DF123AF930A25753C1A9649C8B63&pagewanted=3

(13) Human Rights Watch 1996 Annual Report – Croatia,http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1996/WR96/Helsinki-06.htm#P373_82578

(14) = See sources numbered (21) to (45) on the link below on Israeli forces targeting civilians in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank,  http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/sevenliesthatkill/index.html#4

(15) = Human Rights Watch 13 Aug 2009 ‘White Flag Deaths  - Killings of Palestinian Civilians during Operation Cast Lead’, http://www.hrw.org/node/85014

(16) = Amnesty International 02 Jul 2009 ‘Israel/Gaza: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction’,http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/015/2009/en

(17) = BBC News 27 Jul 2006 ‘Beckett protest at weapons flight’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5218036.stm

(18) = CNN 15 Feb 2011 ‘During a speech about internet freedom, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is interrupted by a heckler’,http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/02/15/clinton.freedom.protester.cnn.html

Time for peace negotiations in Libya - country wide airstrikes and an offensive on Tripoli will kill civilians, not protect them

The bombing in Libya was justified under UN Resolution 1973 in targeting tanks and artillery which were shelling Benghazi. It is not justified if it continues to bomb the entire country long after anti-aircraft batteries have been destroyed, nor is it justified in targeting non-military targets (such as Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli) nor in supporting rebel assaults on towns or cities held by Gaddafi’s forces, as this will kill as many civilians through “collateral damage” from bombing as would be killed by artillery and tank shelling. The repeated bombing of Tripoli which has taken place despite the fact there is no fighting on the ground is not authorised by the UN resolution for the same reason – it is likely to be killing civilians, not protecting them (1) – (5).

Cameron and Sarkozy have made a great deal of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorising the use of “all necessary means” (i.e military force), while largely ignoring the “to protect civilians” part of the same sentence.This has a lot to do with the very poor poll ratings and high unemployment both politicians have in their own countries. Cameron would dearly like to repeat Margaret Thatcher’s Falklands ‘patriotic war’ bounce back by moving the media’s focus to foreign policy.

This explains his government’s claim that attempting a re-run of Reagan’s 1986 attempt to assassinate Gaddafi by airstrike (actually managing to killed a very young girl – Gaddafi’s adopted daughter - along with dozens of other people and hit the Austrian, Swiss and French embassies) would be within the remit of the UN resolution to “protect civilians” as Gaddafi has ordered the killing of unarmed protesters (6) – (8). It would not, because, as with the 1986 strike, it would be likely to kill civilians in large numbers itself. It already seems to have been attempted in an air-strike on an “administrative building” or “Gaddafi compound” in Tripoli (9). The likelihood is that, as in 1986, civilians will have been killed. (Some people claim that the girl killed in the 1986 strikes was only posthumously adopted as Gaddafi’s “daughter” for propaganda purposes. Even they admit that the strikes killed civilians including children though. The same people – the badly mis-named ‘Accuracy in Media’ also use the neo-con rag ‘The Weekly Standard’ as a source on Iraqi WMDs though. The Weekly Standard is so unable to separate what it wants to believe from rational thought that it once simultaneously claimed both that former CIA head George Tenet was a proven liar and that a book he wrote proved Saddam had WMDs and links to Al Qa’ida – a considerable feat of doublethink) (10) – (13).

British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey and others have even suggested the possibility if deploying ground troops, claiming that if it wasn’t “a large deployment” it wouldn’t breach the Resolution. In fact the resolution clearly states that it involves “excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory” from “all necessary means”. Those suggesting the “necessity” for ground troops also ignore the fact that even the rebels say they would fight them “with more force than we are using against Gaddafi” if they are deployed - in order to avoid being occupied like Iraq or Afghanistan (14) – (15).

Not sending in ground troops will prevent an Iraq 2003 style war (though it still risks a long civil war if fighting continues – and even if Gaddafi is overthrown), but that still leaves the possibility of an Iraq 1991 – 2002 style air war in which tens of thousands of civilians are killed directly by bombing and hundreds of thousands killed by the indirect effects of it (e.g damage to water and sewage systems) (16) – (17).

Suggestions reported by Al Jazeera from some NATO governments that their takeover of the air campaign in Libya could involve preventing either side assaulting towns held by the other are welcome and – unlike some current strikes – would be enforcing the UN resolution by preventing civilian casualties, not going beyond it in a war of regime change.

These suggestions presumably come from the Turkish government, since the French and British have been following the opposite course – trying to “break the stalemate’ by supporting rebel offensives on Gaddafi held towns or those containing the forces of both sides (18).

While we know Gaddafi is a dictator and would very likely have killed or disappeared much of the population of Benghazi if he’d captured it, we know very little of the rebels, their past, their aims, who they are and who is funding and backing them. Gaddafi has the support of at the least a large minority of the population in the West and there is no guarantee that the rebels taking Tripoli would kill less people than Gaddafi would have if he’d taken Benghazi – especially if it involves air strikes.

We know from Kosovo, from Afghanistan and from Iraq that US and NATO air strikes are as likely to kill civilians as anyone else’s air or artillery strikes are. Given that the US military’s default line on air strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan being blanket denial (followed, months later, by admitting to killing half the number of civilians they actually did), the claims by NATO governments not to have killed any civilians in airstrikes in Libya are likely to be equally hollow (19) – (21).

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates claim that Gaddafi’s forces are killing civilians then moving their bodies about to pretend they were killed by air strikes is as ridiculous as his similar (and comprehensively disproven) claims on air strikes in Afghanistan and the Taliban in 2009.

The best outcome for avoiding civilian deaths would be a negotiated peace with an agreement that Benghazi and other rebel held towns will become a de facto autonomous zone like the Kurdish North in Iraq after the 1991 war and no fly zone, while Gaddafi will be left control of the rest. Both sides could agree not to attack the other and a UN air force (preferably including Turkish and Russian planes so both sides can trust it) will patrol it and order any  armed forces moving towards towns held by the other side to turn back or be bombed.

As long as fighting continues hundreds of thousands of stranded migrant workers and people in disputed cities will also continue to suffer from lack of food, water and medicines and many wounded who could have been saved if treated, will die. A ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid in has to be a priority.

Peace negotiations could involve negotiating Gaddafi standing down and going into exile, before further negotiations on a transition to democracy without further fighting and loss of lives

(1) = UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement

(2) = Channel 4 News 21 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: Gaddafi’s air defences ‘knocked out’’,http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-gaddafi-base-hit-in-second-night-of-allied-bombing

(3) = Reuters 28 Mar 2011 ‘Aided by air strikes, Libya's rebels push west’, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110325/tts-uk-libya-ca02f96.html

(4) = MSNBC 21 Mar 2011 ‘Blasts, anti-aircraft fire rock Tripoli’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42189217/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

(5) = Sky News 22 Mar 2011 ‘Explosions Rock Tripoli For Third Night’,http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Gaddafi-Compound-In-Tripoli-Hit-By-Missile-In-Second-Night-Of-Allied-Airstrikes/Article/201103315956752?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15956752_Libya%3A_Gaddafi_Compound_In_Tripoli_Hit_By_Missile_In_Second_Night_Of_Allied_Airstrikes

(6) = Guardian 22 Mar 2011 ‘Is Muammar Gaddafi a target? PM and military split over war aims’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya

(7) = Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny’, Palgrave-MacMillan, NY,2003, Chapter 2, pages 24-26

(8) = Geoff Simons (2003) ‘Libya and the West’ Center for Libyan Studies, Oxford, UK, 2003,Chapter 7, pages 131-134 of hardback edition

(9) = See (3) and (4) above

(10) = Accuracy in Media 22 Feb 2011 ‘NBC’s Mitchell Regurgitates Gaddafi Lies’,http://www.aim.org/aim-column/nbc%E2%80%99s-mitchell-regurgitates-gaddafi-lies/

(11) = Accuracy in Media 28 Feb 2006 ‘Where are the WMD?’, http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/where-are-the-wmd-2/

(12) = Weekly Standard 29 April 2007 ‘"George Tenet's Imaginary Encounter... With Richard Perle. by William Kristol"’, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/593daqmw.asp

(13) = Weekly Standard 01 May 2007 ‘"More Than Enough Evidence" What George Tenet really says about Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. by Thomas Joscelyn"’, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

(14) = Guardian News Blog 22 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: air strikes continue live updates’, 11.09 am, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/22/libya-no-fly-zone-air-strikes-live-updates#block-17 ‘My colleague Sam Jones writes that armed forces minister Nick Harvey has refused to rule out the deployment of British ground troops in Libya. But he did stress that there was a huge difference between a limited intervention and a full-scale occupation force, which is banned under the terms of the UN mandate. Asked whether British ground troops could be deployed in a defensive role to protect civilians, the armed forces minister did not discount the possibility, although he said he did not believe that any deployment would be on a "significant scale". He told BBC1's Breakfast programme: "I don't think we would at this stage rule anything in or rule anything out but I agree with the distinction that you draw between landing an occupying force and the use of anybody on the ground."

(15) = See (1) above

(16) = Bennis , Phyllis & Moushabeck  , Michael (Editors) (1992)  ‘Beyond the Storm’  ; Canongate Press , London , 1992, p326 – 355

(17) = Lee , Ian (1991) ‘Continuing Health Costs of the Gulf War’, Medical Educational Trust , London , 1991

(18) = See (3) above

(19) = HRW 26 Oct 2001 ‘Under Orders : War Crimes in Kosovo’, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2001/10/26/under-orders-war-crimes-kosovo

(20) = BBC News 01 Jan 1999 ‘Nato's bombing blunders’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/340966.stm

(21) = Phillip Knightley (2000) ‘The First Casualty’, Prion Books Limited, London, 2000, Chapter 20 is on the Kosovo war and propaganda and NATO war crimes in it in general; pages 516-517, on bombing of Chinese and Indian embassies in Belgrade by NATO after they’d criticised NATO’s air war – and given NATO the addresses of their embassies at it’s request, supposedly to ensure they wouldn’t be hit