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

Joining Politicus

This is just a short post to recommend the Politicus website. It’s a blogging and news website on UK politics which I found out about and joined recently.  Excellent for news and a wide range of political opinions from all kinds of viewpoints ; and you can remove any news or blog source you don’t want to read from your newsfeed on it. You can join here if you like the sound of it ; and if you’re a blogger then after joining you can also apply to add your blog to the newsfeed on the site if you want to.

US polls showed Bush couldn’t have invaded Iraq without Blair’s support ; and the Kosovo war cost at least as many civilian lives as it saved

The common claim by Blair’s supporters that Bush would have invaded Iraq whether Blair had supported the war or not was disproven by polls of Americans before the invasion, which consistently showed around 60% opposed to the US invading Iraq without the support of its allies, while 60 to 80% were in favour if allies supported or participated in the invasion (1).

Bush simply could not have got public support for an invasion if none of the US’s key allies supported the decision and none sent troops – and would practically have guaranteed himself a single term Presidency if he’d invaded without the support of the majority of Americans.

 The support of the British government under Blair, the Australian government under Michael Howard, the Spanish under Aznar and the Portugese government gave Bush enough long established allies supporting the invasion to point to to get public backing.

That’s why Bush held a televised joint press conference with the three main western European Prime ministers who backed the war 4 days before the invasion (2).

This makes David Milliband’s recent claim that Bush was “the worst thing that ever happened to Tony Blair” even more ridiculous. British Prime Ministers do not have to do whatever whoever currently happens to be President of the United States says they should do. Blair had the choice of what to do and chose to parrot Bush and Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s lies and get British troops and Iraqi civilians killed and tortured in a war that cost many lives but saved not one. Senior Labour MPs still talking as though they must do whatever the US government tells them to do suggests any future Labour government could have all the faults Blair’s did (3).

Milliband went on to add another ridiculous claim – that the NATO intervention in Kosovo “saved a lot of lives”. In fact it involved bombing from such high altitudes that it mistakenly killed many of the Albanian refugees it was supposed to protect (4) – (6). It also involved targeting civilian targets like party headquarters, television stations and the centres of towns and bridges on market days in Serbia, killing hundreds of Serb civilians in addition (7) – (11) .

It did have one effect – while before NATO ground forces went in more Albanian civilians were being killed or forced out of their homes by Serb forces or militias than Serb civilians killed by the KLA, afterwards it was mostly Serbian civilians in Kosovo killed or ethnically cleansed by the KLA (who include plenty of terrorists, drug runners and kidnappers; and who were classified by the US state department as a terrorist organisation until shortly before the Kosovo war) (12).

The KLA also disappeared at least 2000 people after the war, mostly Serbs, many having had their organs removed to sell on the black market (13).

When the Blairites can’t even face the truth about their past actions and their effects, how can we possibly trust their judgement to deal with current or future ones? Calling them ‘Walter Mitty types’ (their usual insult for people who disagreed with them, including Dr Kelly) would be an understatement, because Walter Mitty didn’t regularly get large numbers of people killed.

(1) = World Public Opinion ; Regional Issues ; Conflict With Iraq ; Importance of Multilateral Support, http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/Conflict_Iraq/multilat_support.cfm

(2) = The American Presidency Project 16 Mar 2003 ‘The President's News Conference With Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso of Portugal, President Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom in the Azores, Portugal’, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62764

(3) = ITV 4 Mar 2013 ‘David Miliband: 'Bush the worst thing to happen to Blair'’,
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-04/david-miliband-bush-was-the-worst-thing-to-happen-to-blair/

(4) = Knightly, Phillip (2000) ‘The First Casualty’ , Prion, London, pages 501-526

(5) = BBC News Online 15 Apr 1999 ‘Nato Pilot bombed refugees’ ,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/319943.stm

(6) = Independent 17 Apr1999 ‘This atrocity is still a mystery to Nato. Perhaps I can help...’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/this-atrocity-is-still-a-mystery-to-nato-perhaps-i-can-help-1087593.html

(7) = See (4) above

(8) = guardian.co.uk 31 May 1999 ‘Planes buzzed overhead - and then death came’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/may/31/balkans

(9) = Independent  7 Feb 2000 ‘The bloody truth of how Nato changed the rules to win a 'moral war' in Yugoslavia’,
http://www.balkanpeace.org/index.php?index=article&articleid=10344(I’m forced to use a link to another website as The Independent newspaper’s website has not kept any link to this article)

(10) = Guardian 15 Mar 2000 ‘TV's silent warning - 15 died but no apology for bombing broadcasters’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/15/balkans2

(11) = guardian.co.uk 16 May 1999 ‘Was she a human shield or just a Nato mistake?’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/may/16/balkans1

(12) = Independent 24 Nov 1999 ‘Serbs murdered by the hundred since `liberation'’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/serbs-murdered-by-the-hundred-since-liberation-1128350.html

(13) = Human Rights Watch 04 Apr 2008 ‘Letter to Albanian Authorities Calling for an Investigation into Serbs Missing Since 1999’, http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/04/03/letter-albanian-authorities-calling-investigation-serbs-missing-1999

None of the inquiries that found Blair didn't lie on Iraq were independent - they were all full of political appointees ; John Rentoul and Tony Blair try to pass off political fixes as independent inquires

John Rentoul, Tony Blair’s biographer and mini-me, and politics editor for the Independent,  added another disingenuous denial that Blair and his associates were dishonest about Iraq last September. This time he echoed Blair’s claim that “every independent analysis” has found he did not lie about Iraq (1). Rentoul helps out by specifying what these supposedly independent analyses are

‘Foreign Affairs select committee inquiry, 2003.

Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, 2003.

Hutton inquiry, 2004.

Butler inquiry, 2004.

General election, 2005.’ (2)

Yet not one of these supposedly “independent” inquiries was actually independent at all – they were all headed by appointees of Blair or had a majority of members appointed by Blair’s government.

The heads of the Hutton and Butler inquiries were appointed by Blair, who also decided what powers they would have, what their remit would be (i.e what they could as about) and what evidence they could and could not see. Not surprising then, since the accused got to appoint the judges, decide the charges and limit what evidence they could see, that the accused was found not guilty on all charges. If all trials were conducted that way, no one would ever be found guilty of anything no matter how much evidence there was of their guilt.

(The Chilcot Inquiry is similarly made up entirely of people who supported the war or who owe their positions in the House of Lords to Blair or Brown)

Parliamentary Select Committees like the Foreign Affairs and intelligence and Security Committees have MPs as members, in proportion to the number of MPs of that party in parliament. As Labour had a big majority after the 2000 General Election, that would mean that in 2003 the majority of MPs on those committees would be Labour – and so not inclined to criticise their own party leader too much. On top of that, in 2003 Select Committee members were still appointed by party leaders – so all the Labour members of those committees were appointed by Blair, so would not be rebels on Iraq. Most other MPs on those committees would be Conservatives – and the vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the war. So the idea that these were independent inquiries is utterly ridiculous.

Citing the 2005 General election is particularly ludicrous, as an election is not an inquiry into anything ; and as no British general election in the last century has been decided by any foreign policy issue. Many people who voted Labour in 2005 were completely against the Iraq war and thought Blair had lied about it, but voted Labour as they thought Labour were less bad than the Conservatives on domestic policies.

It seems that the Independent newspaper’s politics editor doesn’t know the difference between independent inquiries and political fixes – at least certainly not where his hero Tony Blair is concerned.

(1) = John Rentoul ‘Eagle Eye’ blog 5 Sep 2012 ‘Monbiot: the big coward’,
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/09/05/monbiot-the-big-coward/

(2) = Observer 02 Sep 2012 ‘Tony Blair should face trial over Iraq war, says Desmond Tutu’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/02/tony-blair-iraq-war-desmond-tutu

There is a magic money tree for governments with their own currency - and Cameron has already used it in quantitative easing for the banks - so why not for things that benefit everyone?

Prime Minister David Cameron is completely wrong when he says there is “no magic money tree” – there is for any government that has it’s own currency which it can issue in any quantity it likes; and for private banks which can create money – but only create it as debt. Cameron’s government, like the last government, has used it’s “magic money tree” repeatedly in “quantitative easing” to pad the banks’ reserves. There is no reason he can’t use it to create money for more worthwhile causes that benefit everyone.

Vince Cable is right that we need stimulus spending, but why should we borrow it from banks and hedge funds, increasing our debts, when the government can print it or issue it digitally instead? It’s created out of thin air either way. The financial crisis was the result of most money being created as debt - loans and mortgages - by the banks, combined with deregulation, as Australian economics professor Steve Keen points out (1).

The government should print money and spend it on green energy research, investment in infrastructure (transport, education etc), plus grants and zero or low interest loans to small and medium sized businesses. If that creates a little inflation, that's not so bad, as devaluation of the pound will also reduce the size of our debts denominated in pounds.

The British government’s 2% inflation target and reliance on borrowing rather than printing money are the result of over-sized banks that can donate to much to party funds. Nobel prize winning economist Ha Joon Chang points out that even IMF studies suggest inflation doesn't negatively affect growth till it reaches 8% - other studies say 20%. (2)

Some will immediately cry hyperinflation, but in actual cases of hyperinflation, like Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe, the causes were French military occupation and control of the steel and coal output of the Rhur valley, and international sanctions, respectively, combined with political crises, not printing money (3). The bank executives and hedge fund managers would like people to believe otherwise because they profit from other peoples’ debts and don’t want those debts shrunk by moderate inflation.

If the government won’t do that we still have one other option – set up lots of small local or regional savings and loans companies like the “Bank of Dave” (Burnley savings and loans) set up by businessman Dave Fishwick (4) – (5).

This also has implications for the debate on whether Scotland should become independent. One potential advantage of independence would be that Scotland could print it’s own currency and spend it how it chose whatever the City of London financial sector said.

(1) Steve Keen (2011) ‘Debunking Economics’, Zed Books, 2011

(2) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, Penguin / Allen Lane, London, 2010, ‘Thing 6’, page 55 of Allen Lane hardback edition

(3) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, Penguin / Allen Lane, London, 2010, ‘Thing 6’, pages 51-62 of Allen Lane hardback edition

(4) = Burnley Savings and Loans, http://www.burnleysavingsandloans.co.uk/

(5) = Guardian 01 Mar 2013 ‘Bank of Dave: Fighting the Fat Cats; The Wedding Shop – TV review’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/mar/01/bank-of-dave-fighting-fat-cats

Why government can print money and give it to ordinary people and small companies without hyper-inflation ; private banks issuing money as debts is as much creating money out of nothing as printing it is; ALL money is created out of nothing ; ALL money and debt exist only as agreed ideas and can be created or destroyed or revalued any way we choose to as societies

The supposedly hard-headed and realistic analysis of our current situation is that we are doomed to higher taxes and cut services until we can pay off our debts; and that no action by government can change this fact. This is the version of reality that suits the people who caused the crisis – big banks, hedge funds, billionaire speculators. It also suits the big parties in government who get donations to party funds from them.

So the people who caused the problem get to keep on getting big bail-outs at taxpayers’ expense while being able to avoid paying most tax themselves through tax havens and multinational corporate structures.

We are not dealing with a hard unchangeable reality, but with the confused idea that money and debt exist anywhere but in our heads. Banks can and do create money out of nothing as debt simply by issuing a loan or mortgage. Governments can create it out of nothing by printing it or by issuing loans or grants. These are the two main ways it has come into circulation for at least a century. Similarly lenders can “write off” some or all of a debt and it instantly vanishes.

And, no, there is no way to limit the amount of money issued to the value of goods and services created because that value is also a subjective judgement based on incomplete information – which is why stock market valuations go up and down constantly and lead to economic booms and busts.

To limit the amount of money in circulation to the value of the gold reserves of the world was one past method of limiting the supply, but it was a completely arbitrary one and the gold standard contributed to causing the Great Depression by limiting the amount of new loans that could be made by banks or grants by government.

So there is no amount of money which will accurately reflect the value of the economy.

Money and debt are not unchangeable realities but shared ideas. How much of them exists and how much can be created and how it should be distributed are all things that we can change in any way we want to if we collectively decide to. Getting enough people to realise this is the only hard part.

It isn’t too complicated for the majority of people to understand, as the banking lobby want us to believe. it’s simple. As the late American economist J K Galbraith, who served under President Franklin D Roosevelt, wrote “The process by which money is created is so simple that the mind is repelled.”

Governments printing money and issuing it as grants, or zero interest loans or low interest loans is no different from private banks issuing it as loans or mortgages, other than that government can take into account aims in lending other than it’s own fairly short term profit. It can consider what investments are important to develop our economy and society, reduce poverty or reduce environmental damage over the long term.

The usual scare story you will hear at this point is that if we print money it will cause hyper-inflation. It could, if you printed an amazing amount of it, but in reality hyper-inflation has pretty much never happened unless a country is also under economic sanctions (e.g Zimbabwe) or under occupation and with a large part of it’s economic output going to other countries after defeat in a war (e.g Germany after World War I when France occupied the Rhur valley and all steel and coal from there went to France) (1).

Studies done by the IMF and cited by Chang show no fall in growth rate from inflation until it reaches at least 8% per year, while less conservative studies put the rate at 20% (2).

While inflation devalues money it also devalues any debt, as debt is denominated in money – so the higher inflation is the faster debt shrinks; and that is why banks and other lenders want low inflation. The British and American governments are heavily in the pockets of banks and hedge funds who are major donors to the party funds of all the main parties.

The Conservative party in the UK for instance, gets more than 50% of it’s donations to party funds from banks, hedge funds and other financial sector firms (3). The new head of the Bank of England, which sets the official interest rate and regulates other banks, is a former Goldman Sachs executive (4). All three main UK parties leaders welcomed his appointment enthusiastically.

Australian economics Professor Steve Keen has also shown that a major cause of the financial crisis is most money having been created as debt by private banks, with a recession resulting when the amount of debt issued is so great that the debtors can no longer repay it and the lenders will no longer issue new loans or forgive it, resulting in a crisis of confidence among both consumers and lenders. He suggests government printing money and giving it to debtors to pay off their debts (5). This would certainly solve the immediate crisis, but it wouldn’t stop the cycle starting all over again.

Only nationalised banks printing money and issuing it as grants and low or zero interest loans can do that. Of course it would still be unwise to issue infinite amounts of money without any checks on whether money issued as a loan or grant will increase government revenues or reduce it’s costs in future. So government controlled banks, after helping debtors pay off their debts and paying off it’s own debts by printing money, would have to ensure that some of it’s loans were issued to get a return, while others would be issued as grants for purposes other than getting a financial return, with the former funding the latter in the long term.

This is an idea which transcends the normal political divisions – there are even some Conservative MPs in the UK who are proposing something very similar.

I’m not sure that the Money Reform Party are right in suggesting that private banks issuing loans should be made illegal. That could have it’s own risks in making it impossible for businesses that don’t donate to party funds to get loans at reasonable rates , but we certainly need at least one government owned bank in each country creating money as loans and grants for government spending, for loans to small and medium sized businesses and to help people out of debt.

The reality is that we have plenty of options for paying off the debt and reducing poverty and inequality in our society, just not ones that these dominant players like. They would much prefer we sign up to the idea that it’s all unchangeable and that the hard reality is that we have to keep on issuing and distributing money primarily in ways that benefit them, even if it’s at huge cost to everyone else.

They have even got governments to legalise a ‘futures trade’ in food which allows them to basically bet that the price of a particular type of food will rise, before buying and stockpiling lots of it to ensure it does rise. This is at a cost of increased food prices which can mean hunger or death for people across the world, including in Haiti where for many years it has become common for parents to buy ‘mud cakes’ of clay and salt to fill their childrens’ bellies when they can’t afford actual food.

While things are not nearly that bad for most people in the developing world we continue to see poverty at levels where people must often choose between for instance eating or heating their home many days in winter; and governments are taking benefits away from the genuinely disabled and forcing the unemployed to work unpaid for big companies. Most of those who can get full time work are working harder and longer hours for the same or less pay. Millions can’t get work at all, or can only get part-time work when they want full-time.

The billionaires and the big firms (including many newspaper owners), along with the heads of the big parties they donate to the election funds of, have successfully redirected many peoples’ anger at the situation away from themselves – those with the actual power and money who are actually causing the problem – and onto public sector employees and benefits recipients – including the unemployed and the disabled.

Every time you are told that we just have to face up to the reality that we and our grandchildren will have to pay off our current debts and suffer for the actions of the banks, you are being lied to and fed the line those banks want you to believe. Don’t believe it – and tell others the truth.

(1) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, Penguin / Allen Lane, London, 2010, ‘Thing 6’, pages 51-62 of Allen Lane hardback edition

(2) = Ha Joon Chang (2010) ‘23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism’, Penguin / Allen Lane, London, 2010, ‘Thing 6’, page 55 of Allen Lane hardback edition

(3) = BBC news 09 Feb 2011 ‘More than half of Conservative donors 'from the City'’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049 (headline is inaccurate, should read ‘donations’ not ‘donors’)

(4) = Guardian 03 Dec 2012 ‘New Bank of England head will have too much power, warns insider’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/03/bank-england-head-power-new

(5) = Steve Keen (2011) ‘Debunking Economics – Revised and Expanded Edition’, Zed Books, London and New York

Some people called Duncan Smith think they’re fit to be government ministers And that voters are all idiots who’ll believe any lie they tell ; Wrong on both counts ; And what you can do about it

Conservative Work and Pensions Minister Iain Duncan Smith has responded to a court ruling that it was illegal for his department to tell unemployed people it was compulsory for them to work unpaid for private companies or lose their unemployment benefit, when the law parliament passed only allowed for voluntary unpaid placements, by making dishonest personal attacks on one of the people who brought the case (1).

Smith says people who think they are “too good to stack shelves” are wrong and that their attitude is “unacceptable”. Cait Reilly never objected to stacking shelves though – she objected to doing it for no pay for a company that was profiting from her unpaid labour, especially as this would mean the firm would hire less paid staff (2).

She objected to the government helping big companies avoid paying the minimum wage (and in fact avoid paying one penny for the work done for “workfare” workers). (Department of Work and Pensisons guidelines for Workfare ‘Providers’ warn that offering a job at the end of a Workfare placement could breach the National Minimum Wage law. (3))

She objected to being told that if she didn’t complete the unpaid placement, she would lose her unemployment benefit.

A decent government minister wouldn’t lie to the unemployed and tell them that workfare placements were compulsory when the law passed by parliament only allowed voluntary placements. Nor would they force them to stop unpaid work they enjoyed for a museum, a public asset, for unpaid work for the profit of a company.

Duncan Smith also pretends there will be a paid job at the end of workfare. For most people there isn’t. Research on workfare in other countries commissioned by the Department of Work and Pensions in 2008 concluded that ‘There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.’ (4).

As the Boycott Workfare blog points out, the claim made by Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions that half of people who do workfare are no longer on benefits after 13 weeks, does not show half of them are getting jobs (5).

Smith’s choice of 13 weeks as the relevant time-frame is also interesting given that his department brought in a ‘sanction’ against unemployment benefit recipients for “non-compliance” (including even missing an appointment) of cutting off their benefits for 13 weeks (This is one of the most minor 'sanctions' - higher ones include no benefits for 3 years) (6).

So how many of the people who aren’t on unemployment benefit after the 13 weeks have got a paid job Mr Smith? ; and how many had their benefits cut off even though they don’t have a job yet? ; and how many of those were for being late or missing unpaid work or an appointment with a DWP official on just one day?

Figures released by Tesco last year showed only 21% of those who were put on workfare placements with them got a paid job at the end of it (300 out of the first 1,400 (7) – (8).

You can judge the general level of honesty on this subject from the government from the fact that they are fiddling the unemployment statistics by counting people on unpaid workfare placements as “employed” in “new jobs” (9).

Smith, true to form, is being utterly dishonest. He’s also a hypocrite. When he was in opposition he toured the country in teary eyed meetings with the poor, the disabled and the unemployed and charities working with them, promising them that when he got into government he would help them rather than punish them.

After less than three years in government Smith as Welfare minister has approved not only a 21^st century version of the 19^th century workhouse through unpaid “workfare” placements like Cat Reilly’s; but also letting French IT company ATOS get commissions on the number of disabled people they take benefits from on the basis of the say of doctors ATOS is employing and who often refuse to even look at their medical records or their GP’s opinion (10).

(The leadership of the Labour party actually initiated this scheme and gave ATOS this contract in 2008 in a shameful betrayal of vulnerable people and their supposedly democratic socialist ideals, though the Conservatives have made it even harsher than it was under Labour by changing the terms of the contract (11) – (12))

Smith is also rumoured to be currently trying to scrap the appeal process against ATOS rulings, because 40% of people stripped of their benefits by ATOS have had them restored on appeal to tribunals (though ATOS keeps its commission payments for removing someone from disability benefit even if their ruling is found to be wrong on appeal) (13) – (14).

Smith has also approved caps on housing benefit, along with an insane “bedroom tax” which takes away the housing benefit of anyone living in a flat or other property with more than one room in it and the government thinks one of them could be converted into a bedroom (15).

But, warm-hearted, compassionate men that they are, he and Lib Dem Treasury minister Danny Alexander have now let it be known that they will oppose any further welfare cuts (16). That’s nice of them. How about reversing all the ones you’re making? Then there might be anyone who gave a flying fuck. Currently it’s a bit like Hitler pledging not to invade any more countries now he’s done France, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria and Greece.

I know whose behaviour I think is unacceptable – and it’s not Cat Reilly’s, it’s yours Mr Smith. You would not make an acceptable local councillor never mind an acceptable government minister.

What You Can Do

Go to the Boycott Workfare website to find ways you can help end Workfare in the UK
(there will also be a week of action against Workfare on 18^th to 24^th March)

Sign this petition to keep the Disability Living Allowance instead of the ATOS contract

If you’re in Scotland, sign this petition to the Scottish government to ban the bedroom tax

Wherever you are in the UK, sign this petition to scrap the bedroom tax

Join the Peoples’ Assembly Against Austerity – a non-party group to oppose austerity and welfare and public service cuts which members of any party and of no party can join

Sources

(1) = Independent 13 Feb 2013 ‘Poundland ruling: Back-to-work schemes in disarray as no-pay placements judged unlawful’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poundland-ruling-backtowork-schemes-in-disarray-as-nopay-placements-judged-unlawful-8491398.html

(2) = Independent On Sunday 17 Feb 2013 ‘Nobody is 'too good' to work as a shelf-stacker, says Iain Duncan Smith’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nobody-is-too-good-to-work-as-a-shelfstacker-says-iain-duncan-smith-8498374.html

(3) = Department of Work and Pensions – Work Programme Provider Guidance - Chapter 3c – work experience on a voluntary basis and community benefit work placement,
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3c.pdf ; ‘Even if they are not paid by the employer, participants will qualify for the NMW (National Minimum Wage) if they are regarded as employees of the employer AND are participating in a trial period of work with that employer, in which the employer has agreed to offer a job to the participant if they successfully complete the trial, in cases where the trial is in excess of six weeks… “Employment” has a wide meaning, and participants are likely to be regarded as employees if they agree voluntarily to take up the placement with a particular employer.…The NMW is very unlikely to apply to participants mandated to participate in unpaid work experience or an unpaid community benefit work placement through the Work Programme, or to Participants who volunteer to take part in an unpaid placement of either type which is not a work trial exceeding 6 weeks.’

(4) = Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 533 ‘A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia’,
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf (see page 5 , paragraph 7)

(5) = Telegraph 21 Feb 2012 ‘Iain Duncan Smith: it's better to be a shelf stacker than a 'job snob'’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9095050/Iain-Duncan-Smith-its-better-to-be-a-shelf-stacker-than-a-job-snob.html ; 5^th paragraph, 1^st sentence, ‘The Government says half of those who join the scheme have either found work or stopped claiming benefits after 13 weeks.’

(6) = Telegraph 03 Jul 2012 ‘Lazy jobseekers to lose benefits for up to three years’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9370402/George-Osbornes-plans-to-use-billions-of-pounds-from-British-pension-funds-cash-to-pay-for-roads-fail-to-get-going.html ; 4^th sentence ‘The new sanctions regime, which come into force this Autumn. will see a claimant losing their benefit for 13 weeks for a first failure to comply with the rules.’

(7) = Guardian 10 Feb 2012 ‘Unions call on UK high street giants to halt unpaid work schemes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/10/unions-shops-unpaid-work-schemes ; ‘Tesco said that over the last four months around 1,400 people had worked for free for a month as part of work experience in its stores, and since the scheme began 300 jobseekers had gained a job with the company.’

(8) = Daily Mirror Blogs 16 Feb 2012 ‘Outrage over Tesco's £1.50 per hour "job offer"’,
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/02/post-2.html (see ‘Tesco’s Statement’ at bottom of the page on that link)

(9) = Guardian 15 Jan 2013 ‘Statistics cast doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

(10) = guardian.co.uk 31 Jul 2012 ‘Sick and disabled people are being pushed off benefits at any cost’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/disabled-people-benefits-panorama

(11) = New Statesman 23 Jan 2013 ‘The Shadow State: The "dehumanising, degrading" treatment of disabled people’, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled (see especially 2nd paragraph and 9^th paragraph)

(12) = BBC News 17 Aug 2012 ‘Watchdog finds weaknesses in benefits system’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19244639

(13) = New Statesman 23 Jan 2013 ‘The Shadow State: The "dehumanising, degrading" treatment of disabled people’, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled ; 11^th paragraph, 2^nd to 3^rd sentences ‘On average 40 per cent of challenged decisions are overturned at tribunal – one in ten of the total assessed. It has cost £60m thus far to assess the appeals. Some 1,300 people have died after being placed in the “work-related activity group” for those expected to start preparing for an eventual return - 2,200 died before the assessment process was completed.’

(14) = Channel 4 News 08 Feb 2013 ‘Disability testing system causes ‘misery and hardship’’, http://www.channel4.com/news/disability-testing-system-causes-misery-and-hardship , ‘But the public accounts committee report though, lays much of the blame at the door ot the Department for Work and Pensions. It says the DWP relies too heavily on the decisions taken by Atos assessors. And how good are those decisions? Well , according to the committee, 38 per cent of the department's decisions were overturned in appeals...In the meantime Atos Healthcare were paid more than £112m to carry out 738,000 assessments between 2011 and 2012. The PAC report adding: "It (the department) has failed to withold payment for poor performance."’

(15) = Independent on Sunday 17 Feb 2013 ‘'We won't put up with this': Residents facing brunt of 'bedroom tax' will refuse to pay’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-wont-put-up-with-this-residents-facing-brunt-of-bedroom-tax-will-refuse-to-pay-8498691.html

(16) = Guardian 15 Feb 2013 ‘Senior ministers to oppose more welfare cuts’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/ministers-oppose-more-welfare-cuts

Additional Ranting

The Conservatives’ theory is that people don’t work because they’re lazy. The reality is that even on the government’s own (fiddled) figures there are 5 people unemployed for every job vacancy available. And the real ratio is much higher because of all the fiddling of the unemployment figures. For instance people on temporary, unpaid “workfare” placements are counted as employed and in “new jobs”.

The Conservatives’ theory is that most people on disability benefit could actually work easily and are being prevented from getting jobs and getting on in life by receiving benefits and believing they can’t work (with the unspoken assumption again that there would be enough jobs for all of them even if this was true). Look at the Paralympic athletes they say, that proves that it’s all in the mind – glass half empty or glass half full perspectives. Unfortunately this is all bollocks. Many people are genuinely disabled and simply cannot work – and what’s more many of those who have become disabled worked and paid taxes for decades before becoming disabled due to illnesses or ageing.

The Conservatives’ theory is that the welfare state is creating dependency and a drain on the economy. The reality is that it is vital to a civilised society which doesn’t want to leave many of it’s people to die of hunger, cold or treatable diseases and illnesses, which is why it was created, in infancy and weak form in the late 19^th to early 20^th centuries and in it’s full form since the end of World War Two. Charities cannot do what welfare states and national health services do – we know that because there were lots of charities before there was a welfare state and they never came close to reducing poverty for the majority.

The welfare state is not a drain on the economy either. For instance unemployment benefit during recessions helps to limit a downwards spiral of falling wages and more people made unemployed, followed by people spending less money on buying goods and services (because many of them now have less), followed by firms sacking more employees and cutting pay for the rest as they can’t sell as many goods or services.

The Conservatives are trying to bring us back to the 19^th century and many of the Liberal Democrats are supporting them and basically agree with them. Worse still much of the leadership of the Labour party largely share their ideology and only differ in how quickly they want to dismantle the welfare state and privatise the NHS by the back door.

Much of the leadership of the Liberal Democrats and the Blairite wing of the Labour party seem to differ only in wanting to do this more gradually.

Obama is right to tighten gun laws in the US - but wrong to send more weapons to Syria :US stepping up arming of Syrian rebels will only intensify civil war and chaos that lets terrorists like Al Qa'ida and Sunni extremists like Al Nusrah get more recruits and operate more freely ; and makes an Islamic state or a second civil war more likely than democracy

There can’t be anyone who doesn’t feel for the parents who lost their children in the senseless events in America; and President Obama is right to propose tightening gun ownership laws. He could save many Syrian children and adults from equally avoidable deaths if his administration stopped doing the opposite in Syria. The Obama administration has been “co-ordinating” the supply of arms to rebel groups in Syria and is also covertly supplying them with arms bought in Libya since Gadaffi’s overthrow. US and British Special forces are also active in Syria and more military “advisers” are to be sent – with advisers having been a euphemism for combatants since Vietnam at the latest. (1) – (2).

NATO governments claim this helps Syrian rebels protect civilians from Assad’s forces, but in reality some on both sides are targeting civilians – and the more intense the civil war gets the more easily terrorist groups including Al Qa’ida can operate in Syria, so arming the rebels gets civilians killed just as much as Russia arming Assad’s forces does.

Human Rights Watch have reported some armed opponents of Assad are targeting and killing civilians including employees of Syrian state television (3) – (4). Channel 4 News reporter Alex Thomson recently reported multiple consistent accounts from survivors and witnesses of Sunni Jihadists, opposed to Assad, massacring Alawite civilians in the town of Aqrab (5).

Many Syrian Christian refugees have also fled attacks by Sunni Jihadists allied to the rebels (6)

Terrorist car bombings are also common, each killing between several and dozens of civilians as collateral damage by targeting government buildings and even the family homes of member of the military or Assad supporters (7) – (9). Two such rebel attacks, one with a mortar and the other with a car bomb, each killed several schoolchildren in the last month (10) – (13).

The government, with it’s artillery, tanks and jets, kills more civilians, again many deliberately and many others by not worrying about “collateral damage” deaths when using bombings by air forces, artillery and tanks, due to it’s greater firepower and equal brutality, but though thousands of civilians have been killed by government forces, the opposition figures on this are exaggerated, with fighters killed in combat reported as civilians by many opposition groups (14) – (16).

While some FSA fighters have tortured and killed captured government soldiers and militia-men, most of the car bombing atrocities and the massacres of civilians committed by anti-Assad forces are not committed by the Free Syrian Army but more extreme groups like the Syrian Al Nusrah and international Jihadists including Al Qa’ida, many Iraqis recruited after Al Qa’ida took advantage of the chaos created in Iraq (17) – (19).

The Obama administration claims it’s “co-ordination” is to ensure that only moderates get weapons, funding and arms (20). If that’s true, it’s failing. The FSA say the Jihadist groups are the ones getting the most arms and money (21).

It’s possible this is because the Saudis and Qatari dictators favour Islamists over a democracy that might embarrass them (as some Syrian exile opposition leaders suggest), but equally possible that the US government actually favours arming Sunni extremists as they will be the most uncompromising against Assad (an Alawite) and his Iranian Shia allies – the same reason they “co-ordinated” with the Saudis and Pakistanis to arm, fund and train the Mujahedin in the 80s and the Taliban in the early 90s. Al Qa’ida and Al Nusrah, like the Taliban, consider Alawites and Shia to be “false Muslims” (22) – (24).

The peaceful part of the Syrian opposition to Assad oppose foreign interference and violence which is causing civil war and sectarianism. For instance exiled Syrian opposition leader Haytham Manna of the National Co-ordination Body for Democratic Change Abroad issued Three No’s – to violence, to sectarianism and to foreign intervention (25).

According to Haytham the US backed political leadership of the FSA, the Syrian National Council, also refuse to denounce Al Nusrah and continue to work along with them in the civil war (26).

As in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan, the chaos created by foreign powers each arming their own proxies is providing an environment that terrorist and sectarian groups can thrive in. The phony threat that Assad might use WMD is also brought up. In fact as the BBC’s Defence correspondent reported, the evidence suggests Assad’s government is trying to secure WMD so there’s no risk of it being captured by terrorist groups like Al Qa’ida, as it’s done before in the past (27) – (28).

We’re given the impression that Assad has refused to make any significant democratic reforms. Despite the atrocities committed by his forces as much as the Jihadists, this is not true.

Assad changed the constitution last year to end the one party state in Syria, legalising opposition parties and held multi-party elections in which over 51% of Syrians voted (29).

That is a much more major reform – and supported by more of the population – than the fig leaves for reform, like powerless elected local councillors in Saudi, and powerless parliaments in Bahrain, Yemen and Kuwait, which the US and British governments welcome (30) – (33).

The Free Syrian Army rebels say they will get rid of the Jihadists once they’ve overthrown Assad, but if the Jihadists are the best armed and funded and trained rebel groups, how would they manage to? NATO governments will argue this is why they need to arm the FSA better – but the FSA is torturing and killing POWs – and the more the civil war intensifies the stronger the sectarian militias and Jihadist terrorist groups on both sides get.

Negotiation and opposing Assad’s regime through elections, rather than calling for it’s overthrow by force, would be a much more effective way to get real democracy in Syria, in the long run, than intensifying a civil war in which more people die each day and in which the only real winners are Al Qa’ida and their allies.

 

(1) = Washington Post 06 May 2012 ‘Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination’,  http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

(2) = Sunday Times 09 Dec 2012 ‘Covert US plan to arm rebels’,
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece ; 1^st to 3^rd , 5^th and 9^th paragraphs ‘THE United States is launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time as it ramps up military efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad. Mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles will be sent through friendly Middle Eastern countries already supplying the rebels, according to well-placed diplomatic sources. The Americans have bought some of the weapons from the stockpiles of Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan dictator killed last year. They include SA-7 missiles, which can be used to shoot down aircraft…President Barack Obama authorised clandestine CIA support earlier this year and both the US and Britain have had special forces and intelligence officers on the ground for some time…The US will send in more advisers to help with tactics and manage weapons supplies. British advisers are also expected to be sent. America and Britain are already training Jordanian and Turkish advisers to support the rebels.’

(3) = Human Rights Watch 20 Mar 2012 'Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses', http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/20/syria-armed-opposition-groups-committing-abuses ‘Armed opposition elements have carried out serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said today in a public letter to the Syrian National Council (SNC) and other leading Syrian opposition groups. Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha." as well as "executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians."’

(4) = BBC News 27 Jun 2012 ‘Gunmen 'kill seven' at Syrian pro-Assad Ikhbariya TV’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18606341

(5) = Channel 4 News 14 Dec 2012 ‘Was there a massacre in the Syrian town of Aqaba’, http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/happened-syrian-town-aqrab/3426

(6) = Independent 02 Nov 2012 ‘The plight of Syria's Christians: 'We left Homs because they were trying to kill us'’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-plight-of-syrias-christians-we-left-homs-because-they-were-trying-to-kill-us-8274710.html

(7) = Reuters 23 Dec 2011 'Analysis: Syria bombings signal deadlier phase of revolt', http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-syria-bombings-idUSTRE7BM18T20111223 , 'Beirut-based commentator Rami Khouri said he doubted the government would have hit its own security targets, suggesting that the bombings could have been the work of armed rebels, who he said include hardline Salafi Islamists in their ranks....Hilal Khashan, political science professor at the American University of Beirut, also said he did not believe that the Syrian government was behind the bombings.'

(8) = New York Times 10 May 2012 'Dozens Killed in Large Explosions in Syrian Capital', http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/world/middleeast/damascus-syria-explosions-intelligence-headquarters.html?pagewanted=all ; 'Twin suicide car bombs that targeted a notorious military intelligence compound shook the Syrian capital, Damascus, on Thursday, killing and wounding hundreds of people ...It was the largest such terrorist attack since the uprising began 14 months ago, with the Health Ministry putting the toll at 55 dead and nearly 400 wounded — civilians and soldiers. '

(9) = Guardian 26 Oct 2012 ‘Syrian car bomb breaks Eid al-Adha ceasefire’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/26/syrian-carm-bomb-breaks-ceasefire

(10) = A.P 04 Dec 2012 ‘Syria says 30 killed in mortar attack on school’,
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-30-killed-mortar-attack-school-172156089.html

(11) = AP 13 Dec 2012 ‘Syria State Media: Blast near Damascus Kills 16’,
http://world.time.com/2012/12/13/bomb-explodes-near-syrian-capital/

(12) = Al Jazeera 13 Dec 2012 ‘Dozens killed in Syria bomb attacks’,
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/2012121310920586422.html

(13) = BBC News 13 Dec 2012 ‘Syria crisis: Bombs 'kill 24' in Damascus suburbs’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20710556

(14) = Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 , http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/syria/report-2012#section-12-3

(15) = BBC News 14 Oct 2012 ‘Human Rights Watch says Syria using cluster bombs’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19942318

(16) Al Jazeera 13 Feb 2012 ‘Q&A: Nir Rosen on Syria's armed opposition’,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201221315020166516.html (13th Question and answer ‘AJ: Who is being killed? NR: Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes. Of course, those deaths still happen regularly as well.’

(17) = HRW 17 Sep 2012 ‘Syria: End Opposition Use of Torture, Executions’, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/17/syria-end-opposition-use-torture-executions

(18) = Guardian 30 Jul 2012 ‘Al-Qaida turns tide for rebels in battle for eastern Syria’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria

(19) = BBC News 02 Aug 2012 ‘Syria conflict: Jihadists' role growing’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19091400

(20) = Washington Post 16 May 2012 ‘Syrian rebels get influx of arms with gulf neighbors’ money, U.S. coordination’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_story.html

(21) = Observer 03 Nov 2012 ‘Execution of Assad troops widens split among rebel fighter factions in Syria’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/03/syria-military-council-aleppo-rebels ; paragraphs 5 to 8 , 15 to 16 and final paragraph ; ‘Syrian Islamist groups…are not able to match the better-armed and funded global jihadist units, who are increasingly taking centre stage in the war for the north of the country…"This will soon mean that Jabhat al-Nusraf (an al-Qaida-aligned group) will be the only group capable of mounting the lethal operations on bases and security headquarters," said a leader of Liwat al-Tawheed, which has been a key player in the fighting in Aleppo. "It already means that we can't win without them."…Islamist groups in Aleppo say that they aim to do no more than oust the Assad regime. Most of their clerics and leaders reject the ideology of the jihadists, who openly view the battle in Syria as a vital phase of a global sectarian war….Another Liwat al-Tawheed commander said…"Compare what we have to what al-Nusraf are getting. They are not getting weapons from outside, but they are buying them in Syria with large amounts of cash. They are very well supplied and they are not saying where they are getting the money from."

(22) = Guardian 18 Dec 2012 ‘Syria: after Assad falls, what then?’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/after-assad-falls-what-then

(23) = Steve Coll (2004) , 'Ghost Wars : The secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden' , Penguin , London , Chapters 16 to 18

(24) = Ahmed Rashid (2000) 'Taliban', Pan MacMillan, London, 2011, Chapters 10 to 12

(25) = Guardian 22 Jun 2012 ‘Syria's opposition has been led astray by violence’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/22/syria-opposition-led-astray-by-violence

(26) = Guardian 18 Dec 2012 ‘Syria: after Assad falls, what then?’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/18/after-assad-falls-what-then

(27) = Media Lens 12 Dec 2012 ‘Won't Get Fooled Again? Hyping Syria's WMD 'Threat'’,
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=712:wont-get-fooled-again-hyping-syrias-wmd-threat&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

(28) = BBC News 05 Dec 2012 ‘Fears grow for fate of Syria's chemical weapons’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18483788

(29) = BBC News 16 May 2012 ‘Syria election results show support for reforms, says Assad’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18084827  3^rd paragraph ‘The election commission said on Tuesday that turnout was 51% for the polls, which the opposition said were a farce.’ 18^th paragraph…The polls were the first held under a new constitution adopted in February, which dropped an article giving the Baath Party unique status as the "leader of the state and society" in Syria. It also allowed new parties to be formed, albeit those not based on religious, tribal, regional, denominational or professional affiliation, nor those based abroad.

(30) = City Mayors Feb 2005 ‘First local election underway in Saudi Arabia but women voters will have to wait until 2009’, http://www.citymayors.com/report/saudi_elections.html

(31) = Gulf News (UAE) 31 Mar 2008 ‘Frustrated council members prepared to quit’, http://archive.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi_arabia/10201694.html

(32) = BBC News 23 Nov 2012 ‘Bahrain reconciliation distant amid slow reform pace’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20449587

(33) = See the blog post on this link and sources 25 to 30 at the bottom of it on the lack of democracy and powerlessness of parliament in Kuwait