Iraq may be a ‘Land of Opportunity’ for some, but of death, violence and hunger for many others

Baghdad in Iraq - a land of opportunity? and if so, for who?

John Rentoul has risen to new heights of absurdity in his attempts to present the Iraq war as a success, by using a comment article in The Times newspaper by Jeffrey Archer as a source for a claim that Iraq is now a wonderful place to live with a vibrant economy. Archer was found guilty of perjury (i.e lying to a court) and of obstructing the course of justice – and jailed for it, while Blair got off with lying to an entire country by being Prime Minister (1) – (2).

Rentoul’s blog post has the heading “Iraq – Land of Opportunity” while Archer’s comment article is headed “wake up you Brits, make a fortune in Iraq’ and claims that Baghdad is now “a boom town, not a bomb site” on the basis that there are now “few suicide bombings” , although he admits “the most recent exploded the day after I left”.

One commenter on Rentoul’s blog quipped “don’t tell me, it goes boom, boom, boom”.

Sectarian killings and terrorism continue in Iraq and Afghanistan

Iraqis help a survivor of a bombing in June this year - bombings and sectarian killings have continued this month (photo taken by Nabil Al-jurani of AP)

Unfortunately that joke isn’t too far from the truth. The number of sectarian killings, car bombings and suicide bombings have certainly fallen compared to say 2005 or 2006, but they continue and remain much worse than they were in the 90s or 2001-2002 – and so a long, long way from a vindication of the decision to invade Iraq.

Members of the Awakening militias, who were persuaded to fight for the government when the American government was supplying their wages, have begun to be recruited to fight for Al Qa’ida, which is now offering higher wages, something made easier by the US government ending funding of the militias’ wages last year (3) – (4).

The US and EU governments have either been blinded to the connection between unemployment and poverty and sectarian killings, due to their adherence to the theory that the free market creates democracy – or else have failed to care about the connection.

In Iraq and Afghanistan (as in the former Yugoslavia crime in the 1990s) crime is now the only employment that offers the chance to make enough to feed families for large numbers of people. Sectarianism provides a justification for this war economy. If Sunnis and Shia are painted as enemies who threaten each other then a Sunni killing a shia and taking his money can claim to be defending his own people rather than committing a crime against another Iraqi. Similarly one community can drive another out of their homes and take them for themselves and call it ‘self-defence’ or warfare; or Shia kidnappers can take a Sunni hostage, get a ransom and then kill them anyway to eliminate the risk of being identified, trying to justify it in terms of sectarian warfare (5) – (6).

The murder of Christian aid workers in Afghanistan, which some Taliban claimed responsibility for, while others denounced it, is another example of religion, ethnicity and ideology being used to justify theft and murder in a country where surviving any other way has become impossible for many of it’s people. The murderers were almost certainly ‘thieves’ as the Afghan police say they are, while also seeing themselves as Taliban, even if many Taliban leaders disown them. The theory that the aid workers were trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is the excuse the bandits need to claim to be defending their people rather than just murdering defenceless people. Similar things happened with splinter groups from Al Sadr’s Madhi army in Iraq (7).

Money to be made for some, but still less food for many

Iraqis prepare rice. Food rations have been cut in half repeatedly even compared to those provided under Saddam and sanctions and are now around one eighth of those provided before the invasion. Over $8 billion of Iraqi money released by the UN to the US led Coalition remains unaccounted for while many Iraqis go hungry on insufficient rations ( Photo Saba Arar of UNICEF)

Lord Archer is probably right that there’s plenty of money to be made in Iraq too. That doesn’t mean the majority of Iraqis are benefiting though. There was plenty to be made for foreign companies, businessmen and contractors even at the height of the insurgency and occupation, both from Iraqi oil revenues and from the Coalition Provisional Authority’s generosity with Iraqi money.

Under Bush’s ‘Governor of Iraq’ Paul Bremer, described by UN envoy to Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi as “the new dictator of Iraq” over $8 billion of Iraqi money was handed out to various private contractors working for the “Coalition Provisional Authority”. Much of it has never been accounted for (8) – (13).

When challenged about it by congress Bremer simply replied that it was Iraqi money, not American taxpayers’ money (the clear implication being that he could get off with handing it out to whoever he liked as the US congress couldn’t hold him to account for it – and with 50,000 US troops remaining in Iraq until December 2011 the Iraqi government can't either) (9).

A recent report  ‘by the US Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction says $8.7bn (£5.6bn) out of $9.1bn withdrawn between 2004 and 2007 from a special account set up by the UN Security Council is unaccounted for.’ (13).

This was money from the UN’s Oil for Food programme for Iraq. Bremer shouldn’t have been distributing a penny of it without the approval of a new Iraqi government.

Many Americans may be unaware of this aspect of fraud relating to the programme, as their media mostly focused on millions of dollars allegedly pocketed by some UN Officials rather than the billions vanished by Bremer’s CPA.

As far as can be determined none of the money Bremer disappeared went to Iraqis for food.

Meanwhile more Iraqis remain shorter of food, clean water, sewerage and electricity than under Saddam and sanctions.

In Iraq IMF policies imposed as conditions for debt reduction have included cuts in food price subsidies and provision of food rations to the poorest. By autumn 2007 more people relied on government rations for food than under Saddam and UN sanctions – and the amount and types of food provided to each person were reduced compared to the 1990s (14) – (15). Hundreds of people in Baghdad were scavenging in bins for food (16). Yet in December 2007 the Iraqi government cut food rations again on the stated grounds that the budget (much larger than under Saddam and sanctions in the 90s) couldn’t pay for them (17).

In theory the rations were to be replaced by cash payments of social security – but with rocketing food prices and Iraqi and US government corruption this has never been implemented and would be unlikely to allow Iraqis to afford enough food to eat (18) – (19).

In April 2010 the Iraqi government cut the range of foodstuffs in the rations by half again, citing food price rises and budgetary problems (again) as the cause (20).

Many refugees inside Iraq – ‘internally displaced people’ forced out of their homes by coalition offensives and sectarian killings by other Iraqis – can’t get food rations at all as they are no longer at the address they were listed at for rations but in tents elsewhere (21) – (22).

The number of Iraqis unable to afford enough food is still on the increase and around a fifth of Iraqis are unemployed and the same proportion live below the poverty line (23).

Halliburton and it’s subsidiaries also made big profits by over-charging the US military in Iraq for oil and food among other things, in many cases in no-bid contracts (24) – (25). In this case the money was being stolen from American taxpayers, rather than Iraqis – but when it came to money for shoring up the levees in New Orleans to prevent the flooding or to helping the survivors after hurricane Katrina, private mercenary companies like Blackwater once again got far more money than people who were really in need.

Using WMD on Iraqis to prevent Saddam using them on them

A girl born in Fallujah with no left hand. Birth defects in the city have rocketed since the Coalition assaults in 2004 which used white phosphorus and depleted uranium shells

The theory that the invasion was protecting Iraqis from Saddam using chemical weapons on them, as he did against the Kurds in the 80s, has also been revealed as empty propaganda. When Saddam was gassing the Kurds the US and British governments were funding and arming him. Twenty years later they claimed they were going to prevent Saddam ever using WMD on his own people again. Unfortunately Coalition forces during the occupation used both cluster bombs (which kill as many civilians as land mines) and chemical weapons such as  white phosphorus and depleted uranium shells in the middle of towns and cities. In Fallujah, which suffered major coalition offensives on it in April and November 2004, there are now extremely high levels of cancers and birth defects among children; though clusters of leukaemia and birth defects were already high in many areas since DU was used extensively by coalition forces in the 1991 war (26) – (28).

Blair’s self-deluding propaganda from Iraq to Iran

I posted a shorter version of this post as a comment on Rentoul’s blog, but he moderated it out of existence (though it’s possible this could have been due to fears of legal action from Lord Archer). It seems that reality is still not merely a foreign country but an alien planet or universe for those who have blind faith in the Iraq war and Saint Anthony.

If Blair and his supporters were willing to apologise for peddling deliberate distortions of intelligence analyses to start a war that was bound to kill far more people than it could possibly save – and if they weren’t pushing for another war, that might be old news.

Unfortunately since Blair left office he has continued to call for “action” to avert the “threat” from Iran ,for instance in speeches in the US and at his appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry. 

Blair and his propaganda remain far from the truth and potentially dangerous. I genuinely believe that Blair genuinely believes what he says, but that doesn’t make it the truth. In fact Blair has probably bought his own propaganda line because it’s preferable to the truth, which is that he created a disaster which is still killing people.

So there’s no option but to keep on repeating the facts about the continuing disaster in Iraq in the hope that it’ll stop it being repeated in Iran.

(1) = Eagle Eye 26 July 2010 ‘Iraq, land of opportunity’,http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/07/26/iraq-land-of-opportunity/

(2) = Times 26 July 2010 ‘Wake up, you Brits. Make a fortune in Iraq’,http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2658957.ece

(3) = guardian.co.uk 10 Aug 2010 ‘Fears of al–Qaida return in Iraq as US–backed fighters defect’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/al-qaida-sons-of-iraq

(4) = Guardian 02 Apr 2009 ‘Iraq disbands Sunni militia that helped defeat insurgents’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/iraq-sunni-militia-disbanded

(5) = Guardian 27 Jan 2007 ‘'If they pay we kill them anyway' - the kidnapper's story’,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/27/iraq-middleeast

(6) = Kaldor, Mary (1999) ‘New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era’, Polity Press, 1999

(7) = Observer 08 Aug 2010 ‘British surgeon among 10 medics executed in Afghanistan’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/british-surgeon-karen-woo-afghanistan

(8) = Guardian 03 Jun 2004 ‘How honest broker was defeated - and with him hopes of credibility’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/03/iraq.jonathansteele

(9) = CNN 31 Jan 2005‘Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds’, http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

(10) = Guardian 07 July 2005 ‘So, Mr Bremer, where did all the money go?’http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11

(11) = ABC News 06 Feb 2007‘Waste in War: Where Did All the Iraq Reconstruction Money Go? : Congressional inquiry probes former Bush official's handling of billions ofdollars, http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2852426&page=1

(12) = Guardian 08 Feb 2007 ‘How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish’http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

(13) = Independent 28 Jul 2010 ‘US unable to account for billions of Iraq oil money’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-unable-to-account-for-billions-of-iraq-oil-money-2036925.html

(14) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 02 Apr 2006, ‘IRAQ: Food prices rise after reduction of monthly rations’, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26250

(15)= UNOCHA IRIN news service 9 Sep 2007, ‘IRAQ: Food rationing system failing as Ramadan approaches’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=74196  

(16) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 17 Oct 2007, ‘IRAQ: Hundreds forced to scavenge for food in garbage bins’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=74829

(17) = UNOCHA IRIN news service 4 Dec 2007, ‘IRAQ: Government to cut items from its free food handouts’, http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=75677

(18) = Allawi, Ali A. ‘The occupation of Iraq’ Yale UP, New Haven & London, 2007 (paperback edn) p 375-376, 430-431

(19) = IPS/ Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail 03 May 2008, ‘Corruption Eats Into Food Rations’,http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000795.php#more

(20) = UNoCHA IRIN news 01 Apr 2010 ‘IRAQ: State food aid package slashed’,http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88646

(21) = Allawi, Ali A. ‘The occupation of Iraq’ Yale UP, New Haven & London, 2007 (paperback edn) Ch20 , p348-369 & 427

(22) = Refugees International 04 Oct 2007, ‘Iraq: Fix the Public Distribution System to meet needs of the displaced’,  http://refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9971/

(23) = UNoCHA’s IRIN news 08 Nov 2009 ‘IRAQ: Food insecurity on the rise, says official’,http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=86926

(24) = BBC News 13 Dec 2003 ‘Bush warns 'oil overcharge' firm’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3312015.stm

(25) = Halliburton Watch 14 Mar 2005 ‘Auditors find another $108 million in Halliburton overcharges’, http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/108million_overcharge.html - provides links to Pentagon audit of the contracts involved and the executive summary of it - http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/108million_overcharge.html

(26) = guardian.co.uk 13 Nov 2009 ‘Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects

(27) = Observer 14 Dec 2003 ‘Army shells pose cancer risk in Iraq’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/14/iraq.military

(28) = BBC News 16 Nov 2005 ‘US used white phosphorus in Iraq’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4440664.stm

The problem with nation building in Afghanistan

NATO governments have tried to persuade themselves and us that their “mission” in Afghanistan is a benevolent project of “Nation Building” in which they prevent terrorists having a safe base and provide Afghans with “security” and protection against a new Taliban government. Neo-conservatives have also compared the invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq to the overthrow of the Nazis and of the militaristic regime in Japan, both of which were replaced with democracies.

The trouble is that the post World-War Two occupations of Japan and Germany were not nation building at all, because Japan and Germany had both been single states for decades with people who all saw themselves as German (for decades) and Japanese (for centuries). So the nations involved had actually been built long before World War Two even began, in some very bloody wars. There is no existing nation which most Afghans identify with as the group they primarily belong to.

Most Afghans do not see themselves as Afghan first, nor even Pashtun, Hazara, or Tajik. They identify with their own tribe in it’s own valley. This may well not be a sign of backwardness either, but a sign that the central government has never done much for people outside the main cities other than make war on them to try to get them to submit – and send police and soldiers many of whom abuse their power by stealing and worse.

US intelligence analysts say that the main enemy in Afghanistan is not the Taliban. The majority of people NATO forces are fighting are not motivated by religious fundamentalism, but are just local Afghans resisting the invasion of their territory by troops from elsewhere according to  these intelligence reports (1).

Recently leaked NATO documents include a revealing interview by NATO officers of a former Taliban fighter, who told them they he had been timber merchants who had first joined the Taliban after being held without trial or explanation by NATO forces. He also said a senior Taliban commander first joined after NATO destroyed his house (2).

Matthew Hoh, a former US marine who served in Iraq as a Captain and also worked as a civilian contractor for the Pentagon in Iraq and in the US embassy in Afghanistan during the current war there, says he initially believed it wasn’t Jihadim but nationalism that motivated most of those fighting the US in Afghanistan. He says he later realised it wasn’t nationalism, but what he calls “valley-ism”. He found that in most of Afghanistan people see themselves as part of the people living in the valley they live in, not any larger group or country. So the problem went beyond sending foreigners into Afghanistan or Hazara or Tajik Afghan troops into Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. Any armed force not from the same valley is seen as an outside invasion which must be resisted according to tribal codes, just as Iraqis resisted invasion of Iraq as their country and just as Americans would resist any invasion of their country by foreign forces (3) – (4).

Other driving forces behind people joining those fighting NATO and Afghan government forces include killings of civilians by those forces. For instance a report by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found a strong link between civilian casualties caused by NATO forces in Afghanistan and the number of insurgent attacks on NATO forces in the areas where the casualties had been caused in the six weeks after them (5) – (6).

 (For more on civilian deaths caused by NATO forces (including US led Afghan militias and death squads on the El Salvador model) and by the Taliban in Afghanistan click here)

This shows that in Afghanistan as in other countries in the past actual nation building is not just a process of democratisation or rebuilding economy, state and society, like that in Germany, Japan or even Iraq. It has not been everyone coming together as equals as in Rosseau’s imagined “social contract”.

In every country it has been a process in which one group forces others to submit to them by force in bloody and oppressive campaigns of war and massacre, as English Kings, Queens and soldiers did in Scotland, Wales and Ireland over centuries to form the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain’ and French kings did in the Albigensian Crusade in southern France and in campaigns of subjugation in Flanders, Brittany, Aquitaine, Brabant, Burgundy; as well as against the Hugenot Protestant rebels.

The same happened in Germany, which was only unified by a series of wars and getting small principalities so indebted to Prussia that it could buy them over under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in the 19^th century.

In Japan there were centuries of bloody warfare over who would be ‘Shogun’ of the whole of Japan (after the previous inhabitants, the ‘Ainu’ had been largely wiped out).

The same happened in the US as European colonists attacked and massacred Indian tribes across America – and then Northern forces did much the same to Southerners in the American Civil War (which, despite being dressed up as being about “liberation” for black slaves in the South was accompanied by lynchings of black people in Northern cities when it was announced black soldiers would be recruited, segregation of military units by race and continuing lynchings and ‘Jim Crow’ segregation laws in North and South long after the war was over.

After this process is over then the state indoctrinates generations of children from birth to think of themselves as all “British” or “American” or “Iraqi” and to think of their country as uniquely tolerant, progressive, benevolent and good. This indoctrination is generally quite successful.

I am not arguing that other nationalisms which call for separation from the then established state are necessarily more progressive or less brutal – the wars in the former Yugoslavia showed that every nationalism involved was harmful.

I am pointing out that actual nation building in every country in history has not been a benevolent process in which the majority were peacefully persuaded to become part of the state, but one of oppression and force in which those with more power and wealth imposed their will on others to gain even more power and wealth. There have often been some in the countries being absorbed by force who were in favour of the union – but usually just as many opposed to it and whose acquiescence was only gained by being attacked, fought, having many of their civilians massacred and their lands and property taken.

It would be nice to think that the war in Afghanistan was a unique case, but it’s not. The Karzai government and its police and military are as corrupt and brutal as all the other factions in Afghanistan.

Helping impose a strong central government’s authority across Afghanistan, if continued, will continue to be a process of creating new enemies by invading the territories of local tribes with forces from other tribes, other identity groups (Hazaras, Tajiks and others invading lands populated by Pashtuns) and foreigners invading Afghanistan and killing people who resist the invasion. It will continue to involve accidental killings and deliberate massacre of civilians, jail without trial on mere suspicion and torture, creating new enemies or “insurgents” in a process that could go on for decades.

We can try and persuade ourselves this is a benevolent process on the grounds that our government and military are surely basically good (when in fact they’re no better or worse than most others) ; and on the grounds that we are giving them the unity and peace we have (forgetting that centuries of war, oppression and massacre actually created unity by force – with the apparently “natural” unity which came after it only being achieved by a subtle life-long process of indoctrination over generations).

By invading the lands of Afghan tribes and killing them if they try to resist the invasion we are not promoting democracy, but it’s opposite. Once a relationship between government and people based on the people obeying or being killed is established it will take decades or centuries to reverse and democratise.

Democracy as a system of government only survives as long as people believe in it. That means it can only be promoted by persuasion and example. As soon as you try to force people to obey a central government who don’t recognise it as being their government at all – and do so by killing any who resist – you de-legitimise democracy and make it seem like hypocrisy. This will not make Afghans more moderate in their religion or nationalism any more than September 11^th made most Americans more moderate in their views on foreign policy. In both cases it makes the majority more extreme, because  they are suffering extreme pain, mourning, anger and the desire for revenge.

If Afghans in the outlying regions of Afghanistan are to be persuaded to accept the authority of a central government then they should be persuaded by that government aiding them with infrastructure projects – clean water supplies, electricity, healthcare, education etc. Sending troops in instead not only won’t work, it’s backfired spectacularly.

Militarising aid and reconstruction projects has similarly back-fired according to many charities operating in Afghanistan, resulting in the Taliban and other insurgents seeing them as part of the occupying forces rather than as people bringing assistance with no strings attached. Despite much propaganda by certain governments most aid agencies said they had no problem in operating in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

It can’t be denied that most Afghans do not want the Taliban back in power in Kabul – and that Pakistan’s military and military intelligence have continued backing the Taliban so they can exclude Indian influence from Afghanistan and have “strategic depth” for guerrilla campaigns if India invades Pakistan.

That is unlikely to change once NATO forces leave Afghanistan. Pakistan’s military will try to get a Taliban government back in Kabul, as they did using military aid and tacit support from the US government in the 90s, also aided by Saudi money.

Our governments could however end all military aid and arms sales to Pakistan so that it can’t continue to pass these on to Taliban forces in Afghanistan, reducing Pakistan’s ability to fund the Taliban and forcing the Taliban to negotiate a coalition government deal with other Afghan factions – and they could increase funding for civilian infrastructure and aid projects in Afghanistan as a viable way for the Afghan central government to gain the support of people across Afghanistan. That could achieve what no “nation building” war ever will at a fraction of the cost in money and lives.

(1) = Boston Globe 09 October 2009 ‘Taliban not main Afghan enemy - Few militants driven by religion, reports say’,http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2009/10/09/most_insurgents_in_afghanistan_not_religiously_motivated_military_reports_say/

(2) = Times 28 Jul 2010 ‘‘He said they were scared of the Taleban leaders’ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2662453.ece?lightbox=false

(3) = Washington Post 27 Oct 2009 ‘U.S. official resigns over Afghan war’,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html

(4) = Matthew Hoh’s resignation letter,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

(5) = NBER Working Paper No. 16152 Issued in July 2010 , Luke N. Condra, Joseph H. Felter, Radha K. Iyengar, Jacob N. Shapiro (2010) ‘The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq’,http://www.nber.org/papers/w16152

(6) = BBC News 24 July 2010 ‘US military curbs 'reduce' Afghan attacks in some areas’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10746832

Killings of civilians by NATO forces in airstrikes , night raids and by El Salvador style native death squads in Afghanistan

A report by the US National Bureau of Economic Research found a strong link between civilian casualties caused by NATO forces in Afghanistan and the number of insurgent attacks on NATO forces in the areas where the casualties had been caused in the six weeks after them (1) – (2). Clearly revenge for civilian deaths caused by NATO forces is one of the main motives for those fighting them. (for more on civilian deaths, torture and detention without trial as motives for those fighting NATO forces

On NATO and ISAF figures NATO forces have killed a lower proportion of those civilians killed than Taliban forces have, though NATO’s own figures can’t be taken as particularly neutral or unbiased. Investigations by Human Rights Watch, the Afghan government and others have found that US military investigations of incidents in which US forces have killed civilians in Afghanistan have repeatedly been “seriously flawed” and deliberately hidden the true numbers of civilian deaths. The US military reports on the Azizabad airstrikes in 2008 and on the Farah airstrikes in May 2009 were equally farcical distortions of the truth, despite the latter having taken place under Obama’s new strategy. Kunduz in September 2009 was the first instance of NATO admitting to causing civilian deaths in a major incident – though this may have been because German forces were responsible, allowing McChrystal to admit it without upsetting his own troops or US public opinion – and as airst  Recent leaks revealing civilian casualty incidents covered up by NATO forces underline this.

Experts also point out that all figures on civilian deaths, even those compiled by the UN, the Afghan government and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (which is actually appointed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai) are likely to be far lower than the true figure due to these bodies lacking enough resources and people to investigate all civilian casualties across such a large and mountainous country, coupled with the dangers of kidnappings or becoming collateral damage (caused by both sides) making reporting in many areas almost impossible (3) - (4).

Civilian deaths caused by NATO forces fell under McChrystal (on NATO figures) as a proportion of total civilian deaths, though the total number of civilian deaths has continued to rise for most of his period as supreme NATO commander for Afghanistan.

General Petraeus, replacing McChrystal a few weeks ago, has also said he will review rules of engagement brought in by McChrystal which had required troops to definitely identify any target before firing on them. These rules are unpopular with the troops who see them as “too restrictive”, but the NBER report suggests they saved not only civilian lives but also those of NATO soldiers by reducing revenge attacks on them (5).

It’s also worth noting that McChrystal and Petraeus strategy has involved a focus on “counter-insurgency” using Afghan forces led by American “advisers”, with the “trigger pullers” being Afghan. This suggests falls in statistics civilian casualties attributed to NATO forces may have been achieved by assigning many US-led night raid squads of Afghans as being carried out by “unknown” or “Afghan government” forces rather than NATO ones (6) – (17).

This echoes the methods used in Iraq where native “special police commandoes” and other “counter-insurgency” units were trained by some of the same people who trained the notorious US-trained death and torture squads in El Salvador. Many Iraqis say members of their families have been tortured, summarily shot without explanation, or “disappeared” just as Salvadorans were by these US trained forces (18) – (19). Iraqis, like Afghans, will probably continue to suffer at the hands of these “counter terrorist” units given the 50,000 US troops that will be staying in Iraq as “advisers” despite the US “withdrawal”.

Another motive for Afghans joining the insurgency is that they or their relatives, friends or neighbours have been tortured or held without trial or explanation by NATO or Afghan government forces. For instance an excerpt from the recently leaked NATO documents on Afghanistan published in the Times newspaper discusses an Afghan who wanted to defect from Taleban forces to government ones. When asked why he had joined the Taleban in the first place he replied that he had been a timber merchant and had been stopped at a NATO checkpoint and then held without explanation for 7 days. He added that one senior Taleban commander had first joined the Taleban after his house was destroyed by “coalition forces” (presumably meaning ISAF/NATO and Afghan government forces) (20).

(1) = NBER Working Paper No. 16152 Issued in July 2010 , Luke N. Condra, Joseph H. Felter, Radha K. Iyengar, Jacob N. Shapiro (2010) ‘The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq’,

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16152

(2) = BBC News 24 July 2010 ‘US military curbs 'reduce' Afghan attacks in some areas’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10746832

(3) = The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor of the Simon Fraser University in Australia, ‘Civilian Casualties’, http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/civilian.html

(4) = Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Commissioners, Dr. Sima Samar, http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/Eng_pages/Commissioners/Dr_samar.htm

(5) = BBC News 04 July 2010 ‘US Gen Petraeus urges unity to tackle Afghanistan war’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10497749 ‘Gen Petraeus has also pledged to look at the application of the current rules of engagement. These are designed to reduce civilian casualties but some US troops believe they put them at too great a risk’ (last two sentences before bolded sub-heading ‘Welcome Aboard’)

(6) = Observer 28 Feb 2010 ‘Nato draws up payout tariffs for Afghan civilian deaths’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/28/coalition-payouts-afghan-civilian-casualties

(7) = Open Society Institute ‘Strangers at the Door – Night raids by international forces lose hearts and minds in Afghanistan’, http://www.soros.org/initiatives/cep/articles_publications/publications/afghan-night-raids-20100222/a-afghan-night-raids-20100222.pdf

(8) = Times 31 Dec 2009 ‘Western troops accused of executing 10 Afghan civilians, including children’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article6971638.ece

(9) = AP 21 Jan 2010 ‘AP Exclusive: US to Tighten Rules on Afghan Raids’, http://abcnews.go.com/International/wirestory?id=9620447&page=1

(10) = Times 25 Feb 2010 ‘Assault force killed family by mistake in raid, claims Afghan father’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7040216.ece

(11) = Times 26 Feb 2010 ‘Hunt down the spy behind deaths of our children, say Afghan night raid survivors’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7041941.ece

(12) = AP 05 Mar 2010 ‘NATO details Afghan night raid policy’, http://www.sfexaminer.com/world/nato-troops-must-bring-afghan-troops-with-them-on-night-raids-a-new-directive-says-86553107.html

(13) = Times 08 Mar 2010 ‘Karzai offers families ‘blood money’ for sons killed in raid’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7052982.ece

(14) = Times 13 Mar 2010 ‘Nato ‘covered up’ botched night raid in Afghanistan that killed five’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7060395.ece

(15) = Times 14 Mar 2010 ‘Afghan family killed as special forces defy night raid ban’, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7061069.ece

(16) = Scotsman 17 Mar 2010 ‘Nato special forces 'reined in' after spate of civilian deaths’, http://news.scotsman.com/afghanistan/Nato-special-forces-39reined-in39.6157285.jp

(17) = Guardian 22 Nov 2009 ‘US pours millions into anti-Taliban militias in Afghanistan’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/us-anti-taliban-militias-afghanistan

(18) = New York Times magazines 01 May 2005 ‘The Way of the Commandos’,http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?_r=1

(19) The Nation 22 June 2009 ‘Iraq's New Death Squad’,http://www.thenation.com/article/iraqs-new-death-squad

(20)= Times 28 Jul 2010 ‘‘He said they were scared of the Taleban leaders’http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2662453.ece?lightbox=false

Join the police and get away with murder

Ian Tomlinson lies dead or dying after being hit with a baton and then knocked to the ground by policeman Simon Harwood. As in the Jean Charles De Menezes case the Crown Prosecution Service refused to bring any charges.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, claims there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution against Police Officer Simon Harwood for the death of Ian Tomlinson succeeding despite video evidence and many eyewitnesses (1) – (3). Two reputable pathologists also say Tomlinson died of internal bleeding caused by “blunt force trauma”. They say the likely cause is the baton attack on Tomlinson by Harwood and/or him pushing Tomlinson over onto the pavement (4) - (5).

Liver disease caused by Ian Tomlinson's alcoholism made him more vulnerable to these kind of injuries according to the pathologists. It's also unlikly Harwood was deliberately trying to kill Tomlinson, but his actions were clearly assault - and since they also caused Tomlinson's death - manslaughter

Mr Starmer claimed the lack of a prospect of a successful prosecution was due to the “fundamental disagreement between the experts about the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death”, as if the word of Dr. Patel, who is facing multiple disciplinary hearings from the General Medical Council over his conduct of previous pathological reports – and is banned from carrying out further ones for the Home Office, is testimony as reliable as that from two other pathologists, neither of whom are facing any charges (5).

The delay of over 6 months by the DPP in coming to a decision on whether to bring charges against the policeman involved is very convenient for that officer as it means no assault charge can be brought against him (6).

The Crown Prosecution Service’s website claims that “The CPS exists to ensure that wrongdoers are brought to justice, victims of crime are supported and that people feel safer in their communities.” (7)

After going out of their way to prevent anyone being brought to justice for the killings of Jean Charles De Menezes or Ian Tomlinson, perhaps they should add the qualification “unless those responsible are police officers, in which case we’re here to make sure they get off with it”.

They might as well put up recruitment signs saying “Join the police and get away with assault, GBH, mansalughter, maybe even murder!”.

Those newspapers which reported false police claims that officers had tried to help Tomlinson while being pelted with bottles and bricks by protesters should be made to correct those false claims with headlines just as prominent (8). Multiple eye-witnesses say Tomlinson was helped by protesters who phoned an ambulance while police ordered them to “move on”. They also said the only bottles thrown were plastic ones, by people in the centre of the crowd who didn’t know what was going on – and stopped when they were told (9).

In China a woman was beaten for 15 minutes by police officers for trying to petition a Communist Party Official about a problem. The beating stopped when police realised she wasn’t a petitioner but the wife of the official, which, apparently, is the only reason it’s news, as it’s common to assign police to beat up petitioners to discourage them from complaining to officials (10). So much for free market reform bringing democracy to China. So far, at least, it’s clearly not working.

In the US something similar happened to a black man suspected of being on drugs when he refused to change into a medical gown in a hospital. Hospital security guards began beating and tasering  him until they found out he was the nephew of Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clarence (11).

It seems that wherever you go in the world, democracy, dictatorship or one party state, police can break the law by beating people for little or nothing, even commit manslaughter or murder, and get off with it. That doesn’t seem that democratic.

(1) = CPS ‘The death of Ian Tomlinson - decision on prosecution’, http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/ , (for summary see BBC News 22 July 2010 ‘G20: No charges over Ian Tomlinson demo death’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274 )

(2) = Guardian 07 Apr 2009 ‘Ian Tomlinson death: Guardian video reveals police attack on man who died at G20 protest’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-video

(3) = Guardian 08 April 2009 ‘Ian Tomlinson death: G20 witnesses tell of dogs, batons and an attack by police’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses

(4) =  BBC News 22 July 2010 ‘G20: No charges over Ian Tomlinson demo death’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274 - see sub-section headed ‘Analysis’ half-way down the page and to the right of the main report, which says ‘In the case of Mr Tomlinson, two pathologists - one instructed by the police and the other by his family - agreed that he died partly from internal bleeding caused by "blunt-force trauma".But the first examination was carried out by Dr Freddy Patel, a Home Office pathologist, who says Mr Tomlinson died of a heart attack. ‘

(5) = BBC News 22 July 2010 ‘Tomlinson pathologist facing GMC’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10729545

(6) = BBC News 22 July 2010 ‘G20: No charges over Ian Tomlinson demo death’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274 ‘Jenny Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, said......."If everybody had moved a bit faster wemight have actually been in the time-frame for an assault charge to be brought," ‘

(7) = Crown Prosecution Service ‘Your CPS’, http://www.cps.gov.uk/yourcps.html

(8) = e.g Evening Standard 02 Apr 2009 ‘Police pelted with bricks as they help dying man’, http://www.chickyog.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/esp67-02042009.pdf

(9) = Guardian 08 April 2009 ‘Ian Tomlinson death: G20 witnesses tell of dogs, batons and an attack by police’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses

(10) = Guardian 22 July 2010 ‘Chinese police beat official's wife by mistake’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/22/china-police-beat-wife-official

(11) = ABC News 09 July 2010 ‘Judge Clarence Thomas' Nephew Derek Tasered by Hospital Staff, Family Says’, http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/07/judge-clarence-thomas-nephew-derek-tasered-by-hospital-staff-family-says.html

The Other Nine (Thousand) Oil Spills – BP and the Gulf Spill and Exxon, Chevron and Shell in Nigeria

Women in the Niger Delta beside an oil spill in 2009, which began in 2004 (source - Kadir van Lohuizen/NOOR via an Amnesty International report on oil pollution in the Niger Delta = (1))

Americans have suffered from the BP spill – but only a fraction of what Nigerians have suffered for decades – and continue to suffer today. The problem isn’t one bad company – BP is no worse than any other oil firm - the problem is that big firms have been allowed to buy influence with governments leading to poor regulation; coupled with experimental drilling at depths never attempted before in order to try to maintain an oil based society and economy. Unless all governments regulate all oil companies better, this is going to happen over and over again.

BP certainly bear responsibility for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and for using toxic chemical dispersants even worse than the slick itself.

However the idea that BP is a uniquely bad oil company, while American oil companies are more responsible, is nonsense.

Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and other oil companies based everywhere from the US to France, Italy and the UK have created thousands of oil spills both on and offshore in the Niger Delta in Nigeria for decades – and right up to present.

There have been 2,400 oil spills in the Niger Delta in the last 4 years, many involving Exxon-Mobil. Between 1970 and 2000 the Nigerian government’s figure was 7,000 oil spills, with more independent analysts putting the figure higher, at around 300 every year. The amount spilled by 2006 was estimated at at least 1.5 million tonnes (2) – (4).

When people there who are drinking polluted water and who can’t catch fish or birds to survive because the delta and marshes they live in are polluted by oil spills complain their government doesn’t fine the oil companies and demand they do something about it, as it has in the US (5).

Instead any opposition or complaint from the locals has resulted in oil companies calling in the Nigerian military who have been killing their opponents – peaceful or armed - for decades, often partly paid by and equipped by the oil companies – and transported on helicopters provided by the oil companies. This has resulted in armed rebellions, hijackings of oil rigs and kidnapping of oil company staff, both by rebels and by armed gangs.

Some oil companies, including Shell and Chevron, have even supplied the Nigerian military and police with weapons and helicopters with which to kill their opponents – whether armed rebels or peaceful campaigners like Ken Saro Wiwa, notoriously executed by the Nigerian government for campaigning against pollution, with Shell lawyers refusing to call for clemency when the decision was being made (6).

Ken Saro-Wiwa, a peaceful campaigner for the Ogoni people against oil pollution by Shell, was executed by the Nigerian military - Shell lawyers refused to ask for clemency

The only way many of the people of the, now grossly polluted, Niger Delta can survive is to cut into oil pipelines and drain off oil for sale or barter, or else join armed gangs extorting money for kidnapped hostages. They often die in explosions in the process. On 18th October 1999 300 people burned alive near the town of Jesse , due to such an explosion and the spread of fires to nearby villages. This was one of the largest death tolls, but not unusual.

Gas flaring in the Niger Delta - source - Chidi Anyaeche - Nigeria Village Square

The Ogoni , Ijaw and other peoples of the Niger Delta have had their agricultural land made infertile and their fishing grounds destroyed by pollution from oil pipelines for decades. They have been forced out of their villages by threats and attacks by the Nigerian military to make way for these pipelines. These attacks are routinely described by the Nigerian military as ‘inter-tribal disputes’ (7) - (8).  Hundreds of them “disappear”every year after military and police raids.

On May 25th 1998 one-hundred and twenty one student activists from 42 delta communities carried out a peaceful occupation of an offshore Chevron oil facility in protest against environmental destruction. They were promised a meeting with a Chevron officials at the end of May to discuss their grievances. On May 28th Chevron helicopters ferried Nigerian soldiers to the platform. These soldiers proceeded to gun down two activists, wounded others and removed the rest. On January 4th 1999 Nigerian police and soldiers equipped with a Chevron helicopter and Chevron boats attacked and burned the Ijaw villages of Opiah and Ikenyan in Delta state , killing at least 4 people and wounding others (9) – (10).

Amnesty International reported that during 2009 “The Security forces, including the military, continued to commit human rights violations in the Niger Delta including extra-judicial executions, torture and...the destruction of homes.......the Joint Task Force (JTF) which combines troops of the army, navy, air force and...police, frequently raided communities. Such raids often followed clashes between the JTF and militants, often resulting in the death of bystanders.” (11)

The conflict is often reported as involving “kidnappers” trying to extort money from oil firms, just as there’s much crowing every time a Somalian pirate is shot by the US or Russian navy, or by Israeli security guards on private shipping, without much reflection on the causes of the piracy – a civil war resulting from a dictatorship backed by both the US and USSR throughout the Cold War; US , French and British backing for an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia when one side in the civil war seemed to have one; illegal fishing by trawlers from all over the world in Somalian waters; and illegal dumping of nuclear waste and other pollutants by firms based in the “developed”.

Although Nigeria has had an elected government since 1998 the close relationship between oil and arms companies and the Nigerian military and government remains.

The fact that American firms are responsible for massive oil spills in Nigeria hasn’t stopped American Senators loudly announcing that Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil have told them that they would never be as irresponsible as BP though – Halliburton and it’s subsidiaries of course being so responsible that they were found to have repeatedly grossly over-charged the US military for fuel and supplies in Iraq on a scale that might make the Afghan government blush – and even to have tried to cover up the gang rape of one of it’s employees. That’s not to mention the fact that Halliburton was contracted by BP to seal the oil well which then caused the spill in the Gulf (12) – (15).

The truth is that this is not a case of one uniquely bad company. BP is no better or worse than other oil companies. It, like them, is the product of a system which allows it to buy political influence and deregulation of it’s industry. It’s a case of poor regulation by governments as a result of oil companies buying political influence – and of the risks of drilling for oil at greater depths than has ever been done before, using experimental technology, to try to meet ever increasing demand for oil. Until governments and the public face up to that and people demand much stricter regulation of all oil companies, plus more investment in other energy technologies and reduction in waste of energy, nothing will change.

It’s also the truth that however bad many people in Florida and other states affected by the spill have it, they don’t have it nearly as bad as Nigerians have it – often at the hands of American based oil firms. So it’s no good pretending this is a problem with one company or with foreigners.

The one good side-effect of the Gulf of Mexico spill is that it’s started to raise some questions about these wider issues and the suffering of Nigerians, Colombians and others.

Forming a posse to lynch the furreners and cheer on the good ol’ American oil giants seems to be popular in America right now. It’s not going to stop it happening all over again though.

(1) = Amnesty International 30 Jun 2009 'Oil industry has brought poverty and pollution to Niger Delta' http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/oil-industry-has-brought-poverty-and-pollution-to-niger-delta-20090630#

(2) = Reuters 15 Jun 2010 'Nigeria cautions Exxon Mobil on offshore oil spills', http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE65E22C20100615

(3) = BBC News 15 Jun 2010 ‘Nigeria: 'World oil pollution capital'’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10313107

(4) = Independent 26 Oct 2006 'Niger Delta bears brunt after 50 years of oil spills', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/niger-delta-bears-brunt-after-50-years-of-oil-spills-421634.html

(5) = See (1) above

(6) = Human Rights Watch The Price of Oil HRW , New York & London , 1999;especially p174-5,http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/02/23/oil-companies-complicit-nigerian-abuses

(7) = Human Rights Watch The Price of Oil HRW , New York & London , 1999, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/nigeria/index.htm#TopOfPage

(8) = Catma Productions The Drilling Fields Channel 4 (London) , 23rd May 1994,http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=59043; full transcript at http://www.ratical.org/corporations/DrillFields.html

(9) = PACIFICA RADIO/Democracy Now 21 Jun 2001  ‘Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship’,http://www.democracynow.org/2001/8/27/drilling_and_killing_chevron_and_nigerias

(10) =  Human Rights Watch press release Oil Companies complicit in Nigerian abuses Lagos ,Feb 23rd , 1999, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/02/23/oil-companies-complicit-nigerian-abuses

(11) = Amnesty International annual report 2010 – Country Report – Nigeria, http://report2010.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_EN.pdf#page=193

(12) = BBC News 13 Dec 2003 ‘Bush warns 'oil overcharge' firm’,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3312015.stm

(13) = Observer 22 Feb 2004 ‘Of Halliburton and the mis-spent millions’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/feb/22/uselections2004.usnews1

(14) = ABC News 10 Dec 2007 ‘Victim: Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR’,
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

(15) = BBC News 13 Jun 2010 ‘Halliburton profits up despite oil spill’,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10688301

Demanding the truth about the Megrahi case, Lockerbie and the Iranian Airbus shot down by the USS Vincennes

Abdel-basset al Megrahi is almost certainly not the Lockerbie bomber. The real question is not why he was released but how his sham of a trial ever resulted in a conviction - and who was actually behind the Lockerbie bombing - not to mention why

There has been a lot of self-righteous talk from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic recently about “demanding the truth” about whether BP used it’s influence to get Megrahi released.

This is either based on ignorance of the facts or else is extremely hypocritical given the utter silence of most of the people involved on the truth about the Lockerbie bombing and Megrahi’s trial, which was a politically influenced sham from the start, in which key witnesses were bribed and coached in and advance and evidence was tampered with.

That’s before getting to the issue of the very likely links between a US warship (the USS Vincennes) shooting down a plane full of hundreds of Iranian civilians in the Persian Gulf, all of them killed, just like the civilians killed in the Lockerbie bombing, less than a year before Lockerbie.

Some people at this point claim the Vincennes shooting down the Iranian Airbus was an accident. It may well be that the Vincennes’ crew wrongly thought the Airbus was an Iranian military plane. It’s also the case that they had un-necessarily crossed into Iranian waters to deliberately provoke a fight with Iranian ships though – and that the captain of the Vincennes was negligent in using his radar incorrectly.

The families of the Iranian civilians killed in this incident have never had any apology. The crew all got service medals.

This definitely does not make the murder of hundreds of other civilians in the Lockerbie bombing right or justified – anything but – but it does make the more myopic demands for “the truth” about Megrahi’s release ring very hollow.

I’ve already made longer posts with relevant sources and quotes on this in the past so i’ll just link to them rather than repeat myself any more – they’re here and here.

The focus on BP alone is also pretty hypocritical as plenty of American oil firms were back in Libya before BP was.

So President Obama can claim to be "surprised, disappointed and angry" about Megrahi's release and Prime Minister David Cameron can claim it was wrong to release "this mass murderer", but both either need to study Megrahi's trial and all the political manipulation of it - along with the link to the Iranian Airbus shot down by a US warships - or else they're being a lot less than honest.

Big society for some; unemployment and underfunded schools for others

Work done by volunteers and charities is a valuable addition to public services and the welfare state, but not an alternative to it - and certainly not without funding

David Cameron’s “Big Society” policy masquerades as encouraging volunteer work. This would be great if he was suggesting it as an addition to well funded public services rather than as a replacement for cut services – or if he was going to provide enough money to communities to run those parts of the public services that most of them preferred to run themselves.

Many volunteers do extremely valuable work and do it well - and contracting out some local council work to charities and volunteers might be an improvement for some services, where the majority want it - and if the funding is sufficient.

Charity and volunteer work can’t replace the welfare state or public services though, unless we want to go back to the nineteenth century with poverty and suffering for the majority.

The reality of the “Big Society” is likely to be that some of the wealthiest and best educated will be allowed to set up their own schools and run their own local services. Having done they will be unlikely to be willing to pay enough tax to fund public services for less fortunate others which they won’t use themselves.

The risk is that we end up with two-tier education and health services on the American model, with state schools and hospitals becoming hugely over-stretched and under-funded , while those who can afford it get private care or run their own schools.

That’s not even counting the cost of the number of people made unemployed and dumped into poverty by cuts in services, which, as usual, will be passed on to councils to implement so that the Westminster government can pretend it’s nothing to do with them. Since the majority of local services are funded from national income tax  they most definitely are to do with both.

The ‘Big Society’ looks like no more than a new advertising slogan for the Conservatives’ ideological opposition to the welfare state and public services.

Cameron’s high blown rhetoric of taking power from “the elite in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street” may yet boil down to telling taxpayers and especially the poorest “do it your f******* self”, at the same time as trying to earn enough to survive as unemployment rises.

Incinerators are most definitely toxic, recycle nothing and waste energy and resources

Some of the people organising and backing the Action Group against the planned waste incinerator at Dovesdale. Scotgen executives claim that to call incinerators toxic is not "reasoned debate". The facts from existing incinerators show otherwise. They also waste energy and resources by incinerating plastics and other materials which could be recycled with far lower emissions of CO2 and without spreading toxic chemicals.

The incinerator which the Scotgen company has applied for planning permission for at Dovesdale farm near Stonehouse is one of many planned by the SNP Scottish Executive and mostly Labour and Lib Dem controlled local councils.

They have been presented by the companies building them, the Scottish Executive, local councils and Westminster governments as a way to reduce landfill of rubbish, as “recycling” and as providing “green energy”.

This is either a mistaken view or a dishonest claim.

Lloyd Brotherton of Scotgen quoted in the Evening Times, claims it’s not “reasoned debate” to describe incinerators as “toxic”. So how should we describe incinerators which emit dioxins, heavy metal particles, acid gases and other toxins which cause cancers,  breathing problems and deaths, especially among children? (1) – (6) Mr Brotherton claims calling something which emits toxins toxic is not “reasoned debate”. What’s his reasoning here?

He claims incinerators “recycle” waste into “low carbon power”. Incinerators don’t recycle anything. They incinerate it, creating a mixture of toxins spread as gases and particles on the wind and toxic ash which must be put into landfill, where it can pollute groundwater and soil (1) – (6).

Toxins from the Dovesdale incinerator could be blown anywhere from Motherwell and Wishaw to Carluke and Stonehouse or anywhere else within around a 14 mile radius from the incinerator if it’s built, depending on which way the wind is blowing at the time.

The amount of energy produced by incinerating plastics and other waste is a fraction of the amount required to manufacture new plastics to replace those incinerated, a massive net loss of energy (7) – (8).

Plastics are made using oil, which is a finite resource – i,.e it will run out one day. It’s madness to incinerate plastics we could recycle. What’s more recycling reduces CO2 emissions massively compared to incineration (7) – (8).

Incinerators also emit more CO2 than gas powered power stations per unit of energy provided (9).

The alternatives to both landfill and incineration are simple; recycle more; regulate packaging; and make producers pay for the safe disposal of products, giving them a profit motive to find recyclable or less toxic alternatives (10) – (13).

Labour MSP Karen Gillon has rightly come out against the incinerator, though MPs whose constituents might be affected have so far failed to take any position on it.

If you want to find out more about the campaign against the Dovesdale incinerator and how to object to the planning application and/or write to your elected representatives about it you can go to the Action Group’s website.

If you want more information about incinerators and alternatives to them in general see links on the Action Group’s website and the footnoted links at the bottom of this post.

Any councillor not voting against the application for the planning incinerator may find their coat’s on a shaky nail in next year’s council elections in Scotland.

The Evening Times photo gives the impression of a handful of people opposing the incinerator. In fact at public meetings in villages and towns organised by the Action Group against Dovesdale Incinerator over a hundred people from each village or town regularly turn out - and thousands of letters and emails are being sent to councillors in objection to the planned incinerator

(1) = Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Post Note 149 December 2000 ‘Incineration of Household Waste’, http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn149.pdf (see especially ‘Pollutants from incineration’ pages 1 – 2 )

(2) =  Allsop et al (2001) ‘Incineration and Human Health’, Greenpeace Research Laboratories & University of Essex, 2001, http://www.cank.org.uk/GreenpeaceHealthReport401.pdf

(3) = Greenpeace background on incineration 30 Nov 2004, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/incineration/the-problem/

(4) = Michela et al (2004) ‘Health effects of exposure to-waste incinerator emissions: a review of epidemiological studies’, http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16117736

(5) = British Medical Journal 22 Jun 2009 ‘Long term exposure to air pollution decreases life expectancy, UK report finds’, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/338/jun22_2/b2532

(6) = World Health Organisation 2006 ‘Principles for evaluating health risks in children associated with exposure to chemicals’ http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/924157237X_eng.pdf (says in summary (pages 1 -4)  that children are at increased risk from chemicals produced by “unsafe waste disposal”(page 3) at certain stages in their development – and on page 18 that it has been shown that “air pollutants”, “heavy metals” and “POPs” (persistant organic pollutants – which include dioxins) have been shown to lead to an increased incidence of diseases in children.)

(7) = Friends of the Earth September 2007 ‘ Up in Smoke – Why FoE opposes Incineration’,http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/media_briefing/up_in_smoke.pdf (see pages 6 - 7 under sub-heading ‘Recycling saves energy’)

(8) = Friends of the Earth October 2009 ‘Gone to waste – the valuable resources that European Countries bury and burn’, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/gone_to_waste.pdf

(9) = Friends of the Earth 03 May 2006 ‘'Green' incineration claims misleading’,http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/green_incineration_claims_02052006.html

(10) = Greenpeace (2001) ‘How to comply with the landfill directive without incineration’,http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/4478.pdf

(11) = Greenpeace ‘Getting to Zero Waste’, http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/pdfs/migrated/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/4383.pdf

(12) = US Environmental Protection Agency 2009 ‘Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through materials and land management practices’, http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg_land_and_materials_management.pdf

(13) = Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives ‘Solutions’, http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?list=type&type=68