Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Perhaps that’s what Kim Howells meant when he said “our shared values”.

Or roast beef, Yorkshire pudding and torture.

Or fairness and equality for all (men). (Well, some men anyway.)

Howells also said that “some commentators will focus on our differences and ask how we can talk of shared values”. Well, yes. How can you?

20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size swimming pool? That’s just the sort of thing the Iraqi police training programme needs at the moment. And at the bargain price of only $4m? Money well spent, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Unfortunately, due to a slight hiccup in Dyncorp’s accounting practices, we’re unable to establish exactly what they did with the rest of their US government issued $1.2bn contract for training the Iraqi police. Perhaps they spent a few million dollars on such essential items as gold plated armoured Rolls Royces so that their trainers could get about the place efficiently. As I’m sure you’re aware, the efficiency of the private sector is a very important factor which allows them to deliver outstanding value for money .

If only they hadn’t been let down by their accountants, we’d be much better able to fully appreciate and applaud the innumerable ways in which they’ve selflessly used the money awarded to them to improve the lot of long suffering Iraqis.

We can speculate, however. Given what we know about Dyncorp’s involvement in other troubled areas of the world, it is certainly possible some of that money ultimately found its way into the hands of sex traffickers and pimps. This would, of course, provide a welcome injection of cash into the Iraqi economy. And they’ll have “Blackwater immunity” so they wouldn’t have to be bogged down in the red tape of the Iraqi legal system.  Unfortunately, they may also have to pay some compensation to disloyal employees they’d been forced to fire for immorally complaining about the involvement of some of their staff in forced protsitution of under age girls. These desperate attention seekers are never going to be team players. Best pay them off and get rid of them so that the good work can continue unhindered.

All things considered, it’s no wonder that Iraqis are so very grateful for all that’s being done for them.

Which we won’t understand

Yes, it is another post about the turning away of Iraqi employees of HMG who are now in grave danger.

I received a letter from Robert Smith yesterday confirming that he has signed EDM 2057. He has also written again to the Foreign Secretary asking him to address the flaws in the new policy and tabled a question to the Ministry for International Development to ask how many Iraqi staff have been employed for over twelve months.

He also included a copy of his press release on this issue which was sent out to various media organisations on Friday afternoon.

Smith speaks up for Iraqi Employees

Sir Robert Smith MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine has backed concerns about Iraqi employees working for the British government following the Prime Minister’s limited offer of support to those whose lives had been put at risk.

Sir Robert said “It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister thinks we only have a responsibility for those who have worked with this country for twelve months. The death squads will not ask how long someone has worked for the British before deciding whether to punish them. The motion I have signed calls on the Prime Minister to meet the UK’s moral obligation by offering resettlement to all Iraqis who are threatened with death for the “crime” of helping British troops and diplomats. We must ensure all those who have been brave enough to support us deserve our support in return.”

Whether any of these organisation’s choose to publicise this is open to question but I think we can safely say that Sir Robert is supportive of the aims of the campaign. Splendid stuff.

I make no apologies for continuing to post regularly about the plight of Iraqi employees of the British government.

The other day, Nick Cohen addressed the problem in the way that only he could as part of his latest attempt to convince himself that he alone occupies the moral high ground. In the now all to familiar style, he bemoaned the fact that not enough attention was being paid to the people who are actually doing the killing in Iraq. “Many find it impossible to declare who is killing interpreters, Christians and soldiers, and why” he declared*.

What then would Nick Cohen make of David Miliband’s blog post today on the subject of Iraqi employees? Miliband goes one step further and completely avoids mentioning the fact that trhis policy is needed because some of these people are being killed and many others live in fear for their lives. No mention. At all.

Comments are open on Miliband’s blog if you wish to express your opinion. If you do, please take care to be scrupulously polite. I’m not joking. Hostility will not help over there. Be polite!

Doing my best to see this from “the other side”, I can see that this is a tricky situation for the government. They are desperately trying to claim that the south of Iraq is a success story and that security situation has improved to the extent that British troops can withdraw. The fact that Iraqi employees of the British are in grave danger makes a mockery of this assertion and is politically embarrassing for the government. As a consequence, they’re trying to publicise a policy to deal with a problem which they don’t want to acknowledge even exists. The result is the half-hearted effort announced at the beginning of the week.

And that’s where any attempt to see the government’s point of view breaks down. Avoiding political embarrassment versus saving people’s lives? There’s no way I can even begin to understand anyone who chooses the former over the latter.

As it stands, the government’s policy will save some lives but leave many others to their fate. Please do consider writing to your MP to lobby for a further change in policy. Dan Hardie has all the information you need.

Finally, on a positive note, I emailed my MP Robert Smith yesterday to ask him to consider signing EDM 2057. This morning, I got a reply from his office saying that he had done so. Well done that man.

* I have more I’d like to say about Cohen’s latest effort but not here. Maybe in another post.

A new website has been launched as part of the campaign for “an immediate turnaround in current government policy in relation to current and former Iraqi Translators and Contractors, who, due to their employment assisting our forces, are being avoidably abandoned in mortal danger”.

We Owe It To Them

Clicky clicky.

An Early Day Motion on behalf of Iraqi Employees has also been launched by Lynne Featherstone:

EDM 2057

IRAQI EMPLOYEES

That this House recognises the courage of Iraqis who have worked alongside British troops and diplomats in Southern Iraq, often saving British lives; notes that many such Iraqis have been targeted for murder by Iraqi militias in Basra, and that an unknown number have already been killed, whilst many others are in hiding; further recognises that many Iraqis who have worked for fewer than 12 months for the UK are threatened by death squads; and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to meet the UK’s moral obligations by offering resettlement to all Iraqis who are threatened with death for the `crime’ of helping British troops and diplomats.

Please consider writing to your MP asking them to sign this motion.

Here’s the written statement on Iraqi employees.

There are so many conditions and get out clauses as to make Brown’s statement yesterday close to worthless. Tim Worstall highlights the disingenuous nature of this supposed change in policy.

And this:

In addition, interpreters/translators and other Iraqi staff serving in similarly skilled or professional roles necessitating the regular use of written or spoken English, who formerly worked for HMG in Iraq, will be able to apply for assistance for themselves and their dependants provided that they satisfactorily completed a minimum of 12 months’ service, and they were in our employ on or after 1 January 2005.

So if your life is in danger because of your association with HMG but you are unskilled or semi-skilled and don’t speak English, the Brown government doesn’t care if you die.

Or perhaps they think this is what’s happening in Iraq:

Madhi Army militiaman: You are known to have worked with the occupiers. I’ve got my power drill ready. I just need to check a few details before I drill a hole in your skull.
Former employee of HGM: Please don’t kill me. Please don’t kill me…
Militiaman: Shut up, traitor. We know that you worked for the occupiers for more than twelve months. Do you deny this?
Former employee: No, but…
Militiaman: And we have heard you speaking English to the occupiers.
Former employee: Yes, but…
Militiaman: And we believe you worked for them in a skilled or professional role.
Former employee: No, that’s not true. I worked in the laundry.
Militiaman: Oh, that changes everything. Sorry to have troubled you. Mind how you go ma’am…

What is required is not difficult to understand. The government should offer asylum or a resettlement package to all Iraqis whose lives are at particular risk because they worked for HMG. The families of those at risk should likewise be protected. This needs to happen now. People are dying now.

Brown’s pathetic attempt to present the façade that he’s doing something while the government pulls out all the stops to do as little as possible makes me feel physically sick. Any faint hope I might have had that Brown would be an improvement over Blair is rapidly fading.

On the face of it, this looks like good news:

Iraqi interpreters and other key support staff who have risked their lives to work for Britain are to be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom, The Times has learnt.

Get. On. With. It.

The “possibly” in the title refers to this:

Government sources have disclosed that a few hundred vital support staff would also be helped, although they declined to give details.

You know what they say about the devil’s location. Details which “government sources” are unwilling to discuss are known to be among the pointy tailed one’s favourite haunts. Best wait and see what the government actually says (and does) before breaking out the bubbly.

On that note, why am I even reading about this in The Times? Is to too much to expect to hear this first hand from, you know, a minister or something? Can’t the government do this one small decent thing without it becoming just another part of their attempts to groom journalists and curry favour with their employers? Apparently not.

Anyway, Dan Hardie has been doing a fantastic job coordinating the interweb campaign and there’s been lot’s of good stuff going on. When it finally comes, it seems unlikely that the government’s statement will suffer from too little scrutiny.

President Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University probably didn’t go quite as well as he’d hoped. His claim that “we don’t have homosexuals” in Iran was greeted first with howls of incredulous laughter and then with boos. You can listen here (via).

Farsi is apparently a notoriously difficult language to translate clearly into English but in this case, it seems likely that the translation did reflect Ahmadinejad’s meaning. As I understand it, Iranian theocrats believe that it is wrong to treat homosexuality as a specific sexual orientation, They believe that to be an unholy Western concept and not one they wish to adopt. They do acknowledge that individual homosexual acts happen but consider these acts to be expressions of a curable affliction. Essentially Ahmadinejad believes that there are no homosexuals in Iran, only people who have committed homosexual acts and must be cured or punished as a consequence.

Treating homosexuality as a curable affliction is certainly not an exclusively Middle Eastern phenomenon. A quick google highlights a drug which claims to be “the most widely prescribed anti-effeminate medication in the United States, helping 16 million Americans who suffer from Behavioural Effeminate and Male Homosexuality Disorder”. 16 million? That’s a whole lot of repressed homosexuality.

The Iranian government’s attitude, however, cannot glibly be compared to the situation in the United States. Read the story of Maryam, an Iranian lesbian, if you’re even slightly tempted to make the comparison. After six months of “treatment” failed to “cure” her, she was told by a psychologist that “if you don’t change your sexuality and you continue unlawful acts, your future will be a death sentence.” Note that “change your sexuality” refers to pressure Maryam was under to agree to a sex change operation, a transformation she had absolutely no desire to go through.

For those who want to avoid another bloody war, there is a temptation to downplay the intolerant attitudes of the Iranian regime. With parts of the US government clearly looking to manufacture public support for military action against Iran (using the Iraq debacle as their model), any criticisms of the Iranian regime can seem to lend support to the bomber brigade’s desire for war.

It would be a mistake to minimise criticism of the Iranian regime for this reason.

For a start, it would allow the war advocates to claim that those who oppose military action fully endorse the Iranian regime. Everyone who has ever been called a supporter of Saddam, and that will probably include just about everyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq, will know what I mean. It’s a straw man but one which refuses to go away.

Let me put it plainly. I do not support the Iranian theocratic government. It has undoubtedly been the subject of a disinformation campaign in recent times (the discredited yellow badges for Jews story exemplifies this) and these lies and distortions should be challenged but that does not make the Iranian regime a wonder of sweetness and light. It isn’t.

The major fault in the argument for military action is that it would not actually help to improve the situation. If ever there was a case study which proved the point, Iraq is it. Homosexuals in the new “free” Iraq are now being hunted down by Shiite militias. In a bloody irony, these militias and the associated political parties - who dominate much of Iraq as a result of the “liberation”- share many beliefs with the Iranian regime. The actual result of military action in Iraq has been so far from the stated aims that a whole conspiracy theory has built up which maintains that disorder was always the goal. This is nonsense, the Bush administration did not mean to project American powerlessness, boost Iranian influence or get the US military bogged down in Iraq for years on end, but you can see why its difficult for people to accept that they could misjudge the situation so horrendously.

The result of military action against Iran would be complex and difficult to predict fully but some things are certain. Iranians, like Americans, are mostly proud nationalists and any attack on their country by the US or Israel would provoke increased loyalty towards their government and hostility towards the attackers. It would entrench the power of the mullahs and radicalise a new generation of Iranians. The long term effects could be dire indeed.

It is also certain that those who advocate military action don’t have the slightest understanding of the likely consequences of such an act.

You don’t have to love Ahmadinejad to be opposed to military action against Iran and criticism of the Iranian regime is not a de facto expression of support for military action. There are other ways to achieve goals than through war.

Finally, for anyone who might consider referencing a certain other conflict from the 20th Century in support of military action against Iran, here’s a link to possibly one of my favourite blog posts of all time.

Update

Sam has pointed out that the drug linked above was a hoax. My googling was too quick on this occasion and I forgot to engage my brain in the process. Apologies.

The basic point I was making, that there are organisations in the US who believe that homosexuality can be cured, remains valid, despite my blushes. I’ll take this opportunity to add that some of my religious relatives here in Scotland would agree. Both sides of my family have deep roots in the Open Brethren who tend to be rather strict in their interpretation of the bible. There was no doubt what “strange flesh” meant in our church.

Here’s yet another post bashing the US, UK and Israeli governments. He never writes about China’s human rights abuses. Typical America hating leftist…

It’s an old chestnut but it does seem surprisingly common considering just how easy it is to refute. It’s all about degrees of separation; as a UK citizen, my first concern is to the UK government’s policies and actions. In a democracy, it is every citizens right, you might even say duty, to try to ensure that their government lives up to certain standards of behaviour. Scrutiny and criticism of your democratically elected government is not only acceptable, its an essential part of the democratic process.

From that key principle, it’s easy to see why the closest allies of your democratically elected government should also be subjected to greater scrutiny than distant governments over which your own has little or no influence. It’s a sort of responsibility chain; the closer to home, the more responsible you are and the more influence you can generally exert. In short, it’s about trying to keep your own house in order.

This above is so obvious that it feels a bit silly typing it but it does appear that it needs to be said. Anyway, for the reasons above, I feel the need to mention the latest report from the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[T]he committee, in its report entitled Global Security: The Middle East, said a quicker response from the government in July last year “could have led to reduced casualties amongst both Israeli and Lebanese civilians whilst still working towards a long-term solution to the crisis”.

It called some of Israel’s military actions in Lebanon during the war “indiscriminate and disproportionate”.

It particularly highlighted the attacks on United Nations observers and the dropping of more than 3.5 million cluster bombs (90% of the total) in the 72 hours after the UN Security Council passed the resolution which effectively ended the war.

So the committee has concluded that the British government, by refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire, helped enable the continuation of the conflict. At the time, Blair waffled as people died. And why did the government adopted the policy it did when it refused to call for an immediate ceasefire?

From the full report (article 100):

At the time of the conflict, many believed the United States was obstructing calls for an immediate ceasefire to give Israel a chance to defeat overwhelmingly Hezbollah’s militia. The BBC journalist Ed Stourton raised this theory with John Bolton, who had been the US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the war. Mr Stourton asked him if the US had been “deliberately obstructing diplomatic attempts” to bring an end to the war so that “Israel could have its head.” Mr Bolton asked “what’s wrong with that?” and added that he was “damn proud of what we did.”

We wrote to Dr Howells to ask him about Mr Bolton’s comments. In his reply, he asserted: The UK was certainly not involved in collusion with either the US or Israel to support the continuation of hostilities or to block a ceasefire. Whilst I cannot speak for the US position [on] this matter, I do not believe they acted differently.

The committee offers three possible reasons for this discrepancy.

1. Mr Bolton misled Stourton by suggesting that the US blocked diplomacy at the UN because it wanted to give Israel the opportunity to destroy Hezbollah.
2. The US did indeed block attempts to find a quick diplomatic solution to bring about a ceasefire, but that the UK was not made aware of this collusion with Israel.
3. The UK was in fact brought into, or at least aware of, the efforts to obstruct the diplomatic process.

The committee does not reach a conclusion as to which possibility might be the truth but it seems unlikely that Bolton would have lied. To what end? In fact, giving the Israelis the time and space and cluster bombs so that they could teach Lebanon a lesson fits exactly with the type of thinking which is so common in the Bush administration. It also ties in exactly with what Ehud Olmert said as hostilities began: “Lebanon is responsible and Lebanon will bear the consequences of its actions”.

Given the above quotation, it is perhaps unsurprising that a UN report found that there was “a significant pattern of excessive, indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the IDF against Lebanese civilians and civilian objects, failing to distinguish civilians from combatants and civilian objects from military targets… Further, the Commission is convinced that damage inflicted on some infrastructure was done for the sake of destruction.” It is hard to avoid concluding that the Israeli government decided to adopt a policy of collective punishment against the Lebanese people in an attempt to pressure them into doing something about Hezbollah.

What’s wrong with that? Well, morals aside, it’s specifically outlawed by Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The British government, silent during the conflict, has remained silent in its aftermath. It has not condemned the dropping of 3.5 million cluster bombs after the conflict was essentially over nor has it condemned the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure for no useful military purpose. That continuing silence can only be seen by Israel and indeed by the rest of the world as a tacit approval of the actions of the Israeli government and the IDF. It seems to me that there is something very wrong with that.