Know thine enemy

In the wake of the inhumane and stupid violence in London on 7 July 2005, our political leaders are repeating the mantra that Osama bin Laden has no discernable political objectives, and that he will not stop until the whole world is converted to Islam or is dead.

This is a lie.

Osama bin Laden has 'clear, focused, limited and widely popular foreign policy goals', including:
'the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state;
the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands;
the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and
the conservation of the Muslim world's energy resources and their sale at higher prices.
This is a quote from Michael Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre's bin Laden task force (1996-1999). Scheuer, who retired in Nov. 2004, wrote two recent books as 'Anonymous': "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror".

(Source: Justice not Vengeance website,)

Scheur observes that, 'Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon.' (Imperial Hubris, p. xviii)

As far as London is concerned, we must accept that the 37 dead and the hundreds injured and the thousands traumatised are collateral damage in Blair's decision to follow George Bush into Iraq, Britain's meagre contribution to the uncounted thousands of Iraqi dead.

The logical thing to do to prevent further casualties is to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Unfortunately, the bombings have set back the process of withdrawal, because to discuss it now would be seen as rewarding the action of the bombers with success, which Government feels would ensure that the technique will continue to be used. So instead they will choose not to consider withdrawal, which will certainly ensure that these atrocities will be repeated.

It is certain that foreign troops in Iraq are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is only one real uncertainty about the troop withdrawal question, and that is - would it lead to a blood bath, an Iraqi civil war? Nobody can be certain, but the people to ask are the Iraqis themselves.

We should give the Southern Iraqis under British occupation a referendum on whether they wish for us to stay or go - and abide by their decision. If they say stay, then at least or presence has some kind of popular support and democratic legitimacy. If they say go, then we have lost (some of) the responsibility for any untoward consequences.

Punish Esso, punish Bush

If, as seems likely, the Bush regime blocks any action on climate change at the G8, we should be all ready to take action that will make him, and the people who support him, realise that he cannot continue to act as if American oil interests and the American economy are the only thing that matters in this world.

Consumer boycotts of American goods are the way to go. Politicians are creatures of their commercial paymasters. The way to get change is to make business realise that they will suffer for Bush's policies. However, it would be unrealistic to expect the whole population to boycott all American goods: there are simply too many of them, and they are woven into the fabric of our life. So how can we do it?

If we have a really strong boycott of top American companies, focussing on them one by one, we can realistically achieve change.

By concentrating on American Company #1, while at the same time telling company #2 "You Are Next", by the time we have damaged #1, numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list will be lobbying Washington for a change of policy.

I suggest that we make Esso/Exxon #1 on the list, and MacDonald's #2. Esso is already the focus of the Greenpeace: Stop Esso campaign, so it just needs a relaunch, and MacDonald's is already wobbling for a variety of reasons; a final push might even bring about its collapse, which would be a newsworthy event.

So what do people think? Shall we go for it?

Or shall we just think about it for a second then have a snooze?

Richard Lawson
www.GreenHealth.org.uk/

Owed to the Press

Want to lie without redress?
Get a nice job in the press!
If you're regularly pissed
You could be a journalist.
If you like to cast ordure
You could be an interviewer.
If your thing is smearing poo
Broadcaster's the job for you.
If you'd like to be a Nazi
You can join the paparazzi
If you think we do not need yer
Go and sign on with the media.

Don't let them fool you all the way -
Make April First your No News Day!









(c) Richard Lawson
Congresbury July 2005

Make Hyperciticism History

There has been a sustained campaign in the media to belittle the Make Povery History (MPH) campaign, both from right (who just do not care about Africa or indeed about anything beyond their own bank balances) and from the left, who will not accept anything unless it is hammered out on their own anvil. Much of it is unfair, accusing it of simply being aid-focused, which is untrue, and all of it obfuscates the three point programme of MPH (debt retirement, fair trade, more and better aid)

If we stop for a moment to consider who it is that the journalists who write these pieces work for, and also who it is that some of the extreme left critics work for, we could be more critical of their point of view.

MPH is not perfect. Nothing is. Not even the Green Party. I am all for making common cause with popular movements who are travelling along our way.