Feb 1st, 7.30pm, Friends Meeting House, Hull: Jose Perez,
Colombian activist against mining relocations
Feb 15th: Willie Rodriguez, last survivor of North Tower speaks on 9/11.
FMH, 7.30pm
20.12.07
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your letter and email regarding Iraq, please find below the text of the letter I sent to the constituents who signed the petition you forwarded to me. I believe the letter below explains my current position.
I have been sent a copy of a petition which you have signed calling for the immediate withdrawal of British armed forces from Iraq; I am writing to you as your Member of Parliament to let you know my thoughts on the current situation in Iraq.
As you will know I was not elected to Parliament until May 2005 and was, therefore, not in the House of Commons at the time of the vote on going to war; had I been an MP at the time of the vote in 2003 I would have voted against going to war. [1, reference for commentary, md] However, the petition you have signed seeks an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq which is a markedly different issue.
Whilst it is absolutely right that the forces should not stay in Iraq a day longer than they are needed [2] I do not believe that our troops should immediately leave the country. Currently British forces are there under a UN mandate with armed forces from several other countries. The aim, as you will be aware, is to build the capacity of the Iraqi forces so the coalition troops can leave Iraq on a stable and secure footing. [3]
I accept that the current situation is difficult. [4] However, in my judgement, the immediate departure of coalition troops would unleash further tensions between the different communities in Iraq. [5]
The Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is the head of a democratically elected government, has stated that he does not want to see troops withdrawn as yet . He said in September "I can assure you that the immediate departure of coalition forces would only unleash tensions between different communities; the prospect of a safe Iraq would be completely lost: [sic] and the previous descriptions of a civil war would seem insufficient and tame compared to the bloodshed on Iraq that losses its international support [sic]" [6]
British troops have already left those areas in which reasonably peaceful arrangements have been established. In summer 2006 responsibility for security in two of the four provinces in South East Iraq: Al Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces was passed to the Iraqis. [7] The Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary have both recently indicated that they would like to see our forces move to much more of a supporting role in other areas of Iraq next year. [8]
I would also note that the recent comments by General Sir Richard Dannatt, when taken in context - and in their entirety - are consistent with the Government's policy for Iraq. It is right that we will bring troops home from Iraq when we and the Iraqi Government assess that the conditions are right. [9]
I trust that this explanation of my position is helpful.
Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance on this or any other matter.
Yours sincerely
- SIGNED -
Pp Diana Johnson MP
The first thing I notice is just how much is missing from this response. There is no analysis, no history, nor so many facts which feed into the stance reflected in the petition. Facts unaddressed are:
- the amount of duplicity - or gargantuan mistakes - involved in prosecuting this war
- or the key point: there was not one WMD
- the evil of sanctions and US/UK treatment of Iraq
- the evil of DU weapons and the cancer epidemic "we" caused across Iraq
- that countries under occupation have "puppet governments" by definition
- that Britain treated Iraq like this in the 1920s
- that the country is being raped by international businesses, particularly American but also British
- that the best estimate of dead Iraqis (because our puppet government there is anot allowed to count them) is 655,000
- that the ecnomy is wrecked
- that the war was led by oil rich Americans on a country laden with oil, in the manner of empire
- that this was a declared aim of theirs for many years
What Diana Johnson's letter is, is an Apologia for Tony Blair re Iraq. It contains no element of challenge to Government or its actions whatsoever - other than an assurance that she would have voted against in 2003.
[1] However, there is NO EVIDENCE that had she been in office she would have done so. On the contrary. The evidence I have is that she would have voted 100% on the Government line. As she has done to date. I find this deplorable especially at a time of a possible vote on Trident, or on Iraq, or a possible vote on action on Iran.
[2] Who decides? The answer is America. America led this war, conducted the "diplomacy" of sanctions, came up with the doctrine of regime-change, an excuse for Empire to invade an abject and defenceless country. Known to be defenceless (again WMD unmentioned in this letter). If it is the Iraqi people (as Im sure Diana would want to argue) then there are plenty of polls, held at election time, which show the foreign troops departure as the NUMBER ONE desire of the people.
Diana may argue that they elected there government and it is the government that is best placed to make such a decision. Government knows best we can easily expect as a New Labour argument, an arrogance we have become used to. Iraq remains a country under occupation. There are 150,000 US troops there and 14 permanent military bases. It has the largest US embassy in the worldand the Americans have re-employed the 10,000 or so members of Saddam's secret police, the Mukhabarat.
[3] No one in their right mind, following the history of Iraq, could attempt to justify the continued presence of US or UK troops in this country we have treated so despicably. Other countries' troops perhaps, but not the two nations which have led this carnage. There is a complete lack of historical context in this judgment. This is merely the propaganda we are all expected to believe. [4] This is an understatement. We have installed a puppet regime doing America's bidding. The country has been sold from beneath the people's feet. Record numbers of Iraqis are dying in recent months from the chaos we have inspired and also in fighting against the "puppet forces" of the regime we have installed, not to mention the proxy army of 100,000 mercenaries we call private contractors.
[5] A convenient argument backing up Bush and Blair's stance and that of their puppet Talabani who uses the same words later.
[6] Of course Talabani does not want the forces to go. He would go the same way as Saddam. He is only inpower at the behest of America. The major policies his country is facing are decided in Washington, many of them under the American rulers since 2003 and which the present Iraqi government is not allowed to do anything about. Since September record amounts of Iraqi deaths happened in October and December. Would Johnson accept a pan-Arabic force to replace British troops? Of course not, because Blair would not want that.
[7] However the neighbouring province in southern Iraq, Al Basrah, made the news on Christmas Day when 1000 British finest rased it to the ground whilst freeing 20 or so prisoners allegedly destined for execution - and while ignoring a bank robbery half a mile away. Or is it only the cities we are dong badly in..?
[8] Im sure he would. Why do these natives complain so much when we take over their countries and do what the hell we like with them? We are turning the new Iraqi army and police into our proxy forces. Everyone in Iraq knows this maybe even some can live with it. But the majoroity know that we are carving up their country and that they are becoming our economic slaves. And here we have a politician in the county of William Wilberforce justifying this. I would despair were anger not more useful.
[9] Once again a reiteration of the propaganda we are supposed to buy into.
Dannatt - "The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."
Interesting. I thought the original intention was to disarm Iraq which was on the point of attacking us even with WMD and even within a time frame of 45 minutes. Dannatt is describing regime change, of course. This meant bombing the country around the clock, invading it, beating the army, tkaing the capital, allowing all the ministries to be looted (except the oil ministry), sacking the army, and while the people are in a state of shock institute government and policies to sell off anything valuable in the country.
Saddam was "pro West". No problem. Yes we'll do America's bidding, war with Iran? You bet. Come watch us use nerve agents. No problem. Sell us weapons. Sure, how many? Even after Halabja? Yes, sure, what do you want?
"balance within the Middle East" well spoken sir! Commander of the British Empire. So, now that we've shown them what sort of leaders they should have (bank robbers, killers, Maliki taking glee at Saddam's execution), and how their economy should work (let American companies rebuild everything and print the school text books, let British companies print their banknotes), what do you think the darkies should learn next?
We are not here to be willing accomplices to conquests of empire. We are not here to mealy-mouth and justify their latest arguments, propgaganda and spin. We are not here to invade other countries and tell them how to run their lives:"you're too brutal so we're going to bomb you back to the stone age... you used poison gas so we're going to cover your country with depleted uranium...
HOW many lies will we put up with? What they will continue to tell us about Iraq? All the ones they are beginning to tell us about Iran now... or Sudan... or wherever next.
We need an MP who is not an apologist for Bush and Blair but someone who will confront these misdeeds and call them what they are.