Britain Must End All Interference in South Asia and Stop Aggravating International Tension

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Jack Straw’s Visit to India and Pakistan:
Britain Must End All Interference in South Asia and Stop Aggravating International Tension

Kashmiris in Britain Support Plebiscite and Oppose Nuclear Holocaust
Arms to India Talks Continue
World Powers Accused of Fuelling Asian Conflict with Weapons Sales
For Your Information:
"Fears Over Britain-India Arms Deal amid Mounting Regional Tension"

Iraq:
The Demand for Sanctions Comes Neither from the United Nations Nor the People but from the US and Britain
Iraqi Paper Criticises Obsequious and Subservient Tony Blair
End US-British Aggression against Iraq!
Weapons Of Mass Destruction — Going Nuclear in Iraq

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has continued to hold talks with representatives of the governments of India and Pakistan allegedly in order to prevent full-scale war in the region. While in India the Foreign Secretary also took the opportunity to discuss with the Indian government what he referred to as "a number of bilateral issues". These apparently included the situation in Afghanistan and Gujarat as well as the tension between India and Pakistan and the situation in Kashmir.

Jack Straw has claimed that the present dispute in South Asia can only be "resolved by the parties concerned", but if this is the case it is difficult to understand what justification the British government can have for interfering in the region. Rather than acting as peacemakers, as they claim, Britain and the other big powers are already vying for the privilege of arming both countries in the dispute and fishing in troubled waters to advance their own interests in the region. Only last week the British government reiterated its position that there will be no embargo arms sales to India or Pakistan. While at the same time nothing is said about the plight of the people of Kashmir and their rights are entirely ignored.

Indeed one of the objectives of Jack Straw’s visit appears to be to negate the rights of the people of Kashmir and to label those who struggle for self-determination as "terrorists". In the press conference held after talks with the Indian Minister of Internal Affairs, Jack Straw went as far as to suggest that the main issue in the region is that of what he referred to as "terrorism". Further, he added, that the government of Britain and India shared an opinion "that there was only one definition of terrorism, that definition was laid down by law". According to Jack Straw, that definition is laid down by UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and, he said, "it includes terrorism labelled as freedom fighters, freedom fighting terrorism". In fact one of the major criticisms levelled at UNSC Resolution 1373, which was hastily agreed last September, was that included no definition of terrorism at all, let alone one that pointed the finger at the state terrorism of the big powers and recognised the right of a people to resist armed oppression.

Jack Straw’s visit to South Asia exposes once again the reactionary positions of the British government. While calling for peace it is creating all the condition for war, not only by arming the belligerents and exacerbating the differences between them, but also by intervening to prevent any solution of the problems in the region, which are themselves part of the legacy of British colonial rule. Indeed Jack Straw, under the guise of the so-called "war against terrorism", wishes to turn the clock back to the colonial period when all those who struggled for their rights, progress and self-determination or against colonial rule were labelled terrorists and savagely persecuted.

The British government’s continued interference in South Asia will not lower tension in the region, as Jack Straw claims, nor will it bring peace to the people of India, Pakistan or Kashmir. This is so whether or not the Foreign Secretary’s aim was to avert a nuclear conflict or keep the pot boiling because of concern with Britain and the US’s strategic interests in the region. Britain and the US have been attempting to use the respective governments of India and Pakistan to further their own ends in the "war against terrorism" and the people are once again reaping the bitter fruit of this reactionary campaign. What must be demanded is that Britain and the other big powers get out so that the people of South Asia can decide their own future.

The Muslim Council of Britain, taking advantage of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's visit to India and Pakistan, said on Monday that the Kashmiri people want their promised plebiscite not a nuclear holocaust.

"We hope that our government will urge both countries to do everything within their power to reduce military tensions in the subcontinent and also affirm that the only real solution for the long-running Kashmir conflict is to honour the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir about their future through a ‘free and impartial plebiscite’," said Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the MCB.

In this regard, the MCB stressed the long ignored but central fact that the "plebiscite" had been promised by Lord Mountbatten and Prime Minister Nehru themselves and this was later incorporated into UN resolutions and UN Secretary General even appointed Admiral Chester Nimitz as Plebiscite Administrator. Not only India and Pakistan but the entire international community are parties to this decision.

Sadly however, the MCB point out, the history thereafter is a history of going back on the "solemn pledge" given by India, followed by two Indo-Pakistan wars with a third one threatening a nuclear holocaust. Being the head of the Commonwealth and a permanent member, Britain has a singular moral and political responsibility to make sure that like East Timor, the people of Jammu and Kashmir too are able to self-determine their own future through the promised "free and impartial plebiscite" which should have been held half a century ago. One doubts there can be any other just and peaceful solution to the conflict.

Meanwhile the MCB has also appealed to members of the British South Asian communities not to import the tensions caused by the situation into their own midst. They can play a constructive role by pursuing a peaceful and political path to their respective points of view.

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that it is to hold discussions about selling a second type of British military aircraft to India. The Indian government already has a £1bn order with BAE Systems for Hawk trainer jets.

It has been revealed that the MoD will be following up a request from India about the possible sale of the Sea Harrier. This news has raised further questions over official policy, following reports that Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt signed an order last Thursday suspending arms exports to the two countries.

The government is still in discussion to sell Hawk trainer jets and sea harriers to India, the MoD confirmed. The aircraft are due to be retired from the Royal Navy in 2004-06 and India has shown an interest in buying them.

An MoD spokesman said talks with officials in Delhi had not yet taken place, but confirmed the department would be following up India's interest. Jack Straw arrived in Islamabad on Tuesday, to hold talks with Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf before flying on to Delhi.

On Monday, ahead of his flight to Pakistan, Jack Straw stressed there had been no change in policy over arms sales to India and Pakistan, despite the escalating tensions. Jack Straw said: "There are no plans for an embargo. There is not any confusion. There are a set of national and EU criteria in arms sales to which we are signatories. They take account of a wide variety of possible circumstances, for example military build-up. Decisions are made on a case-by-case basis."

Radio Havana Commentary, May 28

World powers trying to defuse the stand-off between India and Pakistan are standing accused of fuelling the conflict by selling billions of pounds of sophisticated weaponry to both sides. Over the past decade, Russia, China, France and Britain have supplied New Delhi and Islamabad with the bulk of their weaponry, while the United States is the only large weapons exporter that unilaterally imposed an arms ban on the two sides after they tested nuclear weapons in 1998. The four other countries calling for an end to hostilities are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

And while British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw carries out intense diplomatic and mediation efforts in Pakistan, London's Ministry of Defence on Tuesday insisted that Britain would continue exporting weapons to Pakistan and to India. The affirmation follows reports that 70 British MPs from across the political spectrum have signed a proposal demanding that the government stop an upcoming sale to India of 66 Hawk training aircraft at a cost of some $1.480 billion.

According to the British news daily The Guardian, some legislators are asserting that Britain shouldn't use the logic of drug dealers who say they are merely selling what someone else would sell anyway. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which monitors global military sales, diplomatic efforts to prevent war between Pakistan and India were unlikely to succeed until an embargo was enforced and the regional arms race brought to a halt.

This article was by-lined Kalyani, OneWorld South Asia, on February 22, 2002. We are reprinting it as background to Jack Straw’s present visit to the region.

The British government has been accused of watering down its calls for a peaceful settlement of escalating tensions between India and Pakistan ahead of a meeting in New Delhi next week at which Britain's foreign secretary Jack Straw is expected to lobby for an arms deal worth more than US$1 billion.

Reports in the London Financial Times newspaper Thursday about the possible sale to India of up to 66 British-made hawk jets, at a cost equivalent to US$1.4 billion, have prompted fears among anti-arms trade campaigners that Britain's stance on the South Asian conflict is shifting.

"We fear that like Tony Blair before him, Jack Straw is going to primarily focus on selling the hawk jets during his visit to the country," said Praful Bidwai, an Indian journalist and commentator who specialises on defence issues. "It's disgraceful that Blair should have spent more than half his time in India [during his last visit] urging India to buy the jets," Bidwai said.

The British government's move, peace activists pointed out, contradicted Blair's statement that Britain hoped to exert a "calming influence" on the region it ruled for over two centuries until 1947.

"On the one hand, the British government has been calling for peace in South Asia, and on the other hand, it is encouraging India to buy British arms," said Roy Isbister of Saferworld, an organisation working to prevent armed conflicts across the world. "We're concerned about this mixed message," Isbister, project co-ordinator for arm exports control at the London-based group, said Friday.

While the Foreign and Commonwealth Office refused to give details of the agenda for the talks, a spokesman said Friday that Straw would meet India's Minister of External Affairs and Defence Jaswant Singh to discuss "a wide range of subjects".

India was reported last year to be considering alternatives to the advanced Hawk trainer jets manufactured by BAE Systems at a plant in northern England. The government was looking at the purchase of Russian MiG AT planes which, at US$16 million each, were US$5 million cheaper than the Hawks.

Analysts said that the British Labour government believed that clinching the Hawk deal would help Britain's arms companies enter the Indian market and thereby boost the country's economy and build on its current status as the world's largest defence exporter after the United States.

The Financial Times also reported that the deal is one of two possible orders BAE hopes to secure as a means to safeguard 2,500 jobs at its Brough plant in Yorkshire.

The prospect of the arms deal comes at a time when relations between India and Pakistan are at an all-time low following an attack on the Indian parliament last December that has led to a build-up of defence forces along the Indo-Pakistan border over the last three months.

India is expected to increase its defence spending by more than US$2 billion this year, raising its budget from US$13.2 billion in 2001 to over US$15.4 billion. Pakistan, with a population less than one-fifth the size of India's, spends US$2.4 billion each year on defence.

"Neither of the two nations can afford to spend such enormous amounts on defence," said Bidwai. "The defence spending is clearly at the cost of the social sector. It's a disgrace that there are four soldiers for every doctor in India, and nine soldiers for a doctor in Pakistan."

For the April 2002 Alternative Report on BAE Systems by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, see: http://www.caat.org.uk/companies/BAES2002.pdf

Iraq and the UN General Secretariat have signed documents extending the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for another six months, it was reported on Wednesday.

Dr Muhammad al-Duri, Iraq's permanent representative to the United Nations, and Hans Corell, UN undersecretary-general for legal affairs, signed the documents. Dr Muhammad al-Duri stressed that any resolutions, arrangements, measures, concepts, or plans not outlined in the MoU signed between Iraq and the United Nations on May 20, 1996, are not binding on Iraq and do not concern it.

In reply to a question by the Iraqi News Agency's correspondent that the MoU does not fulfil the Iraqi people's needs, Al-Duri said that the MoU has proved to be a failure, adding that it cannot be a substitute for lifting the embargo on Iraq. He called on Arab and sisterly countries to take advantage of article 50 of the UN Charter in order to lift the embargo imposed on the Iraqi people without turning to the so-called international legitimacy. This is because this legitimacy is far from being implemented, due to the fact that the US administration controls and steers the United Nations to serve its narrow interests, Al-Duri concluded.

As Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri pointed out on May 24, the new UN sanctions regime is aimed at tightening the stranglehold on Iraq. "Resolution 1409, adopted by the UN Security Council under pressure from the US administration, is aimed at tightening the noose on Iraq and harming its people even more," Sabri was quoted as saying. "The development of relations in various fields between Iraq and Arab countries and other friendly countries has annoyed the US administration, which started to seek new formulas to harm Iraq's sovereignty," Sabri added.

Iraq's government had announced last week that it grudgingly accepted the resolution, which was passed unanimously on May 14. The resolution allegedly frees up the delivery of humanitarian supplies and the import of civilian goods while maintaining a strict control on so-called "dual use goods" under the pretext of being an arms embargo. But in fact the new "Oil for Food" arrangements under Resolution 1409 will hinder the renovation of infrastructure in Iraq and the economic and social development of the country. It is still exacerbating the situation which has brought immense suffering to the 22 million Iraqi people.

At the same time, Iraq is facing the prospect of a US and British military strike if it does not allow UN arms inspectors back into the country. The US and British administrations are still threatening Iraq under the guise of concern about weapons of mass destruction. While the focus has at present shifted due to the tension in South Asia, it is also the case that British and US warplanes are continuing to strike at Iraq with patrols over the illegal "no-fly" zones unilaterally imposed by them.

The last time the Iraq regime let in UN inspectors – November 1998 – the inspectors created provocations to justify a new round of heavy US-British bombing. Even the former chief weapons inspector, Australian Richard Butler, who is violently anti-Iraq and considered by many to be a US puppet, complained about five of the 427 inspections in Iraq between November 17 and December 12, 1998. Former US Marine officer Scott Ritter, who had also worked with the inspectors, said at the time that what Richard Butler did was a "set-up" to justify bombing. The US launched 425 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 650 fighter and bomber sorties against Iraq between December 17 and December 20, 1998.

Although Russia last July blocked a US-British proposal to impose "smart sanctions" on Iraq, it has ended up acquiescing to an amended version of the plan in a six-month by six-month extension of the programmes. The impasse in talks between Moscow and Washington on how to draw up "smart sanctions" against Iraq has apparently been overcome in the context of the "new quality" of US-Russia relations.

The "smart sanctions" are still dictated by the US and Britain. They still violate basic humanitarian criteria which had, for example, blocked medical supplies crucial to the treatment of cancer, cases of which have risen due to the depleted uranium (DU) ammunition used by the US-led forces during the 1991 Gulf War.

Nothing less than a total lifting of the UN embargo is required. The demand for sanctions against Iraq is not coming from the international community nor from among the people, despite the Anglo-US sabre rattling against Iraq and characterising it as being part of an axis of evil and Saddam Hussein as being a cruel dictator. Nor does it come from the Iraqi people themselves, who are opposed to outside intervention in their affairs. On the contrary, there is a world-wide movement against the punitive and genocidal sanctions and aggression against Iraq and its people. The demand is the product of the US imperialist drive to impose a "New World Order", and force Iraq, among others, to submit to it. In this, it has the unqualified backing of the British government, which supports the "New World Order", while pursuing this policy also from the standpoint of its reactionary programme of making Britain once more a "great" world power, under the guise of "enlightened self-interest".

The US administration backed by the British government seeks a "regime change" in Iraq. But in flouts the framework of international law and ignores legal fundamentals such as the UN Charter. Even the Security Council has never passed a resolution which targeted Saddam Hussein. The US and Britain are attempting to use the UN, particularly the Security Council, as a means to facilitate their own unilateral policy.

The regime of President Saddam Hussein has continued to take principled stands regarding this situation in international forums. The defence by Iraq of its sovereignty and independence has been a crucial factor in arousing the anger of Anglo-US imperialism, which would like to subsume all such sovereignty within a "global community" characterised by Anglo-American and Eurocentric values. In its propagation of so-called "civilised values", the British government seems to overlook that Iraq itself was a cradle of civilisation, and it is attempting to erase this history also in bringing the present Iraqi regime to its knees.

Hands Off Iraq! End the Sanctions! The Voice of the People Must Prevail!

The following is an excerpt from a commentary by Hani Wuhayyib entitled "Bush's tour and the advance rejection", published on the Iraqi newspaper Al-Jumhuriyah web site on May 23.

There is mounting international rejection of the United States' foreign policy and its stand that calls for carrying out aggressions against nations in the name of combating terrorism.

International rejection of the United States' hegemony and aggressive threats against nations spread to the heart of Europe. At the first stop of his tour of several European countries, Bush was met with huge protest demonstrations...

Meanwhile, forces opposed to the US policy against nations in Britain, France and Italy made preparations for similar protests. But in an interview with London's The Times newspaper ahead of Bush's visit to Britain, obsequious subservient Tony Blair noted his friendship with the United States and his agreement with it on relations with Europe.

However, he sought to give an impression that Britain differs with the United States on the latter's hostile plans against Iraq. He also sought to play down US-European disagreements on various issues and to ignore the stands of numerous European forces that are opposed to the United States' hostile policy against nations.

These forces' stands reflect a growing popular European rejection of the United States' policy to dominate the world. Officials in the US administration of evil do not hesitate to make this policy public and issue hostile statements against nations accusing these nations of terrorism, as do little Bush, Cheney, Colin Powell, Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and others.

The fabrications contained in the US State Department's annual report indicate that many countries and organisations are targeted by the US threats on the pretext that they practice terrorism and harbour terrorists, as US officials put it...

These US remarks that were made before and during Bush's European tour show the arrogance of the US administration of evil, which seeks to carry out aggressions against nations. During his failed tour, Bush who was denounced at his first stop, seeks to rally support for the United States' hostile policy against nations.

However, nations, states and organisations are well aware of the goals of the United States' hostile policy against nations and its attempts to destabilise the world.

That is why Bush was received with hostile demonstrations during his tour. And popular protests against the United States will increase in all parts of the world because the evil US policy is the object of absolute rejection by all nations of the world.

Five Iraqis were injured in US and British air strikes against targets in northern Iraq on Tuesday, Iraqi newspapers reported on Wednesday. "...US and British evil planes violated our airspace coming from Turkey and carried out 14 sorties," the newspapers quoted a military spokesman as saying. The spokesman said the planes overflew several regions in the north and attacked "civilian and service installations in Nineveh province leading to the injury of five citizens". The US Pentagon said US warplanes Tuesday struck Iraqi air defence targets in a northern no-fly zone of Iraq following the latest of an increasing series of Iraqi challenges to coalition jets patrolling no-fly zones in the north and south.

Iraq has called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and, through him, the international community to work seriously and quickly to stop the US-British aggression, which has been continuing since 1991. In a letter addressed to Annan, Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said the international community's silence over this crime, which has been continuing for more than 11 years, means encouraging the aggressors to commit more aggressive acts against independent states.

He explained that the so-called no-fly zones, which the US administration and its ally, Britain, imposed on northern and southern Iraq unilaterally and against the international will, are considered a military aggression and systematic terrorism against an entire people.

Concluding his letter, the foreign minister asserted Iraq's legitimate right to defend itself against any aggressive act. He reviewed the repercussions of the bombing by US and British planes of several civilian and services installations on May 20, 23 and 24, in which several citizens were killed, others injured and installations damaged.

In March, Iraq called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to intervene and instruct the UNIKOM [United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission] to fully perform its duty and put an end to the US and British air violations of Iraq's international borders via the demilitarised zone, which is under UNIKOM jurisdiction.

In a letter Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri pointed out that the US and British warplanes violated Iraq's international borders 306 times from January 26 to March 1, 2002. Iraq asserted that these violations are tantamount to state terrorism and a flagrant aggression against Iraq, its people, and the sovereignty and sanctity of its land, as well as aggression against the UN peace-keeping forces. Iraq told the UN secretary-general that the Security Council should shoulder its responsibilities and hold the perpetrators fully and legally responsible in accordance with the international law.

By Ramzi Kysia

The writer is a Muslim-American peace activist, and serves on the board of directors for the Education for Peace in Iraq Centre (www.saveageneration.org). He contributed this article to The Jordan Times.

BAGHDAD — Dr Alim Abdul-Hamid's office at Al Mustanseriya Medical College in Baghdad is decorated in bright, cheerful colours, but what he has to say is anything but cheerful. Formerly Dean of Basra Medical College, Abdul-Hamid has had plenty of first-hand experience with Iraq's unprecedented plague of cancers and birth defects.

"We have seen cases of breast cancer among women in their 20s. In their 20s!," says Abdul-Hamid. "This is really tragic, because, you know, in America, probably when you come across a case of breast cancer in a woman in her late 30s, you would consider that this is a young age for cancer, while we see cases of breast cancer in the 20s. There are increased incidences of colon cancer, thyroid cancer, in addition to, of course, leukaemias and lymphomas."

What's the source of this epidemic? According to Abdul-Hamid the problem is depleted uranium. Depleted uranium, or "DU", is an extremely dense, heavy metal, and a waste product of atomic bomb production. It has a half-life of over 4 billion years. It contains trace amounts of plutonium and is 60 per cent as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. The US military uses it as ballast in their missiles, and they use it to coat shells and pellets. Because of its density, it is armour piercing — so it is used as an anti-tank weapon. DU is also aerosolising. When a shell coated with DU hits, it burns, releasing uranium oxide dust. This dust then rises in the air, is carried by the winds, and contaminates the entire surrounding environment.

The Pentagon admits to dropping 320 tonnes of DU in Iraq. The environmental organisation Greenpeace puts the estimate at over 800 tonnes. Hospitals throughout Iraq have reported as much as a 10-fold increase in overall cancer rates and birth defects over the last 11 years.

Abdul-Hamid points to an epidemiological study he headed in Basra, demonstrating the connection between DU and cancer in Iraq. The study looked at five factors: biological plausibility, strength of association, incidence rate, increased incidences of cancer among younger children, and the dose-response relationship. According to Abdul-Hamid, all these factors point to a strong, casual link between DU exposure and cancer in Iraq.

To test the biological plausibility of their hypothesis, the team of scientists studied the types of cancer being reported, most notably leukaemias, and explored their relationship to DU. The results strongly indicate a radioactive, rather than chemical, contaminant. Explains Abdul-Hamid: "Leukaemia is known to be related to radiation. We don't have evidence that leukaemia is related to chemicals."

Additionally, if the source of the epidemic were chemical, there would have been a sharp spike in cancer rates following the Gulf war, followed by rapid decreases as the source of the contamination disappeared. In contrast, with radiation the strength of association increases as time passes. The fact that cancer rates are still increasing at an exponential rate in Iraq strongly implies a radioactive source.

This increase is enormous. According to the study, malignancies and leukaemias among children under the age of 15 have more than tripled since 1990. Whereas in 1990 young children accounted for only 13 per cent of cancer cases, today over 56 per cent of all cancer in Iraq occurs among children under the age of 5. Abdul-Hamid explains that it isn't just direct exposure of the children to the radiation still present in the environment; it's also the cumulative exposure of their parents over time. This cumulative exposure does permanent damage to parental genes, damage which is then passed on to their children.

Finally, pointing to a map of Basra, Abdul-Hamid highlights the dose-response relationship between DU and cancers. "If we look at the map of Basra, southern Iraq, and monitor the incidences in different districts over time, we can come out with a very important conclusion. And that is that areas which have got the higher level of background radiation have higher levels of cancers." These factors overwhelmingly point to DU as the source of Iraq's current cancer plague.

Iraqi doctors aren't the only ones complaining about DU. US veterans are upset as well. DU may be a leading cause of the unprecedented levels of illnesses effecting Gulf war veterans. "The Pentagon claims that there are no significant health effects from exposure to depleted uranium, but their own research and documents show that this is not true," says Charles Sheehan-Miles, a Gulf war veteran and former president of the National Gulf War Resource Centre. Almost 25 per cent of US soldiers who fought in the Gulf war are currently receiving disability benefits from the US Veteran's Administration. This is twice the rate of disabilities as among Vietnam veterans.

Unfortunately, DU remains an integral part of the American military arsenal. According to Sheehan-Miles, "Depleted uranium, like landmines and cluster bombs, is a weapon with effects far beyond the battlefield, with innocents and children as the frequent victims. I resent this. As a former American soldier, I was trained to protect the innocent, not to kill them."

As the United States gears up for a new "Desert Storm" against Iraq, using weapons like DU, that is a lesson that more American soldiers, and the politicians who command them, should be reminded of.