Workers Daily Internet Edition Year 2002 No. 37

Year 2002 No. 37, February 22, 2002	ARCHIVE	HOME	SEARCH	SUBSCRIBE

The Prime Minister has been preparing the ground for tax increases, supposedly to fund the NHS.

Speaking to the BBC in the Wednesday evening "Your NHS", Tony Blair, who ruled out a designated health tax, said that he wanted sustained investment funded "out of general taxation". He said: "If we want sustained investment in the National Health Service over a period of time, we are going to have to pay for it and I believe we will find that money. In my view a fairer and better system is through general taxation. I hope that in the coming months that we will be able to show that we are able to make that commitment."

His comments are being seen as a clear hint that taxes will rise in the April budget. During the interview the Prime Minister also ruled out free long-term care for the elderly.

Tony Blair and the government, which came to power deriding the Old Labour policy of "tax and spend", have for some time been preparing the ground by stealth for putting up taxes. Their preferred way of operating has been to wreck public services and deliver social programmes to private finance capital as a resource for maximum profits. It is not that the government intends to abandon this method. But the popular discontent and anger with this programme, which promises improved services tomorrow while today handing out lucrative contracts to big business, is such that it is cloaking its policies with arguments about developing a "new public service ethos".

Tony Blair last month raised the issue of a choice between "cutting back on investment and cutting taxes" or "sustained investment matched with reform". A few days later he was to accuse those who "resist reform" of being the "wreckers". If everything is added up, the conclusion is reached from Tony Blair’s logic that if you are not a wrecker, then you will support the raising of taxes for investment in public services. In particular, the public sector workers are to be expected to welcome the raising of taxes as everyone unites behind the new public service ethos.

At least two flaws stand out in this argument. Firstly is that the increase in taxes is not to be ring-fenced or hypothecated to pay for the health service or even other social programmes, so that all we are left with is an increase in "general taxation" (of working people). The second is that, in the words of Tony Blair’s January speech, "The opportunity now is to use the prospect of investment to lever in reform." So the aim of exercise is to bring about such changes as "flexibility of employment" and the "promotion of alternative providers".

In other words, the people are to be made to pay for the "Third Way" programme of New Labour which retreats from any conception that the claims of all on society must be met as of right in order to ensure that social programmes themselves are increasingly tailored for the benefit of those that make their millions through exploiting every pore of society.

Investments in social programmes must be increased, and this must be from funds from government poured into social programmes as an investment in the health and future of society and its people. And also government and taxpayers’ funds must not be poured into the pockets of the rich as a straightforward drain on the economy and as part of wrecking the fabric of a modern society.

The "soft" loan to Lakshmi Mittal of £70 million backed by the Department for International Development, which involved £6 million of British taxpayers’ money, to buy and privatise the Romanian steel concern Sidex is just one high profile example of payments to the rich to effect the kind of "reform" that Tony Blair advocates.

This is the kind of "sustained investment matched with reform" which Tony Blair proposes to increase taxes to fund.

The private sector should have nothing to do with satisfying the needs of the people for health care, education and other social programmes. Government funding on these programmes must be increased by putting a stop to handouts to the rich, putting a moratorium on interests payments to the financial institutions on Treasury stock and other means which do not involve fleecing the working people to pay for what is theirs by right.

Public sector workers have joined forces to warn the Prime Minister that constant criticism is undermining staff morale. The police, nurses and other public service workers called for a "major and sustained campaign to champion public servants".

In his reply, Tony Blair said: "I promise the government will work with you to address the problems you've identified ... I promise, too, that we share your ambition of a stable, well trained and well motivated workforce delivering public services of the highest possible quality."

Dave Prentis, general secretary of UNISON, said: "Although we welcome the prime minister's comments, he needs to be aware of the continuing mixed messages coming from his government which causes confusion to patients and staff in the NHS. What we need to see is less headline grabbing and more concentration on getting the investment in improving the state of the service as soon as possible."

Dr Beverly Malone, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said: "Without the support of a stable, well-trained, well-motivated workforce the government's efforts to modernise public services, no mater how determined, will have limited success. The public sector is vital to the health and infrastructure of the country. The government must not allow the service to be eroded further."

John Courcouf, committed health campaigner and political activist died last week. He will be sadly missed by the community and all who have worked to build and to defend our local health services. He was a long-standing member of the Community Health Council rarely missing a meeting. Anyone who has been at Trust AGMs, Health Authority Meetings and public consultation meetings will remember John as he stood up, armed with detailed investigation, to challenge the realities behind the figures – hospital readmission rates, the waiting list to get on the waiting list, the true costs of PFI.

Most of all we remember him for his campaigning work against hospital closures and cuts in services, and in support of health workers. He was in the forefront of the Health in Crisis campaign 1997 – 1998 against devastating £10m cuts across our community acute and mental health services, and the privatisation of support staff. Before that he had been instrumental in setting up Save Waltham Forest Health Services, fighting the closure of Wanstead Hospital, Jubilee and Connaught Hospitals.

It was in the 1930s John first got involved in politics, concerned about the rise of Oswald Mosley and ardently opposed to fascism, he joined the British Communist Party, and fought in the Second World War. He continued his political activism prominent in anti-racist and in many campaigns as well as the Communist Party and CND. He was a trade unionist and member of the Waltham Forest Trades Council, and also active in local and Greater London Pensioners Association.

John was 91 when he died. Till he became ill last November he was as active as ever. Around Christmas time he was admitted to Chestnut Ward, Whipps Cross Hospital Care of the Elderly ward. Both he and his family were impressed with the care he received from medical and nursing staff, and also with the ward environment. Typical of John’s spirit, as he was leaving to go home he joked with the nursing staff, saying, "I don’t think I’ll need my bus pass much longer, but I’ve had a bloody good innings." He died at home on February 14, asleep in his chair after lunch.

John Courcouf’s contribution over a lifetime has been huge both to our local community and to the progressive movement. We extend our warmest wishes in this shared time of sadness to his wife Doris and their three daughters.

Statement of OPEN DISCUSSION, Milton Keynes

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the US and British governments launched a war against Afghanistan under the slogan of "Fighting Terrorism" in "self-defence". Attacking Afghanistan is not an act of self-defence. It violates the international legal obligations on countries to solve problems in a peaceful manner without endangering regional peace and stability as laid out in the UN Charter. Through bombing Afghanistan, the US and British governments have put themselves above the norms of international law. They have elevated terrorism to the level of foreign policy endangering the lives of millions of people. They have proclaimed their "right" to take action against whomever they define as a so-called "failed" state. They are targeting Somalia. George Bush is also threatening Iran, Iraq and North Korea, claiming that they represent an "axis of evil". US forces have been sent to the Philippines in violation of that nation’s constitution. By attacking Afghanistan, the US and Britain have set a precedent to pave the way for them to pursue imperialist global military intervention disguised as "The War on Terrorism".

Human Cost of US and British terrorism

Much has been said about the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Very little has been said of the victims of the US and British bombing. What has been said officially tends to deny, downplay or minimise the cost in lives lost by the Afghani people. One study estimates that at least 3,767 civilians were killed by the bombing of Afghanistan from October 7 to December 10 alone (Prof. Marc Herold, University of New Hampshire, US, quoted in The Guardian 20.12.02). That is about 62 deaths a day. It has also been estimated that the figure for all fatalities could be over 10,000. At Maslakh refugee camp 30 miles west of Herat there are over 350,000 refugees. Each day 100 people, many young children, die of exposure or starvation. Does this achieve justice for the victims of September 11?

No War in Our Name!

Now is the time for everyone to reflect on the misery our government is inflicting on others. It’s unacceptable that Tony Blair and George Bush threaten, bully and attack other countries in our name. The independence and territorial sovereignty of all nations is precious and is a prerequisite for peace in the world. The British armed forces deployed in Afghanistan should not be there. They need to come home.

A fire has caused a hazardous release of chemical fumes into the environment yesterday. This has presented a serious risk to workers' health and their jobs. Fire investigators are trying to find out the cause.

A large part of a factory was destroyed when the Silver shop of Ionic Surface Treatment in Grove Street, Smethwick, caught fire just after 1.30 am yesterday.

The fire service has had to call in its hazardous materials unit and the environment agency. 17 appliances had attended the fire at its height.

***************

Major Car Dealer in Receivership

Receivers have been called in to a top car dealership. Hamer Tamworth and Specktor Ltd went into receivership on Wednesday in response to trading losses, threatening hundreds of jobs.

The company trades as Hamer Ford with dealerships in West Bromwich, Tamworth, Halesowen and Star City in Birmingham.

London based receivers, Baker Tilly, have been appointed to oversee the company's affairs.

***********

MG Rover Jobs Ultimatum

MG Rover faces its biggest confrontation with unions since its takeover nearly two years ago after telling workers to leave if they objected to the company's current terms and conditions, according to the TGWU on Monday, responding to an internal memo.

The car manufacturer has incensed workers by its plans to create a "job shop" on site for all those who did not want to work on a flexible basis. The shop would find them new jobs, the memo said.

Lobbying and speculation are intensifying ahead of the expected second wave of NATO expansion at a summit in Prague in November. Some observers – including former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski – believe NATO is virtually certain to accept the three Baltic states and Slovenia; that Slovakia's accession is a question mark; and that Bulgaria and Romania may not yet be ready. NATO's official position is that nobody knows, and that nothing will be settled until November.

NATO says that one or more of the nine applicants will certainly be admitted into the alliance, and that all nine might be. NATO spokeswoman Ariane Quentier, speaking from NATO headquarters in Brussels, said that anyone who pretends to know what the judgement will be nine months from now is simply guessing. "I think right now we are in a process of consultation among the capitals, and anything more would be speculation," she said.

As part of the consultation process, leaders from the nine aspirant countries are making the cases for their countries during trips abroad. Earlier in February, Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov devoted his first presidential trip to visiting Brussels, seeking support for his country’s NATO entry. In the same week, Romanian President Ion Iliescu went to the United States on a similar mission. NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson is in Latvia and Lithuania this week to discuss expansion.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser for US President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and is currently a professor of US foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University in the United States and a counsellor at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, has offered several NATO scenarios. His conclusion is that the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, along with Slovenia, are virtually certain to enter NATO in the next wave of enlargement. He considers Romania and Bulgaria's entry in this next wave questionable. He entirely leaves out applicants Albania and Macedonia.

As for Slovakia, Brzezinski says it depends upon whether the country continues in its current direction or it returns former Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar to power in an election scheduled shortly before the Prague summit.

As for Bulgaria and Romania, Brzezinski says he believes they will eventually become NATO members, but not just yet: "I do not think anyone envisages keeping Romania or Bulgaria out permanently from either the EU or NATO. The only question under discussion is whether these two countries – or any one of them – are currently ready, in the near future, that is, to join either NATO or the EU. And that is, I think, a perfectly appropriate question to ask."

Although not responding directly to Brzezinski's views, NATO spokeswoman Quentier said that only two numbers are being considered by NATO at this early date: "The only thing we can say, the only relevant figures that we have right now, are two: [Those are] one and nine. There will be at least one country being taken for the enlargement, and there will be a maximum of nine."

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that he believes a number of countries will get accession bids in Prague. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder went so far as to call Slovakia a "very strong" candidate. Schroeder did not warn against Meciar's possible return to power, but he did praise the progress of Meciar's successor, Mikulas Dzurinda.

NATO's Quentier said that its leaders have two matters to consider in weighing each country’s candidacy: "There are two sides to look at. There's a technical-military side, whereby the countries that are part of the membership action plan and looking at accession have to reach NATO military standards. And there is, of course, the political side."

EU Commissioner for Enlargement Gunter Verheugen said on February 20 that Bulgaria and Romania might not be accepted in either the EU or NATO, and warned of the psychological blow that would deliver. Speaking to the North Atlantic Assembly in Brussels, Verheugen said that the two countries will not be part of the first EU accession wave in 2004 because of their weak economic development, lack of established administrative structure and inability to harmonise their legislation with that of the EU in time. To reject their bids for NATO membership on the same grounds could do serious damage, he warned, urging NATO members to take this into account when extending invitations at the Prague summit in November.

An addition to a controversial international "cybercrime" treaty could allow police to co-operate more closely in intercepting and decrypting the communications of suspected terrorists, Wired News reported on February 21.

The Council of Europe may add a secret "Second Protocol" to the treaty, which would cover the decoding of terrorist messages on the Internet.

Nearly all European countries are members of the Council, with the United States, Canada and Japan being non-voting members. Representatives of the US Justice Department are attending the closed-door meeting in Strasbourg, France.

Wired News reports that privacy groups and civil libertarians have been criticising the existing cybercrime treaty for the last two years and are certain to attack this potential addition.

Half of the 6,000 or so languages spoken in the world are under threat and a wealth of human knowledge could be lost with them, according to a new study. The "Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger of Disappearing" says pressures from dominant languages such as English, French, Spanish, Russian and mainstream Chinese are drowning out minority tongues at an accelerating pace.

"The dying and disappearance of languages has been going on for thousands of years as a natural event in human society, but at a slow rate," says the study, funded by the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO and published yesterday. "However, the past 300 years or so have seen a dramatic increase in the death or disappearance of languages...leading to a situation today in which 3,000 or more languages that are still spoken are endangered, seriously endangered or dying."

The study, updated and expanded from a first edition that appeared in 1996, pinpoints threatened languages in "crisis areas" on a series of maps on a scale that ranges from "potentially endangered" to "extinct". "The loss of any one language means a contraction, reduction and impoverishment of the sum total of the reservoir of human thought and knowledge as expressible through language," the study notes. "To give just a few examples, many highly effective medicinal plants are known only to people in traditional cultures... When their languages and cultures are lost, the knowledge about the plants and their healing properties is lost too."

The study cites the Americas and Australia as having the worst record over the past 100 years, with hundreds of Aboriginal languages now extinct in Australia as a result of harsh assimilation policies that persisted until around 1970. But it also lists around 50 languages that are at risk in Europe, including the Celtic languages of Britain, several of the Saami or Lappish tongues spoken in Scandinavia and northern Russia and the varieties of Romani spoken by Gypsies. In Asia, the study says, the situation for minority languages is uncertain in many parts of China while in Africa, between 500 and 600 of the 1,400 or so local languages are on the decline, with 250 of those under immediate threat.

The study was edited by the late Professor Stephen Wurm, an Australian linguist of Hungarian origin who spoke some 50 languages. The Atlas cites several reasons for the disappearance of languages, ranging from repressive government policies and assimilation to economic pressures, migratory trends, disease and natural disasters. While sounding the alarm, it notes that a determined multilingual approach can rescue even the most threatened tongues. In Japan, only eight elderly people spoke Ainu on Hokkaido Island by the late 1980s after decades of official neglect, but promotional policies have since revived the language.

The publication of the study on Thursday was timed to coincide with UNESCO's International Mother Language Day, an occasion for the agency to promote linguistic diversity.

Cuban President Fidel Castro highlighted the accomplishments of social workers in Cuba, calling them the best vehicle between state and family to solve many problems.

During Tuesday’s meeting with participants at the Cuba-US Sister Cities Association, the president explained that this social project consists, among other purposes, of bringing a comprehensive general culture to the population. Granma daily reported on Wednesday that the Cuban leader explained that "one programme generates others", illustrating this with examples such as the emergency teacher training programme, solar panels for schools without electricity, and "University for Everyone" TV courses in language, arts, science and social studies.

When President Fidel Castro mentioned that maternity leave in Cuba is for one year, the audience applauded, and he also received gestures of approval on making reference to the Revolution’s concern to discover and transform the causes that make youth commit crimes, Granma recounted.

Association between culture, education and crime was one of the topics dealt with by Fidel Castro, who reiterated the concept that humans are the most important thing in a humane society and so we must know their needs and difficulties.

The Fifth Conference of the US-Cuba Sister Cities Association – "Building Bilateral Relations: A Continuous Conversation" – was meeting at Havana's International Convention Centre on Monday and Tuesday. Delegates discussed a series of issues, including how to incorporate food and medicine into their work, the development of mutually beneficial programmes and the impact of current US-Cuba relations.

The first sister-city link was established between Cuba's capital and Mobile, Alabama, in 1993. Since then, a number of delegations of scholars, artists, religious figures and musicians have travelled between the two cities.

The last day of this encounter began on Tuesday with the participation of Osvaldo Martinez, National Peoples’ Power Assembly (Congress) Economic Affairs Committee chairman. Martinez explained the country’s strategies and transformations in resisting and developing in difficult, complex circumstances. Sister Cities Committees also met to share each US state’s sisterhood plans.

The Israeli military has jailed close to 600 reserve soldiers of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) who have refused to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More than 2,500 reservists have gone absent without leave, while thousands of others have put forward medical or personal reasons why they should not be called up for duty.

Under Israeli law, every male is required to perform three years of national service between the ages of 18 and 21, followed by a reserve-duty liability every year until between 40 and 50.

A group representing top-level Israeli reserve officers and intelligence officials is calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from almost all of the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank. Calling itself the Council for Peace and Security, the group also wants a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians and the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state – whether violence continues from the Palestinian side or not.

The rebellion in the ranks of Israeli army reservists is being called the first real crack in Israel's united stand against the 16-month Palestinian uprising, or Intifada. Some 200 reserve soldiers and officers have signed a petition refusing to serve in the West Bank and Gaza. They say they have received orders and instructions that had nothing to do with the security of the state and whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of Israeli domination of the Palestinian people.

They are reportedly hoping to add hundreds more signatures to what Israeli media outlets are calling a growing protest movement. Peace activists believe the reservists have begun to protest now because they have come up for the second round of service in the occupied territories, where there seems to be no perspective for an end to the ever-spiralling violence.

They speak of soldiers shooting and abusing Palestinian civilians, of army lies and cover-ups. Observers are noting that the reservists cannot be dismissed as left wing radicals, that most are officers from combat units who have served on the front line, and their refusal is couched in patriotic terms.

The protest movement comes as the Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv reported that some 49 percent of Israelis believe that the country's national leadership has lost control of the security situation – that selective assassinations, tank invasions of the West Bank and Gaza and the bombing of Palestinian security installations by F-16 warplanes have only led to stepped up Palestinian rebellion.

One Tel Aviv graduate lawyer captures this emerging mood when he writes of "Ruling Over a Hostile Population" from a Jewish perspective:

"Our rule over three million Palestinian Arabs in the territories has perforce put us in a position of committing a number of moral outrages. Continued rule will necessitate not only continued denial of many basic rights to Palestinians, but will require our taking additional steps which are reprehensible, if not morally questionable. While we certainly did not set out intentionally to take drastic measures to buttress our rule, these are willy-nilly consequences of such a position. To maintain our rule we will have to continue to mete out collective punishment that often cruelly affects those who are not guilty.

"Among the steps we have taken is the enclosing of millions of humans in their cities, towns, and villages. We often deny basic rights such as the right to earn a living, to study, to move freely, to purchase basic necessities, to vote, to travel for medical care, to move sick or injured to medical facilities, etc. But most severe is that innocent civilians die. While this occurs in every violent conflict throughout the world, and throughout history, what is happening now is more than unintentional collateral deaths of civilians. Ruling over millions of people who despise your rule necessitates such deaths of youngsters, women, and elderly.

"The IDF, like any army, makes both avoidable and unavoidable mistakes; but it is certainly not bloodthirsty and has no daily quota of corpses. It is not an oxymoron to term the IDF a humane army. Nevertheless, it seems that a large number of the hundreds of Palestinian civilians who die are not killed because Israeli armed forces are acting in self-defence. The IDF maintains that these are victims of such unavoidable actions that must be taken to quell unrest. In this respect, the IDF is correct because to put down a popular uprising drastic measures (i.e., maiming and killing civilians) are often needed, in addition to the enforcing of curfews, establishment of blockades, abrogation of civil rights, and condoning of inhumane treatment. The governmental decision to remain in the disputed territories leads to the viewing of most, if not all, Palestinians as enemies and anyone who is connected to the enemy is a fair target.

"[…] Questions of immorality and illegality waft above the orders to serve in the territories. We must continue to serve in the IDF, as a defence army, but not as an occupying force committing crimes against humanity.

"We dare not become soldier robots. We may have to suffer the consequences of refusal, which can run the gamut from ridicule and social ostracism to imprisonment. As soldiers we not only have to obey orders, but we also have to be aware that they may violate our most basic moral, legal, and religious norms."

We reproduce herewith the petition being signed by the Israeli army reservists, followed by a draft petition from an organisation of Israeli war widows.

• We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defence Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.

• We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides.

• We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.

• We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.

• We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated in the end.

• We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.

• We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.

• We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defence Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defence.

• The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.

Israeli war widows petition

We, a group of IDF widows, have organised lately in order to add another voice of protest and to express our hope for peace.

It isn't easy for us to use our personal loss as leverage, but we can't afford to quibble now! Because of our loss, we must try to prevent more losses.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

We, IDF widows, who have suffered bereavement and loss, cry out:

STOP THE BLOODSHED!

In this terrible time of despair, violence and devastation, when women of both sides are widowed and their children orphaned, we call out:

THE TIME HAS COME TO BREAK THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF BEREAVEMENT!

Domination of other people demands unnecessary victims on both sides, and endangers both our lives and the moral fabric of Israeli society. Blood begets blood, and violence begets violence!

We will not have calm in our region without just peace which will enable both people to live in freedom, security and human dignity.

For Your Reference:

Talks of Foreign Secretary in Middle East

Last week, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, met Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Perez, on February 13 in Jerusalem, followed by talks with President Yasser Arafat in Ramallah.

Following the respective talks joint press conferences were held.

We are posting the edited transcripts of the press conferences herewith for your reference.

Edited Transcript of Press Conference given By the Foreign Secretary, Mr Jack Straw and President Yasser Arafat, Ramallah, Wednesday, 13 February 2002

PRESIDENT ARAFAT:
Mr Secretary, I would like to welcome you here and I have to thank you for this visit and this effort and please convey to His Excellency the Prime Minister our thanks from our hearts for all his efforts to push forward the peace process and to protect it. Now especially, we are in need of your help as Britain and as Europe and through the Committee of the Four, the Americans, the Europeans, the Russians, the United Nations, are carrying on your efforts together, to protect the peace of the brave, which I have signed with my partner, Rabin.

This is not only for us as Palestinians, it is for the Palestinians, for the Israelis, for all the Middle East countries and for peace all over the world. This is the terra santa, the land of peace, the Holy Land.

And I have to repeat again, I have to thank you for what we have discussed in detail together and I have to repeat again, in front of the whole of the mass media, that we are committed to the peace of the brave, which we have signed with our partner Rabin and to hope that we can continue this strategic line of our people and our leadership, to follow up with the peace in the whole, so that we can have stability, peace and security here and in the whole area. For this we are in need of your efforts and the whole international push. Thank you.

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Thank you very much Your Excellency, Mr President. As I told you, I brought the greetings of my Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and I would like to express my appreciation for the lengthy meeting that we have had, the very frank conversation, and for your hospitality this evening.

We agreed, as you have heard, that the situation here is very serious. We talked about our joint commitment and the commitment these days of the international community for a state of Israel living in peace, with security, with stable borders and accepted by its neighbours and for a viable state of Palestine living too within secure borders and accepted by all its neighbours.

I expressed my great concern about the suffering of all the peoples of the region, the suffering of the Palestinian people and the suffering too that happens in Israel as well.

We talked of the urgent need to stop the violence and get back to the negotiating table and this is not going to be easy but we all recognise that this is essential, that there is no future in violence, that the only way out of this conflict is by negotiation and by peace, but in order to achieve that there has to be an end to the violence.

And Your Excellency, you are right to raise those joint words of the peace of the brave. This is a time when brave actions, as well as brave words are needed, as I know you recognise, and we talked therefore of the further steps, that we believe, should be taken, within the area of the occupied territories to deal with the extremists, who in turn undermine our shared vision of a peaceful future for all the peoples of this land.

And I told President Arafat that we in the United Kingdom, with our partners in the European Union and our friends in the United States, stood ready to act to help to get the parties back on the road to peace, to achieve that peace of the brave.

QUESTION:
Mr Straw, what do you think about the current situation in the occupied territories?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
The overall situation in the occupied territories, and for the people of Israel, is unacceptable. We have to get away from the tragic cycle of violence and my purpose here today was to look to the future and to offer our views about the way we can go forward.

PRESIDENT ARAFAT:
It is not the first time I am facing these troubles, but the important thing is what our people are facing; military escalation every day, destroying all our infrastructures, bulldozing and destroying the houses of our people, the siege of all towns and cities and villages everywhere, the reoccupation of many of our liberated Palestinian lands in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

We are looking for this quick and strong move from the Committee of the Four, which I have mentioned, the Americans, the Europeans, the Russians, the United Nations and also from our brothers, the Arab countries, to move quickly to stop this tragedy, which we are facing and to return back to the peace negotiations to implement an understanding so that all sides can continue the final negotiations and implement our independent Palestinian state and its capital, East Jerusalem.

QUESTION:
Foreign Secretary, why do you believe the onus is currently on the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat to break the current deadlock?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
The Tenet and Mitchell plans are there and set out a clear pathway back to a peaceful resolution of this longstanding conflict. It is our judgment that first of all the Palestinian Authority has taken certain actions, and we applaud them for that, to produce a greater degree of security and there was quite a period after 16 December when there was a very peaceful situation here.

But it is still our judgment and it is our duty to offer that judgment in a spirit of friendship, as I have done this evening, but there are further steps which ought to be taken inside the occupied territories and elsewhere by the Palestinian Authority to do what everybody accepts is in their interests, as well as the interests of getting this peace process moving, and that is to deal even more effectively with the extremists, who have a number of connected Aims. One of those aims of course is to undermine the legitimation of the Palestinian Authority.

QUESTION:
Mr Foreign Secretary, why don't you condemn the actions of the Israelis, such as the assassinations, the killings, the demolition of houses, as according to international law, in the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians have the right for resistance which is guaranteed by the international coalition? For President Arafat, in the current situation, can you really crack down on the extremists?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
We grieve for the suffering and death of all innocent people, regardless of whether they are living in the occupied territories or living in the State of Israel or elsewhere, and regardless of their religion.

However, the fact of suicide bombings is a new dimension to the terror, which the people of Israel have had to deal with and that in turn undermines the possibilities of a political process. That is just a reality and it is my duty as a good friend of the people of the occupied territories, and someone who personally is strongly committed to a secure state of Israel alongside a viable state of Palestine, to offer my views about what are the next steps to get this process back on track.

Of course there are many other things, which have to happen and there are many things on both sides, which are unacceptable in this cycle of violence that have to end, and I understand the difficulties that are associated with this.

PRESIDENT ARAFAT:
We are committed to what has been declared on 16 December in my speech for peace, not only for the leadership, but the Palestinian people and this is what we had voted for, if you remember.

But at the same time, and in spite of what we are facing, the troubles, assassinations, destruction, helicopters and the F15s, we are committed to the peace of the brave, which I have signed with my partner Rabin, who gave his life for this peace of the brave.

QUESTION:
Mr Arafat, can you give us a commitment that you are going to make a 100% effort to control extremists and could you tell us what specific steps you are going to take to make your control of extremists much more effective?

PRESIDENT ARAFAT:
First of all, this has been mentioned by the high Israeli politicians, even in the Cabinet and by high Israeli officers, that after my initiatives on 16 December we had 24 days when they were asking only for 7 days.

This is more than had been mentioned in the Mitchell report or in any of the other negotiations. We accepted it and we gave 24 days and in spite of that they continued their assassinations and their bombings of our cities, towns, prisons and establishments, even schools and houses, and our Christian, holy, sacred places and Muslim, holy, sacred places.

Edited Transcript of A Press Conference given By the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, And the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Perez, In Jerusalem, Wednesday 13 February 2002

MR PEREZ:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to welcome a colleague and a friend, the Foreign Minister of Great Britain, Jack Straw, who came on a goodwill mission, to try and see what can be done to bridge over the present gap and the present situation which is an unhappy one on both sides.

Today Great Britain is in a very special position to bridge over in the Atlantic sense between the United States and Europe, and in the Mediterranean sense between Europe and the Middle East. We trust very much the motives of the British role. The intention to bring us closer together and raise a flame of hope in a very demanding situation.

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Thank you very much Shimon. It is really delightful to be back to see you and to see your colleague, the Defence Minister. My only sadness is that your Prime Minister is ill, and has had to cancel all his meetings.

He spoke to me on the telephone on the way here between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and I passed on to him my good wishes, but also the good wishes of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for a very speedy recovery.

What we have talked about here today obviously is the security situation and the prospects for a better future for the people of Israel and the people of the Occupied Territories. Our position has been well stated often enough. It is for Israel to live within secure borders with peace and security and for the right of the State of Israel and the people of Israel to live with peace and security, not just to be tolerated by the rest of the region, but to be acknowledged and to be accepted by the rest of the region. And alongside that for there to be a viable State of Palestine.

That is easy enough to describe, but the steps that have to be taken to get there are more difficult, but some of those are laid out in the Mitchell and the Tenet Plans. We have talked about that. I am sure there will be some questions about recent history as well as past history, whatever the recent history and the longer term history, I am clear, we are clear in the British Government, that the first steps which have to be taken are to make the life of the people of Israel much more secure, and that means clamping down on the terrorism which comes from the Occupied Territories.

I shall later on today be seeing Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority, and tomorrow speaking to other senior members of the Palestinian Authority, and that message which I have said just now, is the same message that I shall be giving to Chairman Arafat and to other representatives of the Palestinian Authority.

We recognise the overwhelming need for peace in the whole of this region. We also, as I say, recognise that alongside a secure State of Israel within borders which guarantee its peace, there is an overwhelming case for a viable State of Palestine.

We supported Mitchell and Tenet, but we also say that given the situation which now arises, given the kind of terror, not just terrorism which sounds abstract, but the terror which has occurred in Israel and which has affected the daily lives of everybody who lives in this country to a degree which is even for us in the United Kingdom where we have had to suffer some terrorism, almost impossible to imagine.

Given that situation, the first steps have to be taken very clearly not just in terms of words but action to clamp down on the terrorism which emanates from the Occupied Territories, and that will be my message later on today.

QUESTION:
Isn't it time now for both the British Government and the European Union to take firm action to link EU funding to concrete measures by the Palestinian leadership against terrorism?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Some action has been taken, and there have been periods, as you know, of relative quiet, or almost total quiet, and that was true for a period in early October which was then completely wrecked by the assassination of Minister Ze'evi. It was also true during part of November which again was wrecked by the appalling suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem and Haifa.

What those periods of quiet show is the capacity of the Palestinian Authority to secure quiet where the clear orders are given. And that gives me a confidence when I am talking to Chairman Arafat this evening that what I will be asking of him, on behalf of the British Government, is something which he and his colleagues in the Palestinian Authority are capable of delivering.

As for the European Union, you will have seen the conclusions which were issued at Laachen and by the General Affairs Council very recently. All of the members of the European Union continue to be very concerned indeed about the situation here.

One of the things that I in turn have been concerned about is to ensure that we stay engaged with the United States, and so far as is humanly possible, that we have a common approach with the United States because, I know this for certain, in this situation as in other equivalent situations, is that if the international community is divided, or allows itself to be divided, that will make the path to peace much more difficult, not less difficult.

QUESTION:
In the last couple of days, in the run-up to your visit here, Israeli F16 jets have done three bombing raids over Gaza. Today we have had an incursion into Northern Gaza where land has been reoccupied, and two other towns have been raided.

Five people today I think have been killed. One yesterday. Your aides say that you have sharp messages for both sides in this region, but that the emphasis is on Mr Arafat. Do you think in the light of those events I have just listed, it wouldn't be appropriate to send an equally tough if not tougher message to Mr Sharon about the handling of this conflict?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Like my good friend and colleague, Shimon Perez, what I am interested in is action, rather than words. I regret the death of anybody in this region as elsewhere. It is possible to reel off similar lists from both sides, very long lists for the people who have been killed in suicide bombings. This is a dreadful situation for every innocent person in the whole of the region.

The question is, as I say, not to rake over the history. Where we are is where we are, it is how you go forward. And I have already set out what I believe and I think the international community accepts the next steps that need to be taken.

As Mr Perez is making clear, if those next steps are taken, and they have to be taken because I do not myself, as a Minister and a human being, understand how people can live in the kind of terror that has been perpetrated on the people of Israel without that profoundly affecting their policy. It is bound to do that and on one occasion when I was the Home Minister in Britain, we faced a similar situation which was the Omagh bombing. If that had gone on weekend by weekend it would have completely changed our politics and the ability of the British Government to take action as we would have wished.

So we have to have an understanding about this. We have to have an understanding about who can take the next steps. I have set out what I believe is possible and I believe that if those next steps are taken then we can very quickly, provided it is clear that there is confidence behind those next steps, get back to a pathway to peace.

QUESTION:
Israeli leaders say that aid from the European Union, including Britain, is going to fund terrorism by the Palestinians. Do you accept that charge?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
The European Union takes very great care to seek to ensure that its funds are not going for those purposes, but useful people purposes. If there is any evidence that the funds have been diverted in an inappropriate way we will examine it very quickly.

QUESTION:
Do you think that Britain or the international community needs to make a reassessment of their policy against Iran?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
So far as Iran is concerned, the British Government has taken the view for some period of the need for there to be a critical engagement with Iran. We are completely realistic about the situation. We do not in any sense find acceptable their approach to the State of Israel.

And when I went to Tehran at the end of September I said not only privately but publicly how much I condemned the sponsorship of terrorism by Iran, and I pointed out that as the Home Secretary in Great Britain I had been one of the first interior ministers in the West who had banned the military wings of Islamic Jihad, of Hammas, and Hizbollah.

So far as the future is concerned, as you will be aware, the government of Iran have decided not to give agreement to our proposed Ambassador, David Reddaway, and as I have already made clear that is bound to affect the nature of the relationship between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Iran.

QUESTION:
Mr Perez, given the pressure from other European Union countries, not Britain, to move much more quickly towards an independent Palestinian State, what is your reaction to that?

MR PEREZ:
Well, I think that we would like to move ahead as soon as possible. I may say that when the late Prime Minister Rabin and myself had offered autonomy to the Palestinians, we thought that autonomy maybe 80% of independence, they will learn from experience that this is not the case.

And I am afraid that today the Palestinian position is worse than it used to be. It is because of it that I think that the recognition of a Palestinian independence as soon as possible is a real need. I don't see any reason to postpone it. I think the sooner the better. I think the sooner that we shall go from the shooting games to the talking dialogue, the better for our people.

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Can I just say that I am not aware of how my remarks could have been interpreted as a warning in that respect. What I have talked about, and I have talked about very publicly, is a need for the European Union, given its different historical and geographical perspectives, to stay engaged with the United States for the reasons I have given. I don't think that is something with which Mr Perez would disagree.

QUESTION:
To what extent do you consider that Yasser Arafat is responsible for the weapons shipment, and if so do you agree with the apparent US conviction that there must be a replacement for him?

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
We recognise Chairman Arafat as the Head of the Palestinian Authority, and it is in that capacity that I will be talking to him this evening. As for the responsibility for the shipment, there seems to be a good deal of evidence which traces it back to people inside the Palestinian Authority. I will be discussing that further with Chairman Arafat when I see him.

QUESTION :
Mr Perez, what do you expect from the European Union? Mr Straw is here today and Mr Fischer will be here at the end of the week, so how far can they get involved in the peace process from your perspective.

MR PEREZ:
My hopes are that the European Union will continue to co-ordinate its policy with the United States of America at least as far as terrorism is concerned. I think a split between Europe and America is dangerous for peace and also it is counter-productive. Then I would expect the Europeans - and I hope this is the case - not to take sides, but to take the side of peace, and whatever can be agreed between us and the Palestinians I believe can and should be acceptable by the Europeans and enjoy their support.

About the financial aid - that was I believe your question - our position is that whatever the contribution the Europeans will provide to the Palestinians in building an infrastructure and creating jobs will enjoy our support.

QUESTION:
I think it is clear to everybody that in the present circumstances Mr Arafat is either unable or unwilling to stop the terrorism.

FOREIGN SECRETARY:
Well, I will refer you, if I may, to what I said right at the beginning of this press conference. There are plans already there in terms of pathways to a peace process which include Tenet and Mitchell.

Then there are plans like that which have been drawn up between Shimon Perez and Abu Allah which, whether they are taken forward will be a matter for the parties concerned and as Shimon has said, it is for us in the European Union and the wider international community to give backing to plans and negotiations which produce what we all seek which is peace in this region.

I have also explained to you our view about the next steps which can be taken by the Palestinian Authority and again, to repeat the point, do I believe these measures are within the capacity of the Palestinian Authority - yes. Why do I believe that?

Because there have been periods in the last six months to the certain knowledge of people here where terrorism emanating from the Occupied Territories was controlled by the Palestinian Authority. It wasn't controlled enough, and it wasn't controlled for long enough, but it was controlled. That shows what can be done. What lies within the capacity of the Palestinian Authority.

What we now want is to see them sustain this control. And I will just make one last point about their capacity. Back, as Shimon Perez was reminding me, in 1996 the Palestinian Authority under Chairman Arafat really did ensure that they took control of the terrorists within their midst and that led to a much more benign situation than now exists.

MR PEREZ:
If I may add one sentence. I believe all of us prefer to change the policy-making rather than the policy-makers. Namely we would like to find an alternative to the present policies before any other opposition will take place.

Where Are the Funds for Increased Investment to Be Found?

Where Are the Funds for Increased Investment to Be Found?

Tony Blair Warned on Public Sector Morale

Tribute from the Joint Staff Consultative Group of the Whipps Cross University Hospital Trust

Afghanistan – Victim of US and British State Terrorism, Who Will Be Next?

News In Brief

Factory Fire Releases Dangerous Chemicals

Major Car Dealer in Receivership

MG Rover Jobs Ultimatum

International News

Lobbying and Speculation Intensify Ahead of Prague Summit

Treaty Change May Allow Greater Surveillance

Half the World's Languages under Threat

Fidel Castro Extols Cuban Social Workers

Army Reservists Jailed for Refusing to Serve In the Occupied Territories

Courage to Refuse – Combatant Letter 2002

Talks of Foreign Secretary in Middle East