US Occupation of Iraq

Workers' Daily Internet Edition News Release : Article Index :

US Occupation of Iraq

Brent Meeting against the War on Iraq

Two articles by John Pilger:
A Piratical War Bringing Terrorism and Death to Iraq
We Now Glimpse the Forbidden Truths of the Invasion of Iraq

Indian Lok Sabha Passes Unanimous Resolution Deploring War on Iraq

International Physicians Warn Use of Nuclear Bunker Busters in Iraq Could Result in Thousands of Radiation Victims

The British Police Want To Force Our People Into Acting As Informers

Statement of WDIE Editorial Board 10-04-03

The events in Iraq and in Baghdad in particular are showing what is meant by the “liberation” of Iraq.

            “Coalition” forces mean the forces of US imperialism in Baghdad and the lesser prize goes to the British forces in Basra. “War against Saddam” means the war against Iraq for its occupation.

            What is being witnessed on the television screens is the destruction of a civilisation. What the Anglo-US powers mean by “freedom” is therefore very evident. It is “freedom” in their own image, that of anarchy, freedom to grab whatever you can in this world for your own self-interest.

            These powers can only see in Saddam Hussein their own self-image when they speak of his dictatorship and of his being a tyrant. What was Saddam Hussein’s motivation? These powers can only answer that he was evil, and they specifically say like Lenin and Stalin were evil. There has been no analysis of Saddam Hussein’s aims for Iraq nor for the Arab world as a whole. They see in the Iraqi architecture and culture no beauty but only artefacts to be destroyed. They see in the Iraqi people only the elements, few though they be, who want to throw off their heritage.

            The monopoly-controlled media machine has also been exposed for what it is, a media machine not for objective reporting but as a cog in the machine of the occupying powers, to give the events the perspective of the official propaganda of liberating the country from a tyrannical regime.

            Bush and Blair have perfected their double-act of “bad cop, good cop”. While Bush openly stands for military might and the imposition of US interests, Blair pushes the United Nations, that Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, that all is being done for the interest of Iraq and Iraqis.

            But for both of them, the fall of Iraq represents another stage in bringing the whole world under the values of Anglo-US neo-liberal globalisation, which the British government swears are universal. Regimes can be tyrannical or democratic as long as they take up these values. Without them, they are the target sooner or later for domination and annexation, within the whole orbit of the world-wide imperialist system. This is why Syria, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea come next. Meanwhile, the European powers, Russia and others are also getting ready to fight for their interests.

            In this respect, the propaganda machine likened the occupation of Baghdad, the US forces pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein, to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Berlin Wall for them symbolised the collapse of communism, while the fall of Saddam Hussein symbolises the next stage in wiping out opposing ideologies.

            But the destruction, devastation and humanitarian catastrophe in Baghdad also brought to mind the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, in that it was a tangible symbol of the revenge of the Bush regime for that atrocity.

            The vultures of the Bush and Blair regimes have learnt not to crow too loudly after the failure of their initial assaults on Iraq to win the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people. But it is also true that the fall of Baghdad is only the beginning of their problems in imposing their dictate in Iraq, throughout the Middle East, contending with Europe for this region, and step by step following their plan to encircle South and East Asia.

            This is because the opposition to war represented by the millions who have marched and are marching world-wide is opposition to the methods and the content of the New World Order, and represents the demand for a different world, where the use of force is outlawed and the people’s interests are put at the centre.

            Indeed, the coming battles will centre around the content of the words “freedom” and “liberation”. Racing pigeons may need to be “liberated” by human agency, and even then they make for home. But for human beings, liberation is their own deed, an expression of their own initiative as conscious human persons. Even today, the ruling elite tries to paint colonialism as in the main liberation, and the national liberation struggles of the peoples as in the main terrorism.

            Those that have participated in the protests against the war on Iraq and the so-called “war against terrorism” have been nauseated by the scenes of US criminality and irresponsibility in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. Their demands have been to remove all British troops from foreign soil and that this is also in the interests of humanity in this country as well as in Iraq and elsewhere. Now, more than ever, People’s Assemblies for Peace are required and the discussion must be joined as to how to organise for an anti-war government, which takes its stand with the world’s people and in which the people set the direction for society. The lesson can be drawn that the existing form and content of governance represents the opposite of civilised values. Now is the time to organise for change, based on the determination that the future must lie with the people.

A meeting was organised on April 7 by Brent Stop the War hosted at the premises of the Pakistani Community Association in Willesden Green, North West London. Up to 100 people heard speeches by Mark Steel, comedian and journalist, and Asad Rehman, National Organiser of the Stop the War Coalition, with interventions by Mayor of Brent Abdul Sattar-Butt, Tariq Dar of the Pakistani Community Association and representatives of Brent’s NATFHE and Fire Brigades Union alongside Palestine Solidarity Campaign.

            During the debate most speakers described their concerns and reaction to the aggression, especially the effects of what some described as a psychological war launched by the monopoly-controlled media to weaken the movement’s resolve. Many speakers also highlighted the chauvinism and racism that was considered to be as much a part of the media coverage as it was of the illegal aggression. Mobilising for the April 12 demonstration was stressed both from the platform and interventions from the floor. In this vein an intervention called for the anti-war movement to move from reactive protest to taking a proactive stance by preparing for an anti-war government which prohibits British government participation in wars of aggression and the use of force to settle international problems. In closing remarks both platform speakers returned to this demand, which was also amongst the subjects of discussion between small groups as the meeting ended.:p>

            Over £700 was donated to the Brent Stop the War campaign fighting fund and many people volunteered practical assistance to strengthen the campaign in the local area.

10 Apr 2003

A BBC television producer, moments before he was wounded by an American fighter aircraft that killed 18 people with "friendly fire", spoke to his mother on a satellite phone. Holding the phone over his head so that she could hear the sound of the American planes overhead, he said: "Listen, that's the sound of freedom."

            Did I read this scene in Catch-22? Surely, the BBC man was being ferociously ironic. I doubt it, just as I doubt that whoever designed the Observer's page three last Sunday had Joseph Heller in mind when he wrote the weasel headline: "The moment young Omar discovered the price of war". These cowardly words accompanied a photograph of an American marine reaching out to comfort 15-year-old Omar, having just participated in the mass murder of his father, mother, two sisters and brother during the unprovoked invasion of their homeland, in breach of the most basic law of civilised peoples.

            No true epitaph for them in Britain's famous liberal newspaper; no honest headline, such as: "This American marine murdered this boy's family". No photograph of Omar's father, mother, sisters and brother dismembered and blood-soaked by automatic fire. Versions of the Observer's propaganda picture have been appearing in the Anglo-American press since the invasion began: tender cameos of American troops reaching out, kneeling, ministering to their "liberated" victims.

            And where were the pictures from the village of Furat, where 80 men, women and children were rocketed to death? Apart from the Mirror, where were the pictures, and footage, of small children holding up their hands in terror while Bush's thugs forced their families to kneel in the street? Imagine that in a British high street. It is a glimpse of fascism, and we have a right to see it.

            "To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.

            Nothing Bush and Blair, their cluster-bombing boys and their media court do now will change the truth of their great crime in Iraq. It is a matter of record, understood by the majority of humanity, if not by those who claim to speak for "us". As Denis Halliday said of the Anglo-American embargo against Iraq, it will "slaughter them in the history books". It was Halliday who, as assistant secretary general of the United Nations, set up the "oil for food" programme in Iraq in 1996 and quickly realised that the UN had become an instrument of "a genocidal attack on a whole society". He resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck, who described "the wanton and shaming punishment of a nation".

            I have mentioned these two men often in these pages, partly because their names and their witness have been airbrushed from most of the media. I well remember Jeremy Paxman bellowing at Halliday on Newsnight shortly after his resignation: "So are you an apologist for Saddam Hussein?" That helped set the tone for the travesty of journalism that now daily, almost gleefully, treats criminal war as sport. In a leaked e-mail Roger Mosey, the head of BBC Television News, described the BBC's war coverage as "extraordinary - it almost feels like World Cup football when you go from Um Qasr to another theatre of war somewhere else and you're switching between battles".

            He is talking about murder. That is what the Americans do, and no one will say so, even when they are murdering journalists. They bring to this one-sided attack on a weak and mostly defenceless people the same racist, homicidal intent I witnessed in Vietnam, where they had a whole programme of murder called Operation Phoenix. This runs through all their foreign wars, as it does through their own divided society. Take your pick of the current onslaught. Last weekend, a column of their tanks swept heroically into Baghdad and out again. They murdered people along the way. They blew off the limbs of women and the scalps of children. Hear their voices on the unedited and unbroadcast videotape: "We shot the shit out of it." Their victims overwhelm the morgues and hospitals - hospitals already denuded of drugs and painkillers by America's deliberate withholding of $5.4bn in humanitarian goods, approved by the Security Council and paid for by Iraq. The screams of children undergoing amputation with minimal anaesthetic qualify as the BBC man's "sound of freedom".

            Heller would appreciate the sideshows. Take the British helicopter pilot who came to blows with an American who had almost shot him down. "Don't you know the Iraqis don't have a fucking air force?" he shouted. Did this pilot reflect on the truth he had uttered, on the whole craven enterprise against a stricken third world country and his own part in this crime? I doubt it. The British have been the most skilled at delusion and lying. By any standard, the Iraqi resistance to the high-tech Anglo-American machine was heroic. With ancient tanks and mortars, small arms and desperate ambushes, they panicked the Americans and reduced the British military class to one of its specialities - mendacious condescension.

            The Iraqis who fight are "terrorists", "hoodlums", "pockets of Ba'ath Party loyalists", "kamikaze" and "feds" (fedayeen). They are not real people: cultured and cultivated people. They are Arabs. This vocabulary of dishonour has been faithfully parroted by those enjoying it all from the broadcasting box. "What do you make of Basra?" asked the Today programme's presenter of a former general embedded in the studio. "It's hugely encouraging, isn't it?" he replied. Their mutual excitement, like their plummy voices, are their bond.

            On the same day, in a Guardian letter, Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, pointed us to evidence of this "hugely encouraging" truth - fleeting pictures on Sky News of British soldiers smashing their way into a family home in Basra, pointing their guns at a woman and manhandling, hooding and manacling young men, one of whom was shown quivering with terror. "Is Britain 'liberating' Basra by taking political prisoners and, if so, based on what sort of intelligence, given Britain's long unfamiliarity with this territory and its inhabitants . . . The least this ugly display will do is remind Arabs and Muslims everywhere of our Anglo-Saxon double standards - we can show your prisoners in . . . degrading positions, but don't you dare show ours.".

            Roger Mosey says the suffering of Um Qasr is "like World Cup football". There are 40,000 people in Um Qasr; desperate refugees are streaming in and the hospitals are overflowing. All this misery is due entirely to the "coalition" invasion and the British siege, which forced the United Nations to withdraw its humanitarian aid staff. Cafod, the Catholic relief agency, which has sent a team to Um Qasr, says the standard humanitarian quota for water in emergency situations is 20 litres per person per day. Cafod reports hospitals entirely without water and people drinking from contaminated wells. According to the World Health Organisation, 1.5 million people across southern Iraq are without water, and epidemics are inevitable. And what are "our boys" doing to alleviate this, apart from staging childish, theatrical occupations of presidential palaces, having fired shoulder-held missiles into a civilian city and dropped cluster bombs?

            A British colonel laments to his "embedded" flock that "it is difficult to deliver aid in an area that is still an active battle zone". The logic of his own words mocks him. If Iraq was not a battle zone, if the British and the Americans were not defying international law, there would be no difficulty in delivering aid.

            There is something especially disgusting about the lurid propaganda coming from these PR-trained British officers, who have not a clue about Iraq and its people. They describe the liberation they are bringing from "the world's worst tyranny", as if anything, including death by cluster bomb or dysentery, is better than "life under Saddam". The inconvenient truth is that, according to Unicef, the Ba'athists built the most modern health service in the Middle East. No one disputes the grim, totalitarian nature of the regime; but Saddam Hussein was careful to use the oil wealth to create a modern secular society and a large and prosperous middle class. Iraq was the only Arab country with a 90 per cent clean water supply and with free

            education. All this was smashed by the Anglo-American embargo. When the embargo was imposed in 1990, the Iraqi civil service organised a food distribution system that the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation described as "a model of efficiency . . . undoubtedly saving Iraq from famine". That, too, was smashed when the invasion was launched.

            Why are the British yet to explain why their troops have to put on protective suits to recover dead and wounded in vehicles hit by American "friendly fire"? The reason is that the Americans are using solid uranium coated on missiles and tank shells. When I was in southern Iraq, doctors estimated a sevenfold increase in cancers in areas where depleted uranium was used by the Americans and British in the 1991 war. Under the subsequent embargo, Iraq, unlike Kuwait, has been denied equipment with which to clean up its contaminated battlefields. The hospitals in Basra have wards overflowing with children with cancers of a variety not seen before 1991. They have no painkillers; they are fortunate if they have aspirin.

            With honourable exceptions (Robert Fisk; al-Jazeera), little of this has been reported. Instead, the media have performed their preordained role as imperial America's "soft power": rarely identifying "our" crime, or misrepresenting it as a struggle between good intentions and evil incarnate. This abject professional and moral failure now beckons the unseen dangers of such an epic, false victory, inviting its repetition in Iran, Korea, Syria, Cuba, China.

            George Bush has said: "It will be no defence to say: 'I was just following orders.'" He is correct. The Nuremberg judges left in no doubt the right of ordinary soldiers to follow their conscience in an illegal war of aggression. Two British soldiers have had the courage to seek status as conscientious objectors. They face court martial and imprisonment; yet virtually no questions have been asked about them in the media. George Galloway has been pilloried for asking the same question as Bush, and he and Tam Dalyell, Father of the House of Commons, are being threatened with withdrawal of the Labour whip.

            Dalyell, 41 years a member of the Commons, has said the Prime Minister is a war criminal who should be sent to The Hague. This is not gratuitous; on the prima facie evidence, Blair is a war criminal, and all those who have been, in one form or another, accessories should be reported to the International Criminal Court. Not only did they promote a charade of pretexts few now take seriously, they brought terrorism and death to Iraq. A growing body of legal opinion around the world agrees that the new court has a duty, as Eric Herring of Bristol University wrote, to investigate "not only the regime, but also the UN bombing and sanctions which violated the human rights of Iraqis on a vast scale". Add the present piratical war, whose spectre is the uniting of Arab nationalism with militant Islam. The whirlwind sown by Blair and Bush is just beginning. Such is the magnitude of their crime.

           

We Now Glimpse the Forbidden Truths of the Invasion of Iraq

06 Apr 2003

We now glimpse the forbidden truths of the invasion of Iraq. A man cuddles the body of his infant daughter; her blood drenches them. A woman in black pursues a tank, her arms outstretched; all seven in her family are dead. An American Marine murders a woman because she happens to be standing next to a man in a uniform. "I'm sorry,'' he says, "but the chick got in the way.''

            Covering this in a shroud of respectability has not been easy for George Bush and Tony Blair. Millions now know too much; the crime is all too evident. Tam Dalyell, Father of the House of Commons, a Labour MP for 41 years, says the Prime Minister is a war criminal and should be sent to The Hague. He is serious, because the prima facie case against Blair and Bush is beyond doubt.

            In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the "necessity'' for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbours. "To initiate a war of aggression,'' said the tribunal's judgment, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.''

            To this, the Palestinian writer Ghada Karmi adds, "a deep and unconscious racism that imbues every aspect of Western policy towards Iraq." It is this racism, she says, that has cynically elevated Saddam Hussein from "a petty local chieftain, albeit a brutal and ruthless one in the mould of many before him, [to a figure] demonised beyond reason".

            To Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, the Iraqis, like all Arabs, were "niggers'', against whom poison gas could be used. They were un-people; and they still are. The killing of some 80 villagers near Baghdad last Thursday, of children in markets, of the "chicks who get in the way'' would be in industrial quantities now were it not for the voices of the millions who filled London and other capitals, and the young people who walked out of their schools; they have saved countless lives.

            Just as the American invasion of Vietnam was fuelled by racism, in which "gooks'' could be murdered with impunity, so the current atrocity in Iraq is from the same mould. Should you doubt that, turn the news around and examine the double standard. Imagine there are Iraqi tanks in Britain and Iraqi troops laying siege to Birmingham. Absurd? Well, it would not happen here. But the British military is doing that to Basra, a city bigger than Birmingham, firing shoulder-held missiles and dropping cluster bombs on its population, 40 per cent of whom are children. Moreover, "our boys" are denying water to the stricken people of Basra as well as to Umm Qasr, which they have controlled for a week. It is no wonder Blair is furious with the al-Jazeera channel, which has exposed this, and the lie that the people of Basra were rising up on cue for their liberation.

            Since 11 September 2001, "our'' propaganda and its unspoken racism has required an imperial distortion of intellect and morality. The Iraqis are not fighting like lions, in defence of their homeland. They are "cowardly'' and subhuman because they use hit-and-run tactics against a hugely powerful invader - as if they have any choice. This belittling of their bravery and disregard of their humanity, like the disregard of thousands of Afghans recently bombed to death in dusty villages, confronts us with a moral issue as profound as the Western response to that greatest act of terrorism, the wilful atomic bombing of Japan. Have we progressed? In 2003, is it still true that only "our'' lives are of value?

            These Anglo-American invasions of weak and largely defenceless nations are meant to demonstrate the kind of world the US is planning to dominate by force, with its procession of worthy and unworthy victims and the establishment of American bases at the gateways of all the main sources of fossil fuels. There is a list now. If Israel has its way, Iran will be next; and Cuba, Libya, Syria and even China had better watch out. North Korea may not be an immediate American target, because its threat of nuclear war has been effective. Ironically, had Iraq kept its nuclear weapons, this invasion probably would not have taken place. That is the lesson for all governments at odds with Bush and Blair: nuclear-arm yourself quickly.

            The most forbidden truth is that this demonstrably militarist British government, and the rampant superpower it serves, are the true enemies of our security. In the plethora of opinion polls, the most illuminating was conducted by American Time magazine among a quarter of a million people across Europe. The question was: "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?'' Readers were asked to tick off one of three possibilities: Iraq, North Korea and the United States. Eight per cent viewed Iraq as the most dangerous; North Korea was chosen by 9 per cent. No fewer than 83 per cent voted for the United States, of which, in the eyes of most of humanity, Britain is now but a lethal appendage.

            Only successful propaganda, and corrupt journalism, will prevent us understanding this and other truths. Rupert Murdoch has been admirably frank. In lauding Bush and Blair as "heroes'', he said, "there is going to be collateral damage in Iraq. And if you really want to be brutal about it, better we get it done now.'' Every one of his 175 newspapers carries that sinister message, more or less, as does his American television network. The 80 villagers rocketed to death on Thursday are proof of the urgency he describes; other victims in other countries are waiting.

            For those journalists who see themselves as honourable truth-tellers, there are difficult choices now: rather like the choice of the young woman at the GCHQ spy centre in Cheltenham who allegedly leaked documents revealing that US officials were trying to blackmail members of the Security Council; rather like the two British soldiers who face court martial because they exercised their right, enshrined by the Nuremberg judges, to refuse to fight in a criminal war that kills civilians.

            For journalists who are not "embedded'' and are deeply troubled by the kind of propaganda that consumes even our language, and who, as James Cameron put it, "write the first draft of history'', similar courage is required. Brave Terry Lloyd of ITN, killed by the 'coalition', demonstrated this. The threats are now not even subtle, such as this from our Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon. "One of the reasons for having journalists [embedded],'' he said, "is to prevent precisely the kind of tragedy that occurred to an ITN crew ... because [Terry Lloyd] was not part of a military organisation. And in those circumstances, we can't look after all those journalists ... So having journalists have the protection of our armed forces is both good for journalism. It's also good for people watching.''

            Like a mafia boss explaining the benefits of a protection racket, Hoon is saying: do as you are told or face the consequences. Indeed, Donald Rumsfeld, Hoon's superior in Washington, often quotes Al Capone, the famous Chicago mobster. His favourite: "You will get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.''

            How do we face this threat to all of us? The answer lies, I believe, in understanding the extent of our own power. Patrick Tyler wrote wisely in the New York Times the other day that America faced a "tenacious new adversary'' - the public. He says we are entering a new bi-polar world with two new superpowers: the Bush/Blair gang on one side, and world opinion on the other, a truly popular force stirring at last and whose consciousness soars by the day. Wasn't it the poet Shelley who, at a time like this, exhorted us to: "Rise like lions after slumber''?

from Tribune News Service, New Delhi, April 8

The Lok Sabha [People’s Assembly] today unanimously passed a resolution deploring the attack by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and their allies on Iraq and calling for an end to the war.

            The resolution passed in Hindi uses the word ‘ninda’ generally translated as ‘condemned’. There was general confusion about the actual meaning of the word since an English translation was not made available in spite of a demand from members.

            The resolution moved by the Speaker, Mr Manohar Joshi, the wording of which was accepted by the Opposition and the Government after two days of intense discussion, said the war in Iraq was not acceptable to India, as the military campaign had not received the UN mandate.

            "This House demands that war should be immediately stopped and the allied forces should go back. The UN should ensure that the integrity of Iraq is maintained and the reconstruction of Iraq should be under the supervision of the UN", the resolution said.

            Mr S. Jaipal Reddy of the Congress said whatever sympathy the USA had earned as a result of the September 11 attack on World Trade Centre had transformed into antipathy due to the naked aggression on Iraq.

            Mr Somnath Chatterjee of the Communist Party (Marxist) said India needed to be on guard against the US doctrine of pre-emption. The USA was responsible for the liquidation of the League of Nations and was, now, posing a threat to the existence of the UN.

            Mr Vijay Kumar Malhotra of the Bharatiya Janata Party, said the US aggression on Iraq meant that the UN had become irrelevant and a unipolar world could pose a threat to any country.

            The External Affairs Minister, Mr Yashwant Sinha, said that the Indian foreign policy had always been based on pragmatism. India had always had friendly relations with the Arab world, including Iraq, and the USA, and would like to strengthen both relationships.

            He said India had been one of the rare countries seeking the lifting of the sanctions against Iraq.

            The Speaker, Mr Joshi had met leaders of the Government and the Opposition as many as five times to arrive at a unanimous resolution.

            "This House expresses deep sorrow and sympathy for the people of Iraq," the resolution said.

            Following humanitarian appeal by the UN, India had decided to give Rs 100 crore assistance, including 50,000 mt of wheat, to the world body for the war-ravaged people of Iraq, the resolution said.

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) has released an important new study on the medical consequences of the use of nuclear earth-penetrating weapons (EPWs), also known as bunker busters. The study was produced by a team of experts on the medical consequences of the use of nuclear weapons led by Victor W. Sidel, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Princeton University physicist Robert W. Nelson, an expert on the physical effects of low-yield, precision nuclear weapons, was also a co-author.

            The IPPNW study concludes that even a very low-yield nuclear EPW exploded in or near an urban environment such as Baghdad will inevitably disperse radioactive dirt and debris over several square kilometres and could result in fatal doses of radiation to tens of thousands of victims.

            Moreover, if EPWs are used against underground bunkers containing biological or chemical weapons or weapons materials, there is a high probability that these deadly agents will not be completely incinerated and will be dispersed on the ground and into the atmosphere.

            The United States currently deploys both conventional and nuclear EPWs, including about 50 nuclear-tipped B61-11s, which can penetrate 2-3 meters and have reported yields between 0.3 kilotons and 340 kilotons. The 2003 Department of Energy (DOE) budget specifically requests funding for a “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator” (RNEP) that would be more effective than the B61.

            “Our findings unequivocally refute the contention by the Bush administration and the Pentagon that nuclear bunker busters could be used in Iraq or anywhere else with minimal so-called collateral damage,” Dr. Sidel said.

            “The nature of that ‘collateral damage’ would be fatal doses of radiation to anyone within a kilometre of the explosion and acute radiation sickness for potentially thousands of people who would die excruciating deaths over several days to a week or more.”

            The use of low-yield nuclear weapons would also undermine global security. “Were the US to use such weapons,” Dr. Sidel said, “it would be crossing the nuclear threshold for the first time since the US used nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 50 years ago. This is not only morally repugnant, but it would start us down the slippery slope to the use of nuclear weapons of greater yield — something the entire world has been trying to prevent since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

            The study concludes with a policy assessment in which the authors state that further development of EPWs could require underground nuclear testing, breaking the current world moratorium and destroying prospects for eventual universal accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Both the resumption of nuclear testing and the production of new nuclear weapons will fuel global nuclear weapons proliferation.

             

The Threat of Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons to Civilian Populations: Nuclear “Bunker Busters” and Their Medical Consequences

Victor W. Sidel, MD, H. Jack Geiger, MD, MSHyg, Herbert L. Abrams, MD, Robert W. Nelson, PhD, and John Loretz

Executive Summary

Nuclear weapons advocates in the Bush Administration and the Congress wish to introduce new low-yield nuclear weapons into the US arsenal — part of a growing trend to lower the nuclear threshold and to make the use of nuclear weapons more acceptable. A very low-yield nuclear earth-penetrating weapon (EPW) exploded in or near an urban environment, however, will disperse radioactive dirt and debris and other radioactive material over several square kilometres. A nuclear EPW with a yield less than one-tenth of that of the nuclear weapon used on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, if detonated in an urban environment, could result in fatal doses of radiation to tens of thousands of victims.

Key Points

·           The United States currently deploys both conventional and nuclear EPWs, including about 50 nuclear-tipped B61-11s, which can penetrate 2-3 meters and have reported yields between 0.3 kilotons and 340 kilotons. The 2003 Department of Energy (DOE) budget specifically requests funding for a “Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator” (RNEP) that would be more effective than the B61.

·           Even a very low-yield nuclear weapon used in an urban environment would risk producing tens of thousands of civilian radiation casualties. Casualties of this magnitude would overwhelm even the most effective medical care system.

·           An EPW explosion will inevitably breach the ground surface and throw out radioactive dirt and debris over an area of several square kilometres. Radiation is invisible and, without radiation monitors, civilians would be unaware of their exposures and consequent risks. Those within about 1 kilometre of the epicentre would receive fatal doses of radiation within 1-5 hours; others with acute radiation sickness would suffer from protracted vomiting, diarrhoea, fluid and electrolyte loss, profound anaemia, haemorrhaging, infection, and other symptoms; those exposed to lethal doses could take several days to a week or more to die.

·           Infants, children, the elderly, and the chronically ill are especially vulnerable.

·            Hazardous materials stored in underground bunkers are unlikely to be incinerated by an EPW; there is a high probability that biological and chemical agents against which nuclear EPWs are targeted would be disseminated to the ground surface and to the atmosphere, causing additional deaths and illnesses.

·           There are no specific therapies for acute radiation injury; supportive treatment (intravenous fluids, blood transfusions, antibiotics) is crucial in permitting survival through acute illness and may lead to eventual recovery, but such care is unlikely to be available in Iraq or in other places where use of nuclear EPWs has been proposed, such as North Korea and Iran.

·           Most of the total radiation dose received from fallout occurs in the first few hours after the detonation, making rapid evacuation essential. A low-yield nuclear EPW detonated in a crowded urban area such as New York City would require the rapid evacuation of millions of people. Because Baghdad, with 5 million people, has a greater population density than New York, even more people would have to be evacuated from any affected area.

·           The use of low-yield nuclear weapons would cross the nuclear threshold for the first time since the US used nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki more than 50 years ago and may weaken the restraints against the use of nuclear weapons of greater yield.

·           Further development of EPWs may require underground nuclear testing, breaking the current world moratorium and destroying prospects for eventual universal accession to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

·           Both the resumption of nuclear testing and the production of new nuclear weapons will fuel global nuclear weapons proliferation.

            ******

IPPNW Statement on the Launch of War Against Iraq

The United States-led war against Iraq was launched despite overwhelming global opposition and a clear determination within the United Nations to continue and intensify the inspections-based process of disarmament in Iraq.

            IPPNW and its 58 affiliates condemn this war as a violation of international law and the UN Charter. This unwarranted, pre-emptive military assault against Iraq is also an assault against the UN system upon which the world relies for peaceful and just solutions to regional and global conflicts.

            Now that the war has begun, its prosecutors -- in particular the United States -- must fully comply with and respect the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and therein make every effort to protect civilians, the environment, and civilian infrastructure from harm. The Iraqi government and military, in defending Iraq against this invasion, has an equal obligation to do so within the norms of international law.

            Any use of weapons of mass destruction or other weapons with indiscriminate effects must be avoided. This applies especially to nuclear weapons of any size or yield. Such weapons must never be used in war for any purpose. IPPNW also condemns any use of chemical or biological weapons (including chemical incapacitating agents and chemical riot-control agents, which have been banned under international law), depleted uranium weapons, cluster bombs, anti-personnel landmines, and massive conventional ordnance near civilian populations. All such weapons have contributed to or would contribute to large-scale civilian casualties, both during and after armed conflict, and we call upon the parties to the conflict to renounce their use.

            Our overriding concern has always been and continues to be the health and security of the people of Iraq, who deserve neither the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein nor the massive show of military force against their country that has been undertaken without just cause by the Bush administration and its allies in the war. The US cannot now walk away from its responsibility to help the Iraqi people rebuild a society that serves their needs and interests, whether or not those interests coincide with the Bush administration's ambitions for the region.

            We urge the US -- even at this late date -- to call an end to this war and to return responsibility for the disarmament of Iraq to the UN where it rightfully belongs. Once this war has ended, the attention of the world must turn to repairing the damage that has been done not only to Iraq but to the UN system.

            No one country -- not even a superpower with a few reluctant partners -- has the moral or legal right to determine what is best for the world and then use unmatchable military force to impose its vision of a proper world order. A recommitment to -- and a strengthening of -- collective frameworks for peace, justice, and security in which all voices are heard and all interests are considered is the only acceptable outcome of this war.

March 20, 2003

In the year 2000, an anti-terrorism law called the Terrorism Act 2000 was issued. On the basis of what is contained in this law, some organisations are banned, among them the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Cephesi, Britain, released this statement on March 13, 2003

In the framework of the “war on terrorism” headed by the USA since September 11, the British state has also begun to play its part in the policies of aggression pursued by the USA. It took part in actions to bomb Afghanistan and kill its civilians. At the moment these policies of aggression are continuing, within the framework of slaughtering the people of Iraq and turning that country into a US state. An aspect of such a policy is destroying the revolutionary struggle and the democratic opposition throughout the world. For this reason too, the anti-globalisation movement is liable to be accused of terrorist activities.

           
THE TRUTH ABOUT TURKEY:

            Turkey is a country in which the most basic human rights are not recognised. The state in Turkey is a mafia state which engages in torture, massacres and rape. On a number of occasions, the European Court of Human Rights and various EU institutions have found the state in Turkey guilty of violating human rights. Tens of thousands of people in our country have lost their lives as a result of state terror. Millions of our people have been subjected to torture or have been forced to become refugees.

            The most basic human rights, the right to think and the right to organise, are infringed and declared to be illegal.

            Hundreds of our people have been tortured to death in police stations. In the prisons, inmates who were already in captivity and behind the four walls of their prisons have been murdered with firearms, bombs or beaten to death with clubs, and this happened before the eyes of the entire world. Finally, on December 19, 2000, as a result of a state operation in the prisons, 28 prisoners were killed in this manner. All this information has been established to be true by international human rights bodies and even the investigative commission of the National Assembly of Turkey (parliament) accepted that it happened. The British state knows all this perfectly well.

           
IT IS NOT A CRIME TO STRUGGLE AGAINST FASCISM

            The British state banned the DHKP-C as a way of supporting the fascist regime in Turkey. It thus banned the struggle against fascism in Turkey and the use of the right to resist fascism. And the Terrorism Act 2000 not only banned the struggle against fascism in Turkey, it also made it illegal in Britain to reveal the crimes against humanity that go on in Turkey.

            But nobody can prohibit the struggle against fascism. There can be no legitimate pretext for supporting fascism.

            Bans, imprisonment and starting up new court cases cannot prevent us from telling the truth about what goes on in our country. No force, no punishment can stop us from revealing the terrorism practiced against the peoples of Turkey by fascism in our country.

           
OUR STRUGGLE IN BRITAIN IS AN OPEN AND DEMOCRATIC ONE

            They wanted to legitimise the repression against the DHKP-C by carrying out an operation in which seven democrats from Turkey were arrested. They looked for excuses to legitimise an operation which was carried out to stop us revealing what goes on in our country.

            They acted as if something really major had been uncovered, basing this on address books and various documents found on the people arrested. In actual fact there is no underground organisation in Britain. Here, all work is done openly, legally and legitimately. And since there is nothing secret and clandestine there is also nothing to reveal. All that is there are various ties, part of above-the board activity that is well known.

           
WHAT IS THE INFORMATION THE POLICE HAVE?

            What the police have are things everyone knows about because they are activities that are conducted openly. The police are trying to stop democratic people from distributing and selling magazines that are legal even in Turkey. Three cheers for the British police, who are committing acts of repression that even the torturing, murdering and rapist police of Turkey have not got round to.

            The police here are trying to prevent aid campaigns expressing feelings of solidarity and support in our people’s culture and all democratic activities. They are trying to prevent us from aiding and supporting those we are close to who live in Turkey. They are seeking to terrorise us for supporting our people in Turkey who are exposed to state terrorism.

            If we live here in Britain, we are also part of the people who live in our country. Revolutionaries are the sons and daughters of this people and are the people. The existence of revolutionaries in our country is connected to the existence of our people. While our people exist, revolutionaries will also exist and no force can prevent us supporting our human beings, our people.

            Especially in the last month, the police have been going around shops in London to intimidate people and blackmail them into making statements against the DHKP-C. The police have been telling lies such as “DHKP-C people made statements saying you are helping them”. First of all they say they know that the person was helping them, and when they do not get the response they want they continue by saying, “Are they forcing you to buy the magazine, or to give them money?” So far the police have gone to about 80 shops and everyone has told them they bought magazines voluntarily and contributed to aid campaigns voluntarily. This is not the response the police are looking for, so then they tell shopkeepers, “You own a house, a car, a business. If you don’t want to lose them all...” as a form of indirect blackmail to try and extract from them an anti-DHKP-C statement.

           
WHAT DO THE POLICE WANT TO DO?

            Do the police simply want to turn the truth inside out or do they want to compel our people to make statements that are lies? The police are supporting the fascist regime in Turkey by putting pressure on our people and by trying to blackmail them into making statements against the DHKP-C. In fact almost all of our people from Turkey who live here had to come here because of the fascist regime in Turkey that the British police are trying to support.

            The aim of the police is not to protect local businesses but to turn them into informers and depersonalise them.

            People from Turkey did not create the crimes such as drugs smuggling and mafia activity which also target Turkish-speaking people who live in Britain. These crimes are the product of the system in this country. So far the British police have been quite indulgent towards this kind of dirty work. The aim is to corrupt and cause the degeneration of our people and destroy the characteristics which lead them to support the democratic opposition.

           
IT IS DISHONOURABLE TO BE AN INFORMER

            In Anatolian culture, the most dishonourable thing is to be an informer. So the aim of the police in trying to get people to inform is to undermine our traditions and our morality. They are trying out every method in corrupting our people in order to distance them from revolutionary values and the people’s values. And because our associations and our people’s organisations have opposed this degeneration, the police are treating them as a prime target today. And so the prime target is the culture of Anatolian people and our revolutionary, democratic opposition aspects. As the people, we cannot permit this to happen.

           
WHO ARE OUR PEOPLE AFRAID OF?

            Our people voluntarily open their doors to revolutionaries. If they aid revolutionaries it is done because they want to. If revolutionaries have been able to exist in our day, it is because they have received support from the people. Revolutionaries have never made our people feel worried, on the contrary they complain that the revolutionaries do not visit them more often. It is when the police come to the door that our people are upset. If our people see policemen coming towards them, they cross over to the other side of the street. Because police have never brought our people anything beneficial. In our culture the police have always been on the side of tyranny. They see that police repression here as well as bans, arrests and raids are designed to support the fascist regime in Turkey, and it disturbs them when the police come to try and extract lying statements from them.

           
ADMISSION BY THE POLICE

            On March 10, 2003, there was a court appearance in London for the people who have been arrested; the prosecution admitted that “according to our enquiries the DHKP-C does not collect money by force, nor does it force people to buy magazines”. But in the hours and days after making this admission the London police continued to harass shopkeepers. Now the police do not just go after names obtained from arrests, they continue to go to all shopkeepers without distinction and try to get them to turn informer. The police intention is clear; to stop our people from supporting revolutionaries and to create provocations.

            Our people must not permit themselves to be terrorised out of supporting the struggle against the fascist regime in our country and must take up a more distinct attitude.

            Yes, we are continuing to receive publications which are close to our beliefs or which tell the truth about our country. Our people in our country are exposed to fascist repression. We support our own people. Helping is a part of our culture and we must be able to say that we will help our people in whatever way we want to.

            The shopkeepers the police want to get to turn informer today are our shopkeepers, who support democratic values through their own labour and according to their lights. They are not people involved in shady business. There is nothing the police can do to our people, and there is nothing that will require us to behave in a timid fashion.

           
Our Right To Our Beliefs And Organisation Cannot Be Terrorised Or Banned

The Guilty Are Not Those Who Struggle Against Fascism But Those Who Support It

Informing Is Dishonourable, Let Us Stand Up In Defence Of Our Honour