The Costs of War!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Costs of War!

The Need for Anti-War Government

The South Tyneside Forum Puts the Warmongers in the Dock

The latest edition of Silence is Shame, published by the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition (STSWC), is based on the South Shields Forum The Costs of War. The Forum took place on the third anniversary of the 2-million-strong demonstration in London to oppose the invasion of Iraq as part of the international actions.

WDIE congratulates the STSWC in bringing out this journal, along with all others in the anti-war movement who are taking initiatives in building the resistance to the war and aggression pursued by the US and Britain, and planting the alternative to this pro-war programme.

The Preface of Silence is Shame points out: "The costs of this and other wars were incalculable and have profound and the most serious consequences for the world and to what makes us human. The forum exposed not only the huge cost in human life, the most terrible injuries which have occurred but the consequences that are throwing the world back into a medieval anarchy."

"This was a world in which a minority of big power governments and the transnational corporation they represent were destroying human rights, destroying conflict-resolving international institutions and tearing up international law and replacing it with the law of force, imprisonment without trial and the torture chamber of medieval times. This was a world where the big powers manipulate the UN and other bodies fabricating any excuse to exert control and make war against whichever country they wish to annex. In this way, the US is threatening Iran, Syria, DPRK, Venezuela and many other countries, whilst Britain also had its eyes fixed on Africa."

Another World Is Possible! We Will Create It!

To Contact South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition, E-mail : STSWC@blueyonder.co.uk

by Roger Nettleship

Taken from Silence Is Shame, February 15, 2006

I think it is very significant that we are holding this Forum on the Costs of War on the third anniversary of the massive demonstration prior to Bush and Blair’s attack on Iraq.

In my view the history of the world’s people will show that February 15, 2003 was a defining moment. It was a day when the world said "No to War", when millions of people demonstrated around the world against the impending invasion of Iraq.

Not only did the people say "No to War" and that this was "Not in Our Name", but it raised the whole issue of the necessity for change and to bring about anti-war government.

The possibility of anti-war government was also opened up after the Second World War and with the United Nations charter which demanded an end to resolving international conflicts through military means. As you know what we got instead, in spite of the high hopes of the people, was pro-war government. The US and Britain used the excuse of "containing communism" for pro-war government. Today that excuse is gone for the time being, so they have created another excuse for pro-war government the excuse of a "war on terrorism."

The consequences of this is that the US and Britain, far from using the UN to maintain international peace and security, are attempting to use it to justify the crime of war. Far from renouncing the use of force and the threat of war as the bedrock to international relations, they are declaring that the "credible threat of force" must prevail, that no other solutions are to be permitted.

Far from respecting the territorial integrity and political independence of states, they are demanding the adoption of the Anglo-American model by everyone and intervening and committing aggression in the name of their own interests of globalisation and "universal values". They claim the right to send their armies anywhere in the world and to any country. This is the nature of pro-war government at the head of the most powerful states.

The need for anti-war government is what the anti-war movement has placed on the agenda:

Just to mention 5 features of anti-war government.

1. Outlaw any and all British involvement in wars of aggression and renounce the use of force in settling international affairs; The Ministry of Defence would be truly the Ministry of Defence and not what it really is a Ministry for War. This would also mean the removal of British troops from foreign soil. As Germany did after the Second World War it would be necessary that this be enshrined in a modern constitution;

2. Recognise the sovereignty and equality of all nations even if they have differing social systems; it would respect the right of peoples to have the system of their choice. Accept the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries;

3. Adopt a foreign policy independent of the United States;

4. Stop producing weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and comply with the NPT a treaty which Britain hypocritically tries to impose on other countries but has never complied with itself;

5. Pay reparations for all the crimes of war, occupation and the colonial conquests of the past.

So those are five features of a modern foreign policy for anti-war government. But what does the need for anti-war government mean right now? What can we do to bring it about? For the anti-war movement, for all of the people involved in this broad movement it means to strengthen their unity and keep the initiative in their own hands. Literally it is embodied in the demand to bring the troops home now.

It also means to organise our selves to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people against the propaganda with which they are trying to poison the minds of the people and particularly the youth.

It is important to look at the evil and cunning nature of those big business interests behind Blair and Brown and the media barons that they represent. They didn’t join in directly in anti-Muslim propaganda around the Danish cartoons but they made sure that it was conveyed in every detail to have exactly the same effect.

They make no comment on the fact that thousands of Muslims and the Muslim Association of Britain takes part in the anti-war movement and are demanding the same as us - a peaceful world without wars. But they publicise a tiny protest in London, made up of people who could have very well been compromised by the British state, to launch the most vicious attack on those of Muslim faith and dehumanise them.

Let us make no mistake this dehumanisation of Muslims is the prerequisite to genocide. This is what they are doing in the Middle East, with Iraq and Afghanistan and what they plan to do possibly with Iran and Syria and maybe even they are attempting to prepare us for nuclear strikes. It is also to try and derail the antiwar movement because this is a significant block to their plans.

How does it attempt to derail us? We are saying that the issue is bring the troops home, peaceful resolution of conflicts to stop their wars, the upholding of the rights of nations to sovereignty and the need to affirm the rights of all humanity. They want us to believe that it is a clash of civilisations between Muslims and Christians and that there is only the military solution and the implementation of a policy of degradation of human rights and criminalisation of human beings in Britain and elsewhere.

The people of all walks of life, from military families, workers, students, doctors, nurses and so on are part of the anti-war movement. The movement itself has entered the political arena to further its work. The Respect Coalition stood on that basis in the last election and ourselves stood our own anti-war candidate in South Shields in Nader Naderi. Reg Keys from the Military Families Against the War stood against Blair in Sedgefield. This was a significant step in the direction of anti-war government and one which we need to continue to discuss, and organise for.

I would like to conclude by saying that the need for anti-war government is expressed by keeping the initiative in our own hands in deciding what is to be done to bring the troops home and end the wars and occupations.

It is also, to continue to elaborate and develop the anti-war alternative foreign policy as the only foreign policy for a modern world and to directly intervene in the political process which we are doing and should continue to develop.