lee…

Moira and I went along to the Watershed this morning (yes, I know!) to see Ellen Kuras’s film about the model-turned-war-photographer Lee Miller.
It’s a tough, but compelling, watch…
Kate Winslet is brilliant in the role of the American photographer Miller, working as a war correspondent for Vogue during WW2. Along with her friend and colleague, Life magazine photographer David Scherman (Andy Samberg), she was one of the very first civilians to bear witness to the atrocities of the Nazi concentration camps at Buchenwald and Dachau.
I was aware of Miller’s photographic career and legacy, but didn’t know that her son only discovered her file of photographs hidden away in the loft of their home after her death in 1977 (over recent years, Miller’s son and granddaughter have endeavoured to keep her memory alive).
There were some scenes that I felt were a bit ‘exaggerated’… but (what do I know!) were vindicated in the closing credits – which showed ‘stills’ from the film alongside photographs taken by Miller that absolutely endorsed what had actually happened.
It’s a remarkable, sobering film… brilliantly acted and depressingly highlighting the exclusion of women/attitudes towards women during WW2.
PS: Winslet chain-smoked CONTINUOUSLY during the film… I just hope they weren’t ‘proper’ fags or else the insurance company might have to pay out bigtime!!

school service corps (in the early 1960s)... but not for me.

Bizarrely, I recently came across a photograph of an earth mound/retaining wall structure they use on shooting ranges and it immediately conjured up memories of my time at grammar school in Birmingham. We had our own firing range(!) in the 'playground' - consisting of a high brick wall, with battered earth in front to house the targets (we used the firing range as one of our playground ‘goalmouths’!), together with its own fully-equipped armoury on school premises (complete with rifles, bayonets and bullets)!!
I was born just four years after the end of the war and it’s easy to forget how much impact the war still had in those years of my youth.
The school’s cadet corps (Army/Navy/RAF) was taken EXTREMELY seriously; school masters used to wear their service uniforms once a week on service corps days. Each year, the school’s cadet corps had a large parade – they marched (complete with a full band of drummers and buglers) from the school to the sports ground off Wood Lane, three miles away… and they were always led by the Divinity master (and Army officer!) who rode a huge white horse (I know!).
There was an expectation for all boys to sign up for the Cadet Corps and I think most probably did. But NOT our Form. I was in the ‘Remove Stream’ at school – we were in the ‘fast stream’ earmarked to take our ‘O’ Levels in 4 years instead of 5. When it came to the time for signing up (in 1962/63, when we were perhaps 14 years old?), absolutely NO ONE in our class volunteered to ‘join up’. The assigned ‘Cadet Corps Masters’ were incredulous… “never in the history of the school has this ever happened” (or words to that effect). I recall the ‘Top Dog’ Corps Master coming to lecture us… it was our DUTY… we were the school’s future Cadet Corps OFFICERS for goodness sake (implying that, as the ‘bright’ ones, we were required to pull the others ‘into shape’). It had absolutely no effect… none of us joined up. 

It’s something I look back on with a certain pride… you might think our actions were inappropriate, unwarranted or misguided but, like the climate change school pupils of today, I think we were making our own small statement… and, naïve as it might be, I’m very pleased that we did.

nothing changes…

As part of my Advent ‘ponderings’, I‘ve been reading Rowan Williams’s Christmas sermons from his time in office as Archbishop of Canterbury, 2002-2012 (”Choose Life”). I’ve always found him a wise and thought-provoking man…
The following words from Christmas 2008 are a poignant reminder of how little has changed in the Middle East:
“This year, as every year, we remember in our prayers the crises and sufferings of the peoples of the Holy Land: how tempting it is to think that somehow there will be a ‘saviour’ here – a new US president with a fresh vision, an election in Israel or Palestine that will deliver some new negotiating strategy. It’s perfectly proper to go on praying for a visionary leadership in all those contexts; but meanwhile, the ‘saving’ work is already under way, not delayed until there is a comprehensive settlement.
This last year, one of the calendars in my study… has been the one issued by by Families for Peace – a network of people from both communities in the Holy Land who have lost children or relatives in the continuing conflict; people who expose themselves to the risk of meeting the family of someone who killed their son or daughter, the risk of being asked to sympathise with someone whose son or daughter was killed by activists promoting what you regard as a just cause. The Parents Circle and Families Forum organised by this network are labouring to bring hope into a situation of terrible struggle simply by making the issues ‘flesh’, making them about individuals with faces and stories. When I have met these people, I have been overwhelmed by their courage; but also left with no illusions about how hard it is, and how they are made to feel again and again that they come to their own and their own refuse to know them. Yet if I had to identify where you might begin to speak of witnesses to ‘salvation’ in the Holy Land, I should unhesitatingly point to them.”
Fifteen years on, nothing changes… and the prayers remain the same. 

putin...

For the vast majority of people, recent events have secured Putin’s place as one of the world’s unpopular and most feared individuals.
People (world leaders, politicians, journalists and alike) have expressed shock and surprise at what’s happening in Ukraine and yet, as a documentary first shown on the BBC in March 2018 seems to show, it was only a matter of time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09vb7m3/putin-the-new-tsar

Although I was vaguely aware of most of the events highlighted in documentary, I freely admit that I had largely swept such issues aside (yes, I know most of us have had ‘our fill’ of sickening images of the Russian army bombarding Ukraine). BUT I really would recommend that you watch the documentary in an effort to put things into context… and to underline that we shouldn’t have been surprised by Putin’s actions.
Despite his lowly KGB colonel credentials, Putin became President in May 2000. Between 2000-2004, Putin set about the reconstruction of the impoverished condition of the country -  apparently (according to Wikipedia) winning a power-struggle with the Russian oligarchs, reaching a 'grand bargain' with them, which allowed the oligarchs to maintain most of their powers, in exchange for their explicit support for Putin's government (and, it seems, direct financial compensation/contributions/back-handers). Indeed, according to the documentary, Putin was regarded as “the world’s richest man” – in 2015, outspoken critic Boris Nemtsov circulated pamphlets pointing out that Putin’s wealth included 58 jets, 2 yachts and a summer palace (Nemtsov was assassinated soon after). Corruption and institutionalised corruption in the country is now considered rife.
 
In 2008, there was a crisis in Georgia (with Russian tanks sent to the country and a 5-day war resulting); in 2014, there were several Russian military incursions into Ukraine and, as a result of a Russian-organised, widely-criticised referendum, Crimea (then part of Ukrainian territory) was annexed to join Russia.
In the documentary, Sergei Pugachev (who helped Putin come to power) described Putin as a “weak man… an envious and greedy man… and he’s a man who always lies”. Nemtsov described Putin’s attitudes demonstrated the “extreme narcissism of the emperor”. Former Foreign Secretary, William Hague, maintained that Putin “has invented new kinds of warfare which Western countries are still struggling to come to terms with… “with its full spectrum capability”.
But, for me, the most telling words of the documentary came from Gary Kasparov (former World Chess Champion and who, in 2008, had announced his intention to run as a candidate in that year's Russian presidential race - but, after encountering logistical problems in his campaign, for which he blamed "official obstruction", he withdrew).
Kasparov said: “It’s not IF Putin would attack, it’s only when and where”.
Sobering and telling words from four years ago.

seeking refuge…

Imagine you’re an 16 year-old young man from Afghanistan.
Imagine the horrendous ordeals you’ve suffered during the course of your short life after fleeing the extremely volatile and hazardous circumstances that confronted you in your homeland and on your frightening journey to the UK.
Imagine being left hugely traumatised and mentally scarred by your experiences.
Imagine being left feeling afraid that there are still people ‘out there’ that are seeking to harm you further and that your life is in danger.
Imagine yourself as a very vulnerable young man who needs support.
Imagine that the war has left you with absolutely no living relatives and that you’re completely alone in this world.

The young man is now aged 20 living in Bristol (at least for the time being) and, for the past nine months, he and I have been meeting together perhaps 3-4 times a month.

He’s personable and shy. He’s become a good friend. We share a love of cricket and I’ve endeavoured to assist him with matters such as his college language course; his consultations with his doctor/hospital appointments; providing additional help and support with the excellent Bristol Refugee Rights people; plus various issues regarding his accommodation. He clearly needs support and encouragement.
He’s also an asylum-seeker.

Although I have strong feelings about our country’s responsibilities towards refugees, this is NOT intended to be a blog post to persuade you to ‘join a crusade’ or anything like. I simply want to paint a picture of what life is like for some of these refugees and ask you to reflect on this.

This young man (we’ll call him Khan) has been in the UK for the past 18 months. Khan lives in a shared house with other individuals who find themselves in the same predicament. Khan lives a pretty primitive life, eating simply, trying to learn the language (and doing well at this)… but at least he has a roof over his head (for which he’s very grateful).

As an asylum-seeker, Khan has previously attended a formal Asylum-Seeker Hearing (in Cardiff) to secure refugee status. This hearing, conducted by the Home Office, apparently lasted three-and-a-half hours and involved 118 questions (Khan has shown me the papers verifying his answers).

His application was duly denied by the Home Office.
(note: according to Google, more than 60% of applications are denied)

So, today, I drove Khan to his Asylum-Seeker Appeal Hearing in Newport - junction 24 of the M4 (in my car-club car)… the alternative was train from Bristol to Newport, followed by a 5 minute walk, a 15 minute bus ride, and then a 20 walk at the other end… not too easy if you’re an asylum-seeker with very limited funds and little knowledge of ‘how things work’ in this country.

His appointment was set for 10am… but it was then explained to us that “everyone has a 10am appointment” (which, for some, meant a wait of up to 6 hours!). Fortunately, he was ‘on second’ – which involved a wait of only some 100 minutes. I was there for moral-support and, although the barrister said I’d be allowed into the Hearing, I wouldn’t be able to speak or contribute in any way. In event (based on the barrister’s advice), I sat in the waiting room. Khan’s solicitor (who had prepared the necessary papers) was unable to attend due to ‘other work commitments’, so Khan’s case was presented by a barrister who he’d met for the first time just 10 minutes before the scheduled start of the Appeal Hearing. Although, to my mind, this seemed unreasonable, the barrister was absolutely fine – polite, understanding and helpful. There was also an interpreter provided to assist during the Hearing.

The Appeal Hearing lasted nearly an hour and a half (the Home Office produces the case against the asylum-seeker and the Barrister acts on behalf of appellant). 

The judge will make his (in this case) decision known within 2 or 3 weeks. Both parties have a right to Appeal the Appeal decision.
I was left with a strong sense, maybe unfairly, that the Home Office is determined (obliged even?) to make the case against the vast majority of asylum-seekers… but it also left me wondering if the judge had a ‘quota or prescribed percentage’ of cases that he was allowed to grant?
On the positive side, I must stress that it’s been good to see the support that asylum-seekers like Khan do receive (legal advice, health care, language tuition, accommodation etc).

However, I was very conscious that this wasn’t just a legal case. This was actually determining an individual’s future… and it all felt very scary… especially if you’re a lonely 20 year-old who’s trying to find his way in a cruel, cruel world.

So, now imagine being in the shoes of my friend Khan… now living in the knowledge that your future is being determined by a judge… and that, within a few months, you could be returned to Afghanistan – a country from which you narrowly escaped with your life.

army cadet corps… and remembrance

I was in town first thing yesterday morning… I was outside our city centre church (Saint Stephen’s), just a stone’s throw from the crowds gathering for the Remembrance Service at the Cenotaph. An army officer rode past on a white horse… and it immediately took me back to my school days at Handsworth Grammar in Birmingham.

Each year, the school’s cadet corps had a large parade – they marched (complete with a full band of drummers and buglers) from the school to the sports ground off Wood Lane, two miles away… and they were always led by the Divinity master (and Army officer, of course!) who rode a huge white horse.
Our school was ‘big’ on the Army Cadet Corps… it had its own fully-equipped armoury on school premises (complete with rifles, bayonets and bullets!) and its own firing range (set up next to the woodwork block!). The firing range consisted of a high brick wall, with battered earth in front to house the targets. We used the firing range as one of our playground ‘goalmouths’, of course!
There was something of an expectation for all boys to sign up for the Cadet Corps and I think most did. But NOT our Form. I was in the ‘Remove Stream’ at school – we were in the ‘fast stream’ earmarked to take our ‘O’ Levels in 4 years instead of 5. When it came to the time for signing up (in 1962/63, when we were perhaps 14 years old?), absolutely NO ONE in our class volunteered to ‘join up’. The assigned ‘Cadet Corps Masters’ were incredulous… “never in the history of the school has this ever happened” (or words to that effect). I recall the ‘Top Dog’ Corps Master coming to lecture us… it was our DUTY… we were the school’s future Cadet Corps OFFICERS for goodness sake (implying that, as the ‘bright’ ones, we were required to pull the others ‘into shape’). It had absolutely no effect… none of us joined up. It’s something I look back on with a certain pride… you might think our actions were inappropriate, unwarranted or misguided but, like the climate change school pupils of today, I think we were making our own small statement… and, naïve as it might be, I’m very pleased that we did.
Why was this?
Well, I think we were making a collective statement. I don’t think it happened because we’d got together to discuss whether or not we should join the ‘Corps’. I think it was just a gut feeling that a number of us had and others joined as things developed.

Crucially, I think it was our instinctive reaction to the Cuban Missile Crisis (16-28 October 1962).

People forget what an incredibly frightening time it was. To many of us, it felt as if we were on the brink of a nuclear war. I can still recall a recurring nightmare I used to have… watching a nuclear bomb falling from the sky from red aeroplane flying above our house. I can also recall pupils at school (me included) having conversations with masters and asking them what was the point of us learning stuff if we’re all going to die!
I have huge respect for those who have fought for their countries in wars, but I also despair for the innocent victims. I think it’s vitally important that we remember those millions who have died fighting these wars. Each year I wear my poppy… but, like you no doubt, I long for a world without conflict… and, instinctively, I’m in favour of nuclear disarmament. I think the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 coloured my thinking about conflict… and has continued to do so for the past 55 years or so.

back to berlin…

I went along to the Watershed this afternoon to see Catherine Lurie’s thoughtful, sobering documentary “Back In Berlin”. It follows eleven Jewish bikers travelling from Israel to Berlin for the Maccabiah Games (often referred to as the ‘Jewish Olympics’).
In 1930, a group of Jewish bikers travelled to all corners of Europe to find participants for the first Maccabiah Games. In 2015, to commemorate this heroic journey, 11 Jewish bikers set off from Israel once again to re-trace their ancestors' footsteps and carry the Maccabiah torch to the site of the infamous 1936 Berlin Olympics for the first games held on German soil. Travelling 4500km across 7 countries in just 24 days, together they explore their dark genocidal past and discover how they or they families survived the Holocaust.
Given the populist movements from both the left and right rising again today, “Back to Berlin” provides an essential connection between the past and present. It’s a cautionary tale but also a story of defiance, survival and people overcoming the worst from others to restate our common humanity – and with the games themselves being a kind of redemption. Or, as the Guardian film critic, Peter Bradshaw, aptly describes it: “an Olympic flame of hope burning defiantly in the presence of moral darkness”.
It’s a beautiful, evocative and poignant documentary that reflects on anti-semitism in Europe and very much worth seeing.
PS: There were just me and five others in the audience, but I did strike up an interesting conversation with a fascinating, highly intelligent, 83 year-old man (a former nuclear scientist)… and, for some reason(!), we found ourselves talking about Trump and Brexit (he started it!!)(note: he was very much ‘a man after my own heart’!) and bemoaning how on earth we’d come to find ourselves in the current mess. At the end of the film, he turned to me, wiping tears from his eyes, and simply said: “an emotional journey”. He was absolutely right.

occupied territories...

This is the name of a book* written by Garth Hewitt (the founder of the Amos Trust: “a small, creative Christian human rights agency that works with vibrant grassroots partners around the world”). I briefly acted as one of its volunteers at Greenbelt perhaps 10 years ago and again met Garth and his wife Gill on Iona in 2012 when they attended a conference to discuss the division of the West Bank, the encroachment of Israeli settlements and the impact on the lives of Palestinians.
It's a powerful, profound, thought-provoking book and one that I think deserves to be read by anyone who cares about peace, dignity and justice in this brutal, greedy world we live in.
Again and again, I found myself underlining passages from the book (frequently quotes from prominent academics, politicians or church leaders), so I’ve collected just SOME of them together – as a reminder for me and, perhaps, to provide others with food for thought. In no particular order (I hope Garth doesn't mind me quoting from his book - believe me there are LOTS more extracts I could have included!):

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

“We need to create a new reality in the Holy land, a new structure where every person that lives here – that was born here, Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Christian and Muslim, is honoured for who they are so their history and their past is respected”.
Sami Awad, executive director of Holy Land Trust, 2013.

“But this is the frontline. The wall and its offspring road are here and growing, the beautiful valley is being ripped in two. And then there is the ‘tunnel house’. A family has the ‘right’ papers to prove they belong to this land but they (the Israeli army) put them on the ‘wrong side of the line’. The ‘solution’ is to literally wall them in to their own private prison at a cost of $1million. It is obscene. It is obscene that these people in this village are being brutally shown by the wall, the settlements, the demolition orders, the soldiers and the bottomless budget that we want what is yours but we do not want you. We will dehumanise and humiliate you and make simple things so difficult. We will make your life so intolerable that you will leave… How can the world stand by and let this happen?”

Nive Hall, Amos Trust’s operations Manager at the Cremisan monastery.

“It involves difficult decisions and tough choices. However, the choice is not the support for Palestine against Isael or vice versa. Rather:

·         It is a choice for justice, against oppression; for human and political rights, against dispossession.

·         It is a choice for freedom, against an occupation that denies freedom.

·         It is a choice for equal human dignity, against racism and discrimination.

·         It is a choice for non-violent resistance, against the violence that perpetuates a cycle of hatred and recrimination”

“Time for Action”, Kairos Britain – following “The Iona Call” conference, 2012.

“I wonder… if having financial services and arms manufacturing at the core of your country… corrupts you morally?”

Alexei Sayle, The Metro, April 2013.

“As I write this, the richest people in the world are meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Of this meeting Aditya Chakrabortty says ‘More than 2,500 business executives and bankers will converge on the highest town in Europe for the annual World Economic Forum. For the next five days Davos will, it is safe to say, boast more millionaires per square foot than anywhere else on the planet’. He points out there is a basic membership and entrance price tag of £45,000 (approx. $74,000), but then adds: ‘The real business lies in private sessions with industry peers and amenable politicians and access to those start at around £98,500 ($161,600). And this is what makes Davos so fascinating: it is the most perfect case study of how practitioners of free market, globalised capitalism give the public one explanation for what they are doing and why, while privately pursuing the complete opposite. On the one hand there is an event attended by Sharon Stone, Bono and a slew of tame academics (14 Nobel laureates this week alone) the message being, “we are open to anyone”. On the other hand, there are those secret meetings off limits to anyone not in the £100K club… From its inception, the whole point of Davos has been to promulgate the gospel of free market fundamentalism. Earlier generations would have known what to call Davos set of wealth extractors and rip-off merchants’”.

Garth Hewitt, “Occupied Territories”. Aditya Chakrabortty: “An Action-Packed Thriller Is About To Unfold In Davos, Switzerland”, The Guardian, 21 January 2013.

“The greatest threat to world peace is not from nuclear weapons and their possible proliferation, it is from drones and their certain proliferation… Drones are now sweeping the global arms market. There are some 10,000 said to be in service, of which a thousand are armed and mostly American. Some reports say they have killed more non-combatant civilians than died in 9/11. I have not read one independent study of the current drone wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Horn of Africa to suggest these weapons serve any strategic purpose. Their ‘success’ is expressed solely in body count, the number of so-called ‘al-Qaeda linked commanders’ killed… Neither the legality nor the ethics of drone attacks bear examination… It is hard to imagine a greater danger to world peace”.

Simon Jenkins, “Drones Are Fool’s Gold: They Prolong Wars we Can’t Win”, The Guardian, 10 January 2013. 

“The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth. It is now widely accepted that rapidly growing extreme wealth and inequality are harmful to human progress, and that something needs to be done. Already we hear the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 2013. The IMF and The Economist agree. Around the world, the Occupy protest demonstrated the increasing public anger and feeling that inequality has gone too far.

In the last decade, the focus has been exclusively on one half of the inequality equation – ending extreme poverty. Inequality and the extreme wealth that contributes to it were seen as either not relevant, or a prerequisite for the growth that would help the poorest, as the wealth created trickled down to benefit everyone. There has been great progress in the fight against extreme poverty… (But) we cannot end poverty unless we end inequality rapidly.
That is why we are calling for a new global goal, to end extreme wealth by 2025 and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last twenty years”.
Oxfam: “The Cost Of Inequality: How Wealth And Income Extremes Hurt Us All”, 18 January 2013

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron”.

US President Dwight D Eisenhower: “The Chance For Peace” speech, 16 April 1953.
Note*: “Occupied Territories” (Garth Hewitt), published by IVP Books, 2013.
Photo: part of the wall surrounding Bethlehem.

chilcott…

The long-awaited Chilcott Report (it’s taken nearly SEVEN years to produce!) is due to be published on 6 July 2016 - a fortnight after the EU Referendum. According to today’s Independent newspaper, Tony Blair (and other government officials, including Jack Straw) is set to be savaged in an “absolutely brutal” verdict on the failings of the occupation.
Like so many UK citizens, I opposed the war and, like hundreds of thousands, joined the London anti-war protest march on 15 February 2003.

I’ve just re-read my letter dated 25 January 2003 sent to Prime Minister Blair (he must have received thousands along similar lines), his Cabinet, the Leader of the Opposition (Iain Duncan Smith), the Leader of the Liberal Democrats (Charles Kennedy) and my MP at the time, Boris Johnson. It’s a sickening reminder of politics of power (I was tempted to write “egotistical political legacies”!) and the devastating implications of war. This is what I wrote:

Dear Mr Blair
I am writing to express my very deep concern at your Government's apparent commitment to go to war with Iraq.  A sceptical view would suggest that a decision had already been taken to invade Iraq - irrespective of public opinion in this country or support from the UN Security Council - and that the Government was merely "going through the motions" of securing evidence and justification to do so while the UK/USA forces take up their positions. 
As a committed Christian (and as someone who has voted for the Labour Party over the past twenty years or so, and who wholehearted celebrated the arrival of the Labour Government in 1997!), I feel a real sense of unease at recent developments and your Governments' handling of the situation.  I would seriously question the morality and legality of war against Iraq at the present time and would urge that force should be considered only as a last resort - and, crucially, ONLY with UN support.
Whilst there seems little doubt about the evil nature of Saddam's regime, I feel it is essential that any action against it should only be taken if it can be proved that Iraq is in breach of the UN resolution and, at this stage, we still await evidence from the UN weapon inspectors.  When the decision was taken to send the inspectors back into Iraq, there was a sense of "now we'll be able to show the world that Iraq holds weapons of mass destruction"; only weeks later, the UK/USA Administrations are saying that weapons inspections "could not continue for unlimited time".  Condemning Iraq for failing to prove a negative would hardly appear to count as justification for war.
Whilst I can obviously see the justification of ridding the world of any weapons of mass destruction, I am far from convinced that the consequences of any invasion have been properly thought through.  To my mind, a war will almost certainly result in unpredictable and unintended consequences - high numbers of civilian casualties; the death of many servicemen and women; more instability and violent chain reactions in the already volatile Middle East; more anti-American and British sentiment around the world; and, almost certainly, even more terrorism.
Regardless of your exhortations, public opinion in this country has remained stubbornly sceptical about the need for war with Iraq - people are not convinced that the threat from Saddam is great enough to justify war; people are suspicious of US President George Bush.  There is wide-spread opposition to war from church leaders - throughout the world.
You have predicted that the public would eventually back a war against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq if other means of disarming him failed.  You said this week that we had not reached the circumstances where you told the British people we were in conflict with Iraq but that "when and if that time came, people would find the reasons acceptable and satisfactory because there is no other route available to us".  The time needed to persuade us (or not) could be very limited; there is speculation that, irrespective of any support from the UN, war could start by the end of February.  Unless convincing evidence is produced within this time, it would appear that this country could be at war with Iraq without the support of the British people - an alarming prospect in a democratic society, with potentially devastating consequences for the future of this country and the world.
Yours sincerely
Steven Broadway
cc            all members of The Cabinet
cc            Mr Iain Duncan Smith MP, Leader of the Opposition
cc            Mr Charles Kennedy MP, Liberal Democrat Leader
cc            Mr Boris Johnson MP (Henley Constituency)

Blair opened a debate in parliament on 18 March 2003 (click here to read his full speech). On 20 March, starting with an air strike on the presidential palace in Baghdad, a combined force of troops from The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain and Poland invaded Iraq…

The invasion consisted of 21 days of “major combat operations”.
At no time did the United Nations Security Council support a resolution backing the war.
At a cost of $1billion, 1,625 UN and US inspectors had spent two years searching for weapons of mass destruction.
None were ever found.
It’s absolutely scandalous that the Chilcott Report has taken so long to be published. All the key players have long since disappeared from the main political stage… but their shameful legacy remains.
Photo: from The Huffington Post

letter to an unknown soldier...

This is what the 1418-Now website says: “On Platform One of Paddington Station in London, there is a statue of an unknown soldier; he’s reading a letter. On the hundredth anniversary of the declaration of war… we’re inviting everyone in the country to pause, take a moment or two, and write that letter. All the letters the soldier receives will be published here, creating a new kind of war memorial – one made only of words”.

The website remains open until 11pm on 4 August – the centenary of the moment when Prime Minister Asquith announced to the House of Commons that Britain had joined the First World War.

This was my brief offering:

“I rather envy you… you reading that letter from a loved one.
My grandfather Frank, aged 17, was a member of the 8^th Brigade Royal Field Artillery and entered the Theatre of War in France/Belgium on 19 August 1914. He was one of the “lucky” ones, he survived. His service war record indicates that he spent a total of 4 years 221 days in France (until April 1919). He never really spoke to us about the war – although it seems that he was on the receiving end of the first German chlorine gas attack at Ypres and, amazingly, also bumped into one of his brothers there too!  
Through access to War Diaries at The National Archives, I’ve managed to follow his Brigade’s “progress” through the war (although sections from 1917/1918 remain incomplete).
What we have NOT got are any of the letters he wrote during the course of the war or any he received from his family and friends… they must have provided some crucial scraps of comfort to all concerned at a time of huge uncertainty and fear.
Frank survived, which, of course, meant that my mother was born… and me, and my three daughters, and my six grandchildren…
Did you survive?
A hundred years on and we try to remember those didn’t.
For me, these are just names (or represent vague thoughts about the futility of war) but, for many, they were and are much more than that”.
Photo: the statue of the unknown soldier on platform 1 at Paddington Station.
PS:  at the time of this posting, the website says the soldier has received 19,167 letters.

uk and the arms trade

Yes, I probably have a very simplistic view of the world of politics and global business, but news that the UK was exporting arms to Russia (despite David Cameron’s previous assertion that an absolute arms embargo had been put in place) should come as no surprise. According to a cross-party group of MPs, there are more than 200 licences in place to sell arms to Putin’s government.

Please note, I’m certainly NOT claiming that this is some sort of Tory conspiracy, because I’m fully aware that ALL UK governments over recent decades have been actively encouraging the growth of arm sales in this country.
I find it all SO depressing.
I suggest you read this article by Owen Jones in today’s Guardian to get a sense of the scale of the UK arms trade.
Presently, the only meaningful constraint on arms exports is political embarrassment. Restrictions on arms sales are put in place when particularly shaming sales are uncovered
or when a buyer, to the Government’s apparent shock, uses the weaponry it has bought.
UK governments have consistently tried to justify the arms trade on the basis that:
a)    Arms exports are important for national security
b)   They’re vital to the UK economy and jobs, and
c)    They’re stringently regulated.
The “Campaign Against Arms Trade” argues that such “justifications” are all false.
Here are some extracts from CAAT’s website:
1. The 55,000 arms export jobs comprise less than 0.2% of the UK workforce.
2. The exports themselves are less than 1.5% of total UK exports, and even this is an overestimate of their importance as 40% of the value of the exports was imported in the first place.
3. Arms exports are subsidised by the taxpayer (27% UK Government research expenditure is spent on arms and 54% UK Trade+Investment staff committed to selling arms).
4. There is an engineering skills shortage.
5. High profile arms export deals rarely result in significant UK jobs as production moves overseas. In August 2010, BAE sold 57 Hawk jets to India in the headline deal of a David Cameron-led trade delegation to the country. All of the aircraft will be made in India and, while the deal is worth £700 million, it will generate only 200 jobs in the UK.

Of the 16 countries identified by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as locations of major armed conflict in 2009, the UK sold arms to 12.
In the Foreign Office Report (2010) on Human Rights and Democracy, the following countries were “UK arms buyers” on the Foreign Office’s list of countries with “the most serious wide-ranging human rights concerns”:
Afghanistan, Belarus, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Vietnam and Yemen.
And it’s ALL being done in OUR name.

legacy

I’ve been trying to avoid all the wall-to-wall media frenzy following Lady Thatcher’s death.

It’s obviously impossible to do so… but, don’t worry, I’m NOT going to list all my pet grievances (or even one or two positives) about the woman!
However, I have been reflecting on the hugely differing political legacies that war provided for both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.
Mrs T decided to embark on the Falkland’s War in 1982 when her popularity was at an all-time low. I opposed the war. To this day, I maintain that it was nothing more than jingoistic opportunity to re-assert illusions of the “old empire”. Despite the problems of fighting a war such a long way from home (and the strong opposition from the US), there was never any real chance of Britain “losing”. I absolutely hated the whole affair.
Sadly, I was in a minority.
Incredibly (to me), the public at large lapped it up. Mrs T’s popularity soared and she went on to win a resounding victory at the next general Election in 1983. I personally found the entire business completely sickening but, for many people, the “Falkland’s Factor” was the political making of Mrs Thatcher.
In contrast, Blair’s legacy of the Iraq War in 2003 (alongside Bush junior) is almost entirely negative - certainly from a UK viewpoint at least. The comparatively slow build-up - with Saddam being given warnings about all those “Weapons of Mass Destruction” - gave the British public time to voice their opinions (eg. a million people, including me, took to London’s streets in the largest political demonstration in the city’s history). Although he went on to win a third general election victory in 2005, his majority was much-reduced majority and he was severely tainted.
People never quite trusted the man after that (and I don't really blame them).   
With arrangements being made for Lady Thatcher’s “ceremonial” funeral – with full military honours, would you believe(!) – next Wednesday, I think the Tories will be loving all the attention their beloved former leader will have given them over the next week or so: parliament is being recalled (ridiculously in my opinion – although one might question why they’re in recess at all?) so it can “show its respect”; on the day of her funeral, streets will be cleared of traffic and the coffin processed from Westminster to St Paul’s Cathedral.
It’ll be rather like a non-stop party political broadcast for them.
Call me when it's all over!

blair, bush, tutu and iraq

Co-incidences. Synchronicity.

It’s strange how some things just come together at the same time for no apparent reason isn’t it?
I recently bought a massive book entitled “The Iraq Papers”, edited by Ehrenberg, McSherry, Sanchez and Sayej from my favourite “The Last Bookshop” for the princely sum of £2. Like a huge number of people in the UK, I was very much opposed to the war (and duly joined the London demonstration etc) and had written to Tony Blair in January 2003 (ie. before the war) outlining my concerns. Although I have no intention in reading the entire “Papers” book, I did think it would be interesting seeing some of the reports – especially for the time leading up to the war.
So, I was somewhat taken aback when I read an article in the Guardian last week indicating that Archbishop Desmond Tutu had withdrawn from a seminar in South Africa in protest at the presence of Tony Blair and the former prime minister's support for the 2003 Iraq war. Tutu’s spokesman indicated that "the archbishop is of the view that Mr Blair's decision to support the United States' military invasion of Iraq, on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was morally indefensible".
This was followed by a report in The Observer newspaper indicating that Tutu had called for Tony Blair and George Bush to “be hauled before the international criminal court in The Hague and delivered a damning critique of the physical and moral devastation caused by the Iraq war” (note: as a complete side issue, it also pointed out that Blair’s fee for attending the conference was £150,000 whereas Tutu would have spoken for free!). As you might imagine, Blair has strongly contested Tutu’s view.
All this made me wonder when on earth we were going to hear anything from The Iraq (or Chilcot) Inquiry - SURELY, you remember this, don’t you? It was launched in July 2009 and held its final round of hearings in February 2011. The Inquiry is currently analysing the written and oral evidence it has received and drafting its report (I can lend them my copy of “The Iraq Papers” if that would help?). Sir John Chilcot has apparently advised the Prime Minister that the Inquiry will be in a position to begin the process of writing to any individuals that may be criticised by the middle of 2013…
I appreciate the complexity of undertaking such an Inquiry (especially as it spans a period of some nine years, but it does seem to be taking an AWFUL long time doesn’t it?
PS: I hope that to have read ALL the relevant papers within the next few days and to update you via my blog shortly thereafter (Chilcot eat your heart out!)!