National Intelligence Estimate of Great Britain

37. Maybe 38.

Meanwhile, in Tibet ...

Rolling Stone has a good article about the current state of affairs (or affairs of state) in Tibet.

The Values and Interests of Anthony Blair, Esq.

The BBC web site reported Tony Blair's latest major speech under the headline "UK 'must continue to fight wars'". Later, the headline was changed to "Blair defends intervention policy", wording presumably more palatable to the sensitive public.

The speech itself (or 'lecture' as Blair called it) was illuminating in many ways. Recall, for instance, some Blair quotes from 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11:

"Our fight is not with Islam. Our fight is with a terrorist network and a regime (the Taliban) that sustains them in mutual support. The vast majority of Muslims, as I've said many times before, condemn the attacks as unreservedly as we do." - 25 Sept 2001

"It cannot be said too often: this atrocity appalled decent Muslims everywhere and is wholly contrary to the true teaching of Islam."
"Since 11 September intensive efforts have taken place here and elsewhere to investigate these attacks and determine who is responsible. Our findings have been shared and co-ordinated with those of our allies, and are clear ... it was Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, the terrorist network which he heads, that planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September" - 4 Oct 2001

" ...more swiftly than we had dared imagine, the Taliban fell. The joy with which their fall was greeted nailed the lie that ours is a war against Islam. It showed, on the contrary, that the long-suffering people of Afghanistan also wanted rid of the Taliban and the terrorists they harboured for so long." - 30 Dec 2001

It seems clear enough. The war was against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, a particular group of terrorists. But as all things evolve and grow, given a dash of commercial fertiliser, so indeed has the prime minister's view:

"What was unclear then but is very clear now is that what we were and are confronted with, is of a far more fundamental character than we supposed. September 11 wasn't the incredible action of an isolated group, a one-off strike masterminded by Osama Bin Laden. It was the product rather of a world-wide movement, with an ideology based on a misreading of Islam, whose roots were deep, which had been growing for years and with the ability to mount a radically different type of warfare requiring a radically different type of response. What we face is not a criminal conspiracy or even a fanatical but fringe terrorist organisation. We face something more akin to revolutionary Communism in its early and most militant phase. It is global. It has a narrative about the world and Islam's place within it that has a reach into most Muslim societies and countries."

In the updated version, 9/11 was the product of a global movement akin to revolutionary Communism, and was not a "one-off strike masterminded by Osama Bin Laden". Blair's choice of revolutionary communism as a comparison is no accident, not-so-subtly invoking the Cold War and positioning "most Muslim societies and countries" as the new enemy.

Among other benefits for western democracy, the new enemy solves a major sales problem for the military-industrial complex. Even better, the enemy's seemingly nebulous nature provides a reason to reach far and wide, as Blair explains:

"The frontiers of our security no longer stop at the Channel. What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan; or Indonesia; or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa for example, in Sudan or Somalia. The new frontiers for our security are global. Our Armed Forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory, in environments and in ways unfamiliar to them. They will usually fight alongside other nations, in alliance with them; notably, but probably not exclusively with the USA."

Note "our Armed Forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory". With a wave of the Bush doctrine, international law is set aside, as is the troublesome need to come up with dossiers of 'intelligence' concerning attacks with or without 45 minute warnings. It is now official: Britain's forces will go anywhere and attack anyone for any reason we choose. (Well, provided the USA says so. And if the USA attacks too.)

Interests and Values

Britain's foreign policy, said Blair, has been "governed as much by values as interests; indeed has attempted to suggest that it is by furthering our values that we further our interests in the modern era of globalisation and interdependence".

As the recent BAe bribery scandal demonstrates, we are governed more by these values and interests than by law. We need not dwell on the 'interests' aspect, since these interests are overwhelmingly commercial. More interesting is the vague and undefined idea of 'values' as presented by Blair, and his easy presumption that 'our' values are superior to 'theirs'. So superior, in fact, that we are justified in killing 'them' if they don't voluntarily adopt our values. Blair gives one example:

"When the Taleban murder a teacher in front of his class, as they did recently, for daring to teach girls; that is an act not just of cruelty but of ideology. Using force against them to prevent such an act is not "defence" in the traditional territorial sense of that word, but "security" in the broadest sense, an assertion of our values against theirs."

If the destruction of large numbers of innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan is a values-based response to the murder of a teacher, then the values concerned have little if any connection with morality. Similarly, the wholesale killing of Iraqis is sold as a values-based response to a single murderous dictator. One supposes that the sell-off and outright theft of Iraqi assets is an application of values and interests combined.

And what of the Israeli apartheid wall, and the grotesque oppression and slaughter of Palestinians that is also 'an act not just of cruelty but of ideology'? Our values apparently do not demand the use of force to prevent it. Economic sanctions against Israel? No, hardly even a murmur of disapproval.

Countless examples exist throughout the world of this selective application of values. Misdeeds are loudly condemned if they are committed by a current or potential target, otherwise they are supported, excused, or not mentioned.

It would be difficult not to conclude that the claimed 'values' are spurious, dredged up in support of associated interests which are morally repugnant and indefensible. The interests are those of the rapacious corporate multinational and the war profiteer, thinly disguised.

Blair, ever the craven servant of wealth and power, restates the Bush doctrine without deviation.

A Voice from Guantanamo

Jumah al-Dossari has been imprisoned in the US prison camp at Guantanamo since 2002. The following is excerpted from letters he wrote to his attorneys. Reprinted from Information Clearing House.

By Jumah al-Dossari

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba

I AM WRITING from the darkness of the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo in the hope that I can make our voices heard by the world. My hand quivers as I hold the pen.

In January 2002, I was picked up in Pakistan, blindfolded, shackled, drugged and loaded onto a plane flown to Cuba. When we got off the plane in Guantanamo, we did not know where we were. They took us to Camp X-Ray and locked us in cages with two buckets — one empty and one filled with water. We were to urinate in one and wash in the other.

At Guantanamo, soldiers have assaulted me, placed me in solitary confinement, threatened to kill me, threatened to kill my daughter and told me I will stay in Cuba for the rest of my life. They have deprived me of sleep, forced me to listen to extremely loud music and shined intense lights in my face. They have placed me in cold rooms for hours without food, drink or the ability to go to the bathroom or wash for prayers. They have wrapped me in the Israeli flag and told me there is a holy war between the Cross and the Star of David on one hand and the Crescent on the other. They have beaten me unconscious.

What I write here is not what my imagination fancies or my insanity dictates. These are verifiable facts witnessed by other detainees, representatives of the Red Cross, interrogators and translators.

During the first few years at Guantanamo, I was interrogated many times. My interrogators told me that they wanted me to admit that I am from Al Qaeda and that I was involved in the terrorist attacks on the United States. I told them that I have no connection to what they described. I am not a member of Al Qaeda. I did not encourage anyone to go fight for Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have done nothing but kill and denigrate a religion. I never fought, and I never carried a weapon. I like the United States, and I am not an enemy. I have lived in the United States, and I wanted to become a citizen.

I know that the soldiers who did bad things to me represent themselves, not the United States. And I have to say that not all American soldiers stationed in Cuba tortured us or mistreated us. There were soldiers who treated us very humanely. Some even cried when they witnessed our dire conditions. Once, in Camp Delta, a soldier apologized to me and offered me hot chocolate and cookies. When I thanked him, he said, "I do not need you to thank me." I include this because I do not want readers to think that I fault all Americans.

But, why, after five years, is there no conclusion to the situation at Guantanamo? For how long will fathers, mothers, wives, siblings and children cry for their imprisoned loved ones? For how long will my daughter have to ask about my return? The answers can only be found with the fair-minded people of America.

I would rather die than stay here forever, and I have tried to commit suicide many times. The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I have been destroyed. I am hopeless because our voices are not heard from the depths of the detention center.

If I die, please remember that there was a human being named Jumah at Guantanamo whose beliefs, dignity and humanity were abused. Please remember that there are hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo suffering the same misfortune. They have not been charged with any crimes. They have not been accused of taking any action against the United States.

Show the world the letters I gave you. Let the world read them. Let the world know the agony of the detainees in Cuba.

The new sexed-up Greg Dyke?

Blair and the NeoLabs didn't like BBC Director General Greg Dyke. They, especially Lucius Malfoy Alastair Campbell, liked reporter Andrew Gilligan even less. So when Gilligan accused the NeoLabs of "sexing-up" their infamous Iraq dossier, Dyke and Gilligan were forced out (see this), and the BBC restored to its function as propagator of Official Truth.

So Greg Dyke was out of the picture. Or was he? Did Greg come up with a cunning plan to strike back at the NeoLabs and their parent company, NeoCons International? Did he assume a new identity?
Greg Palast, eh? Check out what Greg Palast says about Iraq Tony. Hmmm.

Brave New Labour

A snippet from Tony Benn's Diaries reveals much about Blair's New Labour:

On 5th February 1997, before Blair's election, Labour MP Alan Simpson attended a briefing meeting in the Shadow Cabinet rooms for members who had been allocated a slot to ask a question during Prime Minister's question time.

Alastair Campbell was there. Everybody is handed a supplementary question to follow their main question and Alan said he was going to ask about Europe.
"Oh no, you can't do that", he was told.
"Why not?" asked Alan.
They wanted him to ask, "Is the Prime Minister aware that everyone in the Labour Party supports the Leader of the Opposition, whereas within the Tory Party, they are divided?"
Alan said, "I can't say that because I don't believe it."
"It would be good for your career", Alastair Campbell said.
So Alan said, "What career?"
And Campbell replied, "It will get you through to the election." That indicated he would have to pay a price even to survive as a backbench MP.

Time to make corporations extinct

While the powers-that-be gleefully enrich themselves; while they think up new schemes to transfer public assets to the rich; while they make their cost analysis of war, weighing present and future profits against the public relations cost of mutilated men, women and children; while they 'externalise' the costs of war, using taxpayers lives and money, and internalise the gains; while the mutant offspring of Edward Bernays fill the mainstream media with the garbage of corporate propaganda; while they seek to claim ownership of the very seeds we sow to feed ourselves; while they accelerate their globalised greed at the expense of the earth and its species ...

Ninety percent (90%) of all large fish have disappeared in the last 50 years.

The current extinction rate is up to 1,000 times faster than in the past, the worst mass extinctions in 65 million years.

Ocean 'dead zones', where life cannot be sustained, are appearing all over the globe.

Arctic ice is melting much faster than predicted.

We can expect the corporations and their pet politicos to resist efforts to combat ecological disaster, for as long as they continue to profit by it.