Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

No. 204 Thursday:
The Queen's Speech
Just Who Is Being Anti-Social?
The Role of the Conservatives
For a Legislative Programme Outlawing Government Irresponsibility
The Queen's Speech: Bills in Brief
Some Responses to the Queen's Speech

No. 203 Wednesday:
No, Mr Blair, the Great Ideological Battle Is Not Over!

No. 202 Tuesday:
UN Resolution 1441:
There Can Be No Legitimacy for War against Iraq
Message of Iraq Foreign Affairs Minister to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
The UN's Iraq Resolution: What does it mean?

If a theme is to be found in the government's legislative programme for the new session, as outlined in the Queen's Speech on Wednesday, it is that not only is government absolving itself for any responsibility for society's well-being. It is also whitewashing the role of big business and finance, and shifting the blame onto the working people. It is preparing to punish the victims of society's disintegration, and further the onslaught on civil liberties.

This onslaught on the people is bound up with the government's programme of wrecking the fabric of society and delivering social programmes into the hands of private capital.

It is quite breathtaking when taken in the context of the government's preparations to go to war against Iraq, come what may, which is likely to set the Middle East aflame and give rise to a devastating war of global proportions. It is quite breathtaking taken in the context of the government's cynical denigration of the fire-fighters and other workers who are fighting that their worth be recognised and in defence of their rights and interests.

This programme of rightist reaction domestically and internationally, which it is almost forgotten was supposed to be a "third way", is consistent with the imperialist arrogance which is out of place and anachronistic in any modern society.

Precisely as the government is stepping up its anti-social offensive, it is blaming the working people, particularly the youth, for "anti-social behaviour". While the financiers and privateers carry out systematic robbery of the people through business scams, plundering of workers' pension schemes, handouts from the state treasury, parasitic speculation of the stock, money and commodity markets, and militarisation of the economy, the government is pledging to get tough on people who drink too much and drop chewing gum. Can it be coincidental that the Queen's speech also announced legislation to allow pubs to open 24 hours?

The offensive against the people does not end there. It is an offensive that seems determined to sweep away the judicial reforms and social works of even the 19th century, to before the working class appeared on the scene as the ascendant class, and attacks the very roots of enlightened thinking on social questions and all thought of social science.

Under the guise of the "reform and rebalance" of the criminal justice system, which is said to be "at the heart of the government's legislative programme", the principles which are coming under further attack are that defendants are presumed innocent until proved otherwise, and that they have a right to be tried by their peers. It is these principles which are considered expendable by the government as they get tough on whom they choose to identify as criminals, having jettisoned now any reference to the "causes of crime" and the social system which engenders it. The point is, not that they have forgotten this pledge, but that they are also intent on criminalising society and blocking the people from finding any alternative to the disintegrating social system.

Continuing the theme of targeting the victims of the crisis and withdrawing from responsibility for the situation, the government is proposing to cut benefits for parents of children who repeatedly fail to attend school under a truancy bill. The government refuses to address that the education system is failing the youth by training the majority to be wage slaves rather than educating them to be the future custodians of society. The "social responsibility" that the government wishes to inculcate is obedience to the status quo, while reducing society to a series of local communities.

The long-term unemployed will also be targeted, as the work and pensions department brings forward legislation to stress the "importance of work as part of our social security system". This means that the long-term unemployed are to be consciously used as a battering ram for the reduction of the level of wages and working conditions. What is under attack is any right of the individual and the collectives of workers to determine their worth, and refuse to surrender to the blackmail that it is up to them to grasp the so-called opportunities the government offers them or starve.

The anti-social offensive outlined in the Queen's speech also includes measures to further the all-out onslaught and destruction of culture. Restrictions on the control by global media giants of TV channels are set to be ditched in the name of "competition", despite recommendations to the contrary of the committee set up to scrutinise the draft bill.

The proposed new railways bill deliberately ignores the pleas for an offence of corporate manslaughter following the tragedies that have continued to occur on the railways, not to mention the ongoing tragedy of deaths at work as the monopolies pursue their quest for maximum capitalist profit. Not only this, but the government seeks to add another diversion by focusing on alcohol and drug use by pilots and maritime workers.

In summary, the legislative measures aimed at balancing "rights and responsibilities" are in fact aimed at nothing but challenging the conception that people have rights simply by being human and born to society. They are aimed at defining social responsibilities in a way that serves the status quo so that to challenge the status quo is itself defined to be socially irresponsible, while the government's anti-social offensive is itself defined to be for the benefit of communities, particularly "working class communities".

In this way, an illegitimate focus is put on "anti-social behaviour" as the "single most important issue in the country at large". While the people at large are the victims in this programme, the reforms of the criminal justice system are supposed to create a "victim's justice system", which means taking the justice system back to medieval days. Was it not just to be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread under medievalism?

The same determination not to address serious solutions to the problems of the social system internationally as domestically was evident when the Queen in her speech signalled that ministers wanted to make "rapid progress" on EU enlargement. The government, she also said, remained resolute in its fight against "combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction".

The peoples are in upsurge against the neo-liberal agenda and globalisation internationally that is leading to such devastation as the impending catastrophe of starvation of millions upon million of people in Africa, which is only the most stark and contemporary of such examples. The world's sovereign peoples are also taking measures to defend themselves against the nuclear blackmail and the "weapons of mass destruction" of the US superpower and its allies such as Britain. They are demanding the democratisation of the UN and that the will of the UN should prevail over the Anglo-US attempts to bully it. The government's answer once more is to blame the people, and to strengthen the domination of the big powers of Europe and to define terrorism in such a way as to exclude the state terrorism of Anglo-US imperialism.

The Tories in criticising the programme, as the rules of the game must have them do, fulfilled the role given to them by the parliamentary process of demonstrating themselves as being the worse of two evils.

But how little significance this charade has only underlines the crisis of the parliamentary institutions on the one hand and the "new right" essence of the government's programme on the other.

It is evident from the Queen's Speech that the government is escalating its wrecking of society and targeting the victims and the vulnerable in society. It is washing its hands of responsibility for the fate of society.

This makes it imperative that the working class must organise themselves as the Workers' Opposition as the immediate step in the programme for the workers to take centre stage and lead society out of the crisis to socialism.

The workers must organise themselves inside and outside of parliament with the aim of electing worker politicians and demanding a legislative programme which outlaws government irresponsibility. Such a programme would outlaw all acts of aggression, state terrorism and interference internationally, and remove all British troops on overseas soil. It would respect the sovereignty of nations and that peoples throughout the world have the right to choose their own social system without any pressure, intimidation, aggression and threats of aggression by Britain under any circumstances. It would recognise the responsibility of government, as the representative of society, to take responsibility for all its members, and that their needs take absolute precedence over the drive of businesses to compete globally. It would demand that the banks and financial institutions be forced to serve the needs of the national economy. It would recognise the right of the people to participate directly in governance.

The legislative programme demanded by the Workers' Opposition must be targeted at ending the anti-social offensive against the people. It is based on putting the needs of the people at the centre, opening the door to progress, and recognising that the working people have the right not to be wage slaves.

A summary of the bills contained in the Queen's Speech.

Home Office

Criminal Justice Bill: This includes plans to scrap the double jeopardy rule, preventing a defendant to be tried twice for the same crime, and to allow juries to hear of previous convictions and hearsay evidence.
Anti-Social Behaviour Bill: The bill will extend on-the-spot fines and will aim to improve the implementation of anti-social behaviour orders. The dangerous use of airguns, fireworks and spray-cans will also be legislated against.
Sexual Offences Bill: Sex offences will be modernised to prevent sex discrimination against the victims under this bill. It will also update punishments for sex offenders and will tighten requirements of the Sex Offenders Register. The bill will also aim to tackle the use of the Internet by paedophiles.
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill: This bill will allow the UK to join the Schengen arrangements for law enforcement, and will outline the arguments for more European co-operation in the fight against crime.

Lord Chancellor's Department

Courts Bill: A new Criminal Rules Procedure Committee will be established to ensure continuity throughout the criminal justice system, while family law will be improved. The bill aims for greater enforcement of fine payment, and will allow periodical payments of damages to personal injury victims.

Department of Health

Health and Social Care Bill: The bill aims to create NHS Foundation hospitals, which will have greater autonomy from Westminster. A new health inspectorate, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, will be created to assess performance and standards, while the Commission for Social Care Inspection will assess these for social services.
Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Bill: Local authorities will be given a greater financial incentive to assess individuals for care needs, and will be encouraged to work closer with primary care trusts to achieve this.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport

Communications Bill: Allows for the establishment of Ofcom, a single regulator of the communications sector. Media ownership rules will be modernised, although Ofcom will be given powers similar to those of the Office of Fair Trading.
Licensing Bill: Pubs will be allowed to open 24 hours a day under the proposals, although residents would have the right to make representations to the licensing authority over new licenses. Powers will be given to the police to shut any bar within 24 hours of disorder.

Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Hunting Bill: Evidence is still being considered by rural affairs minister Alun Michael, following the public consultation in September that followed the publication of the Burns report.
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill: Gives the secretary of state and the devolved institutions greater powers to allocate waste disposal authorities the maximum allowance for the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW), and to set up a scheme of landfill allowances in non-target years.
Water Bill: An independent Consumer Council will be established to protect water customers, and replace the existing Director General of Water Services with a new regulatory board. Competition in the supply of water to large non-household consumers will be increased.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill: The government will be able to hold referendums on whether a region would like a regional assembly with the implementation of this bill, which also includes the need for a review of local government by the Boundary Commission for England before such a vote is held.
Local Government Bill: Financial freedoms will be granted to all councils, and will allow a partnership between local government and local business to improve town centres and business regions.
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill: The requirement of structure plans for planning applications will be removed to accelerate the process, although a statutory purpose of sustainable development will be included. The system of compulsory purchase will also be tackled.

Department of Transport

Railways and Transport Safety Bill: The recommendations of the Cullen inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash will be implemented, creating an independent Railway Accident Investigation Branch. The Office of the Rail Regulator will be restructured, while the police will be given greater powers to tackle alcohol and drug abuse by aviation and maritime workers.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

European Union (Accessions) Bill: This will allow 10 new countries - including Cyprus, Hungary and Malta - to sign Treaties of accession to the European Union in Spring 2003.

Office of the Secretary of State for Wales

Health (Wales) Bill: The bill allows for the establishment of Health Professions Wales, which will continue existing non-regulatory functions of the Welsh National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting following its abolition in April. The Wales Centre for Health will also be set up as a public health body for advice, research and support in training.

Northern Ireland Office

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill: This bill follows the Police (Northern Ireland) Act of 2000, and will fully implement the recommendations of the Patten recommendations.

(source: ePolitix)

Crime

The Children's Society

Sharon Moore, youth justice policy and practice manager at The Children's Society, said: "The Children's Society recognises the distress that can be caused by nuisance behaviour and vandalism and agrees that measures need to be put in place to address this.

"However, The Children's Society is concerned that the anti social behaviour bill focuses on the punishment of children, without addressing the wider issues, and is bound to failure. The charity opposes any sanction based on this approach."

Age Concern

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern in England, said: "Crime causes many vulnerable older people to become socially isolated; too afraid to leave their homes through fear.

"Older people are much less likely to report a crime through fear of reprisals. This new bill must strengthen the protection given to victims and witnesses to make older people feel more confident about reporting incidents of crime."

British Property Federation

A spokesman for the BPF said: "Social landlords are in a far better position than private landlords to tackle the problem of anti-social tenants, with the expertise, resources and range of properties at their disposal. Any greater powers for social landlords to evict tenants would concern us because of the consequential knock-on effect on the private rented sector.

"A solution that simply shifted anti-social tenants from the social to private rented sector would be no solution at all. What is required is a holistic consideration of this issue across all tenures and we will be scrutinising the Bill to ensure that is the government's approach."

Shelter

Ben Jackson, director of external affairs, said: "We do not believe that taking away housing benefit is an effective way of tackling anti-social behaviour. It will make families homeless, many of whom councils will need to re-house, and create a host of other problems.

"We hope the government will drop these proposals for good. Last year we worked with over 3,000 households dealing with anti-social behaviour. We know tenants and communities need solutions that will tackle the underlying causes of the problem, rather than simply moving it on to a new set of neighbours."

USDAW

John Hannett, deputy general secretary at USDAW, said: "Shoplifting is not a victimless crime. It is often committed by young frequent offenders, many of whom are also involved in the anti-social behaviour problems that plague communities across Britain. We will be seeking a greater emphasis from the government on tackling retail crime; improvements in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme for those shopworkers unfortunate enough to be a victim of violence, and more appropriate sentencing aimed a stopping retail criminals re-offending".

CARE

A spokesman for CARE said: "CARE welcomes the government's decision to introduce further reform to the criminal justice system, but hopes that it will do so with the needs of the vulnerable in mind. In the light of CARE's Remand Fostering initiative we will be particularly interested to know the full breadth of the government's proposals for young offenders."

Barnardo's

Pam Hibbert, principal policy officer at Barnardo's, said: "Yet again legislation for children in the youth justice system is being tagged on to a Bill that is predominantly about adults. Indeed our whole youth justice system is based on an adult model, with new measures added piecemeal on to adult systems.

"Barnardo's would like to see a comprehensive review of all legislation relating to children in the criminal justice system rather than yet more additions. At the very least, the government should shelve the idea of new sentencing options for young offenders at this stage. There has been a plethora of changes within the youth justice system since the establishment of the Youth Justice Board, including a range of new sentences. There needs to be a period of 'settling in' to establish and properly monitor the effectiveness of these changes before instituting further ones. If there are to be new sentences, we hope that custodial sentences will only be used as a last resort and for the protection of the public. We would like to see any new sentencing proposals accompanied by targets to drastically cut the number of custodial sentences for children."

Health

Royal College of Psychiatrists

A spokeswoman for the Royal College of Psychiatrists said: "The Royal College of Psychiatrists welcomes the fact that the draft Mental Health Bill is not included in the Queen's Speech.

"The College fully supports legislative reform and is keen to continue talking with government in order to ensure that this country has a Mental Health Act which benefits everyone, whether currently a patient with a mental health disorder or not."

Age Concern

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern in England, said: "We are very relieved and encouraged that the government has backed down from introducing a Mental Health Bill in the face of serious opposition and concerns expressed by many organisations, including Age Concern.

"However, the introduction of a Mental Health Bill remains crucial. The government now has time to get the reform of the Mental Health Act right and alongside this to introduce capacity legislation to ensure thousands of people who do not have capacity to make decisions because of illness or disability get the protection they don't have at present."

Disabilities Trust

A spokesman for the Disabilities Trust said: "We are pleased to see that the government has apparently listened to the mental health lobby regarding the detrimental effect of the Draft Mental Health Bill and has decided against introducing what would have been a regressive measure in the treatment of people with mental health needs."

Forum Response: Royal College of Nursing

A spokesperson for the Royal College of Nursing said: "We hope that the fact that no mental health bill appeared in the Queen's Speech indicates that the government is taking seriously the responses they received to their consultation on the draft Bill and are reconsidering some of their proposals.

"The RCN, along with our colleagues from the Mental Health Alliance, hopes to continue to work with the department of health to ensure that any new legislation provides fair and accessible services for people with mental health problems.

"We are particularly concerned that any detention under a new Mental Health Act should be of therapeutic benefit to the patient. We would like to see a right of assessment of mental health needs, narrower conditions for the exercise of compulsory powers and a limit to the conditions for the use of compulsion in the community.

Disability Rights Commission

Bob Niven, chief executive of the Disability Rights Commission, said: "We have been critical of certain aspects of the bill and welcome the government responding to concerns.

"Reform of mental health legislation is long overdue, particularly in relation to capacity to consent to treatment. However, such reform should not be confused with criminal justice issues. We need a new approach that ensures that only people who are incapable of making informed decisions are subject to compulsory treatment. The draft bill contains important safeguards for people treated within the mental health system and we look forward to seeing these being enshrined in law."

Depression Alliance

A spokeswoman for Depression Alliance said: "Depression Alliance is pleased that the Draft Mental Health Bill 2002 was not included in the Queen's speech. The organisation takes the view that failings in current arrangements for mental health are due to a lack of resources rather than a lack of legislation.

"The charity feared that the proposed legislation was unfair, unworkable, highly stigmatising and would contravene Articles 3 and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Construction Products Association

Alan Wilen, economics director at the CPA, said: "We particularly welcome the proposed Local Government Bill and Health and Social Care Bill, which aim to give Local Councils and NHS trusts greater financial freedom to borrow capital and work in partnership with business to deliver the improvement in local infrastructure and health facilities."

Royal National Institute for the Blind

A spokesman for the RNIB said: "Although the absence of a Disability Bill from this year's Queen Speech still rankles, this year's legislative programme could yet deliver important gains in civil rights for blind, partially sighted and disabled people. But it will only do this if the government makes good its commitment to increased mainstreaming of disability equality.

"RNIB will be closely examining each element in the government's legislative programme and proposing amendments to strengthen the civil rights and social inclusion of blind and partially sighted people. We hope the government responds positively to suggestions for equality-proofing key bills such as the Communications Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Railways Transport Safety Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill and the Planning Bill.

"Not mentioned in the Queen's speech but key for disabled people will be welcome regulations extending the Disability Discrimination Act to small employers, police officers, qualifying bodies and work-placement providers. But the government must ensure these regulations tighten up the rules on the justification of discrimination in employment or the effectiveness of Part 2 of the DDA will be compromised."

Forum Response: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Geraldine Peacock, chief executive of Guide Dogs, told ePolitix.com: "Guide Dogs is pleased to see that a number of issues are addressed in the Queen's Speech which have direct relevance for blind and partially sighted people.

"We welcome the commitment to continued investment in the public services and look forward to that money filtering through to ophthalmic and visual impairment services.

"The introduction of an independent health inspectorate offers the prospect of ensuring consistently high standards of ophthalmic care.

"What I think should have also been there was a commitment to closing the various loopholes in the Disability Discrimination Act and proposals to place effective controls on the sale and use of fireworks, which cost Guide Dogs well over £100,000 a year in retiring, retraining and sedating guide dogs."

Education

Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Gwen Evans, deputy general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: "We welcome the government's continued emphasis on education, which at this critical time cannot be allowed to drop down the agenda. The government is right to recognise that truancy and other behavioural issues are part of the jigsaw that has to be tackled to enable teachers to raise standards.

"What parents in difficulties need is access to a range of effective support services. Otherwise, there's a real risk that the cost of improving school attendance will destroy already struggling families. It cannot make sense to deal with one problem by creating another.

"If they are going to take a hard-line approach to improving educational standards, can we offer the government a word of caution? They must not underestimate the sustained funding which will be needed to back up these measures. This will be at a terrible cost to some of our children if they fail to make this investment now."

National Union of Teachers

A spokeswoman for the NUT said: "The courts already have power to fine and even imprison parents of truanting children. It is a power rarely used. To introduce instant fines and shift the power to impose them to the hands of education welfare officers may well be counter-productive.

"Education welfare officers have to work with parents and truanting pupils to try to ensure regular attendance in school. Giving them the power to fine would undermine the relationships with parents that must be established."

Bed blocking

Counsel and Care

Martin Green, chief executive of Counsel and Care, said: "I welcome measures to end bed blocking which is really about inappropriate placements of older people. But these new initiatives need to be accompanied by extra funding so that local authorities have the capacity to buy appropriate care."

Forum Response: Age Concern

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern in England, said: "Plans to penalise local authorities who do not get people out of hospital beds as quickly as possible is a short sighted measure that puts the system before older people.

"Better care and support at home or in care homes must be made available and older people given more, not less choice over the sort of care they get. Without even piloting such an approach, social services face being forced to concentrate their resources on getting people out of hospital without giving people choice or proper support at home."

Forum Response: Help the Aged

Annie Stevenson, social care policy officer at Help the Aged, said: "The government's proposal to try to end delayed discharges of older people from hospital by introducing a model whereby Local Authorities would reimburse the NHS for time spent unnecessarily in hospital is fraught with potential problems.

"Many Social Services Departments are badly underfunded as it is. Further penalising those which are already experiencing funding problems would exacerbate the existing problem. Worse, these proposals run the risk of undermining the relationship between the health and social care sectors - the very relationship that the government is currently seeking to consolidate.

"Adequate funding for social care has been badly lacking for years. To avoid further distress for older people, a radical review of the whole issue is badly needed."

"The Cold War has ended. The great ideological battle between Communism and Western liberal democracy is over," declared the Prime Minister on Tuesday at the Lord Mayor's Banquet in London.

In the customary annual speech, Tony Blair revisited familiar territory, regarding the "interdependence of the modern world" and presented the government’s thinking on international affairs, the so-called "war against terrorism," and the "need for a coalition of common ideas".

According to Tony Blair, "the struggle for world hegemony by political ideology is gone" and the danger which preoccupies decision-makers now is "extremism driven by fanaticism, personified either in terrorist groups or rogue states" that concerns governments. Of course it is true to say that the old bipolar division of the world has come to an end. But the Prime Minister would be wrong to think that the aspirations and struggles of working people around the world for emancipation and empowerment have ended. Quite the opposite is the case, as life itself reveals every day. However, Tony Blair was rather more concerned to make the case that government today has the responsibility to fight a "new type of war". This is his way of presenting a justification for the warmongering actions of Britain, the US and the other big powers as they contend in this new period of disequilibrium in the world.

It was in this context that Tony Blair condemned what he referred to as "rogue", "failed" and "failing" states, such as Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which Prime Minister slandered as sharing "the same absence of rational boundaries to their actions as the terrorist" and in which "notions of democracy and the rule of law are alien". He backed this slander by expressing alarm that "there is a significant part of the world that is, at present, deeply inimical to all we stand for and is so from a mixture tradition, ignorance of our true motives and values and from a belief that we are governed by a one-sided view of what is just". Tony Blair seemed to be particularly horrified at this realisation because even "young British Moslems", whom he described as "bright, born in Britain, with a good future here, intelligent and articulate", were convinced: "one that the US was the real threat to world peace; and two, that the reason Iraq was in our sights, was that it was a Moslem country." Apparently the Prime Minister was unable to disabuse them of either view.

So how does the Prime Minster intend to counter such views, which he claimed "menaces the very unity we need in confronting the dangers before us"? He certainly did not propose that Britain should distance itself from the warmongering of the US, nor that the British government should desist from its threats and attacks against Iraq, or its meddling and interference in other parts of the world. For the Prime Minister and his government what is necessary is to establish "a coalition of common ideas, of a shared agenda" throughout the world. For the government, intervention and the use of force in international affairs is entirely acceptable. In addition, the government acting on behalf of the big monopolies wants to impose their values, which are referred to as "universal values" as the accompaniment too and justification of neo-liberal globalisation and intervention throughout the world.

For the Prime Minister and the government, the issue is to find ways of cajoling, threatening and forcing the whole world to accept these values as part and parcel of the attempts to impose on the world the reactionary Anglo-American "New World Order". When he speaks of the "values of freedom, justice and tolerance of our diversity" he means that the Western notions of freedom and justice – that is, based on the freedom to amass wealth on the one pole and starve on the other, and on justice in which the all-powerful and the propertyless are supposedly equal before the law – are deemed superior and anything else must be tolerated. No wonder this is not acceptable to the world’s people.

Tony Blair’s wish list includes the end of the Cold War and the end of the great ideological battle. But his whole outlook is that of the Cold War, an outlook that has anti-communism and the advance of the imperialist system in favour of Anglo-US imperialism as its aim. In advancing this aim, this imperialist system is coming into conflict with what from the Eurocentric viewpoint is called "Islamic fundamentalism" or Islamism, as well as other value systems, and the Prime Minister’s rants are based on justifying the imperialist side in this conflict. No, Mr Blair, the great ideological battle is not over, but it is your values which are in crisis and are standing exposed!

With the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the US and Britain have removed another obstacle in their path to an escalated war against Iraq.

The resolution is full of timelines and deadlines for Iraq. Iraq has until November 15 to pledge that it will comply; it has until December 8 to declare all aspects of its weapons programmes to the Security Council; inspectors have until December 23 to resume their work, with an advance team in Iraq by November 18; inspectors are to report to the Security Council no later than 60 days after their work – either January 17 or February 21.

What was a pretext remains a pretext. Iraq was ready to let in inspectors some weeks ago, while pointing out that, as everyone knows, previously the inspectors were utilised to spy on Iraq. But Britain and the US then said no, we will set more conditions. It is disinformation of the first order by Tony Blair to say that it is up to Saddam Hussein to decide whether the dispute is resolved by peace or by conflict. Who has been threatening whom? Resolution 1441 opens the door for more pretexts to force "regime change" on Iraq. Who is it that has used weapons of mass destruction? It is the US who has used nuclear, chemical and biological weapons throughout the world, as is well documented. And as for Britain’s possession of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, Tony Blair would not take kindly, to say the least, to Saddam Hussein tabling a resolution that Britain open its facilities, including Buckingham Palace and the Royal residences, to weapons inspectors. However, the whole point of this demand by Britain and the US is to find a pretext to attack Iraq.

Despite the "ambiguity" over Resolution 1441, and its reference to "serious consequences", there is no doubt that the US interprets the resolution as a green light to go to war.

In 1998, when the UN Security Council passed a resolution endorsing Kofi Annan's negotiated stand-down with Iraq, the resolution at that time also called for "severest consequences". At the close of those negotiations, every Council ambassador except that of the US said explicitly that use of the term did not constitute an automatic authorisation of the use of force for any country or group of countries. The US ambassador, Bill Richardson, alone of all the Council, said, "We think it does authorise immediate unilateral use of force."

It is clear that the US is not willing to recognise the centrality and legal sovereignty of the Security Council, let alone the General Assembly, to handle not just the question of Iraq but all vital questions of international peace and security. Despite its words to the contrary, the British government takes the same view. That is, unless the UN should agree with the US and Britain, it is not doing its duty.

For the US, this position is quite clear: the UN is to be respected only in so far as it overlaps with plans set in Washington. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated the matter plainly: "If Iraq violates this resolution and fails to comply, then the council has to take into immediate consideration what should be done about that, while the United States and other like-minded nations might take a judgement about what we might do about it if the council chooses not to act." In other words, the US will subjugate itself to the UN only when it is useful for its imperialist interests.

When Saddam Hussein made a statement agreeing to comply with the Resolution, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, was immediately on record to suggest the use of force was still imminent. He said: "Iraq's intentions are notoriously changeable. The next step is for Iraq to provide an accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programmes by December 8. Let there be no doubt that any failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations will lead to serious consequences. For it is only the credible threat of force which has brought Iraq this far today."

The dismissive and contemptuous attitude with which the British government treats this life and death matter can be seen from the remarks on Tuesday of the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman. He said, when questioned on the Iraqi Parliament’s deliberations, that, "to be frank, we hadn't spent much time today tuning into the Iraqi Parliamentary channel to find out what had been going on".

The US is proceeding to build up its attack forces in the most deliberate and methodical way. There are 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan, 16,000 on carriers in the Gulf area, 11,000 in Kuwait, 5,000 in Saudi Arabia, 4,500 in Bahrain, 4,000 in Qatar, 2,500 in Uzbekistan, and smaller numbers elsewhere. At the same time, Britain and the US have not desisted from their attacks against Iraq. On Monday, November 11, for example, British and US warplanes attacked civil and serve installations, the latest in tens of thousands of such raids.

The Iraqis have paid for such attacks and for the genocidal sanctions against their country with the lives of over a million people, half of them children. They must not pay with untold more lives for US and British ambitions. The working class and people must keep up their actions and take a stand of principle. Only a UN Resolution expressly forbidding the US to go to war against Iraq would be just and comply with international law. There is an can be no legitimacy whatsoever in a war against Iraq. The hands of US imperialism and the British government must be stayed.

It was reported on November 13 that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein chaired a joint meeting of the Revolution Command Council (RCC) & Iraq's Command of The Arab Baath Socialist Party (ABSP). Present at the meeting were the Speaker of the National Assembly, head of the Presidency Office, and Ministers of Information and Foreign Affairs.

The meeting discussed UNSC Resolution 1441. The Foreign Affairs Minister was directed to send a message to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan including Iraq's stance towards the said resolution.

The following is the full text of the message:

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

"Go thou to Pharaoh, for he has indeed transgressed all bounds. But speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning or fear (Allah)"

(Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

His excellency Mr. Kofi Annan,
The Secretary-General of the United Nations,
New York, NY

Your Excellency

Assalamu Alaykum,
You may recall the huge clamour fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair, when they disseminated the claim that Iraq had perhaps produced, or was on its way to produce, nuclear weapons, during the time when the United Nations inspectors had been absent from Iraq since 1998. Then they returned to stress that Iraq had in fact produced chemical and biological weapons. They both know, as well as we do, and so can other countries, that such fabrications are baseless. But, does the knowledge of the truth constitute elements for interaction in the politics of our day, which has witnessed the unleashing of the American administration’s evil to its fullest extent, dashing away all hope in any good? Indeed, is there any good to be hoped for, or expected, from the American administrations, now that they have been transformed by their own greed, by Zionism as well as by other known factors, into the tyrant of the age.

Let’s go back to say that Iraq, having seen this fabrication work perhaps with some countries and amongst public opinion, while others maintained silence, confronted them with its agreement to the return of the UN inspectors, having agreed on this first with you, as UN chief, in New York on 16 September, 2002, and later in a press statement issued jointly in Vienna following a meeting on 30 September – 1 October between an Iraqi technical delegation headed by Dr Amer Al-Sa’di, Chief Inspector Hans Blix and Dr.Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But after Iraq’s acceptance of the return of the UN inspectors had become an established fact, including the agreement of 19 October, 2002, on the date of their return, and only a few hours this agreement was reached, Collin Powell, the US Secretary of State, declared that he would refuse to accept the inspectors’ return to Iraq. In the meantime, the gang of evil returned to talking about adopting a new resolution, or new resolutions, in order to create something for the world to talk about, other than following the work of the inspectors and then seeing the fact already stated by Iraq, which was that Iraq neither had produced nor was in possession of any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological, throughout the time of the inspectors’ absence from Iraq. However, representatives at the United Nations and its agencies, especially those from permanent member-states, instead of fellowship up on this and, hence, expose those responsible for the dissemination of lies and fabrications, were busy discussing the type and wording of the new resolution. They were indulged in what word or letter to add here or omit there, until they adopted a text under the pretext that it would be better to take the kicks of a raging bull in a small circle than to face its horns in an open space. The text was adopted under the American Administration’s pressure and threat that it would leave UN, if it did not agree to what America wanted, which is, to say the least, extremely evil and shameful to every honest member of the United Nations who recalls the provisions of its Charter, and sees that some people feel ashamed on behalf of those who are shameless.

Mr. Secretary-General,
We have said to the member of the Security Council whom we have contacted, or who have contacted us, when they told us about the pretexts of the Americans and their threat to perpetrate aggression against our country, whether unilaterally or with participated from others, if the Council were not to allow them to have their way, that we preferred, if it ever became necessary to see America carry out its aggression against us unilaterally, when we would have to confront it relying on Allah, instead of seeing the American government obtaining an international cover with which to camouflage its falsehood, partially or completely, bringing it closer to the truth, so that it may stab the truth with the dagger of evil and confronted the United States before when it looked as it does now, and this was one of the factors of its isolation in the human environment on the globe at large.

The aggressiveness of the United States of America and its single-handed infliction of injustice and destruction on those subjected to its inequity, in the forefront of whom are the Muslims and Arab believers, is the basic reason why America has withdrawn its ambassadors and other staff, close its embassies, and restrict its interests in many parts of the world, while reaping the hatred of the peoples of the world due to its policies and aggressive objectives. This is a situation which no other country in the world has experienced before, including the fathers of old colonialism. The Security Council, however, or indeed those who can basically play an influential role in it, have, instead of leaving the American administration and its lackey reap the result of their evil, saved wrong-doing rather than halted it. We shall see when remorse will not do any good for those who bite on their fingers.

Mr. Secretary-General,
The strength of influence of any international organisation rests on the belief of the human environment in which the organisation exists and which places its trust in it, once the organisation declares that it has been founded to achieve goals important to mankind. We fear that the United Nations Organisation may lose the trust and attachment of peoples, that is if it has not fallen to that place already. This is due to the exploitation of the organisation be powerful interests, whenever their greedy ambitions converge at the expense of the interests of other peoples. It may also be due to expediency and compromise amongst those interests in falsehood at the expense of truth. So the United Nations Organisation and its agencies will collapse in the same way as did its predecessor, the League of Nations. Then, the responsibility for this will not rest with the American administrations alone, but will also be due to the weakness of the timid who allow themselves to work for American interests, under the threat, lure or promises of the American administration.

He who remains silent in the defence of truth is a dumb devil. Nothing seems more reprehensible than the silence maintained by those who represented their nations in the security Council, as they discussed the American draft resolution, in the face of a question raised by the representative of Mexico regarding the possibility of lifting the blockade imposed on Iraq. The Mexican representative said, during consultations at the Security Council over SCR 1441 on 7 November 2002, that he did not find convincing the explanations presented by the American Permanent Representative, regarding the absence of any reference to the lifting of sanctions and the establishment in the Middle East region of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, and that he would [refer] this to his government in order to receive instructions. The British Representative responded by saying that he has listened to the statements made by the delegations of Syria and Mexico regarding the inclusion in the draft text of a paragraph on the lifting of sanctions. He went on to say that Iraq had been provided with the opportunity to dispose of its weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq had ignored that opportunity and decided to keep possession of those WMDs. Hence, he added, it would be inappropriate to include a reference to the lifting of sanctions as long as Iraq remained in possession of those weapons, even though an indirect reference to that effect was being accommodated.

We ask here, why is it that none of the representatives of SC member-states asked their British counterpart when, where and how such an alleged decision was taken by Iraq to keep possession of the weapons of mass destruction. They treated the claim made by the British representative as if it were of no significance to them; Or, rather, as if it were of no concern to them to say the truth. Does not this instance, along with other things and the decline of this type of international organisations point to the possibility of the collapse of this international organisation which was founded in order to preserve world peace and security, but has now been transformed into a kitchen-house for big-power bargaining, providing cover for war, destruction, blockades and starvation to be inflicted upon peoples.

The future will be determined in the light of the possibility for reform, or the inability to achieve reform. The future of the United Nations is no exception to this. Hence, all those who are truly concerned about the well-being of this organisation, in deeds not only in words, and about its work on the basis of the UN Charter, so that stability, justice and fairness will prevail in the world, providing a road-map for peace, freedom and co-operation to flourish amongst peoples, are called upon to be careful and to adhere to the UN Charter and international law, and not to the whims and uncontrollable instincts of those who threaten the world with their evil schemes weaponry and those who seek to achieve their interests narrow-mindedly by resorting to bargaining at the expense of truth, justice and fairness.

Mr. Secretary-General,
We know that those who pressed the Security Council to adopt resolution No 1441 have other objectives than making sure that Iraq had not developed mass destruction weapons in the absence of the inspectors since 1998. You are aware of how and who stood behind their absence. We also know that there are no true, just, or fair reasons behind the adoption of this resolution in the name of the security council, after the well-known understanding agreement between the representatives of Iraq and the UN Secretary-General and the press statement issued jointly by Blix, ElBaradei, and the Iraqi representatives. We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents, if it is to be implemented according to the premeditated evil of the parties of ill-intent, the important thing in this is trying to spare our people from any harm. But we will not forget, nor should others do, that safeguarding our people’s dignity, security, independence, and protecting our country, its sovereignty and sublime values, is as a sacred duty in our leadership’s and government‘s agenda. Therefore, and as we said in the aforesaid agreement and press statement, we are prepared to receive the inspectors, so that they can carry out their duties, and make sure that Iraq had not developed weapons of mass destruction, during their absence since 1998.

We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable. The parties concerned should bear in mind that we are in our holy month of Ramadan which means that the people are fasting, and this holy month will be followed by the Muslim’s Eid. Nevertheless, we will co-operate with the concerned UN bodies and officials on the background of all this, and of the tripartite, French-Russia-China, statement. Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people’s national dignity, their independence and security, and their country’s security, independence, and sovereignty. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the lairs’ lies will be exposed to public opinion, and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved. It will then become the lawful duty of the Security Council to lift the blockade and all the other unjust sanctions on Iraq. If it does not, all the peoples of good will in the world, in addition to Iraq, will tell it to do so. The SC will be compelled before the public opinion and the law to activate paragraph 14 of its resolution No 687, by applying it to the Zionist entity (Israel), and then, to the entire Middle East region, to make it a region void of mass destruction weapons. The number of just people will, then, increase in the world, and Iraq’s possibility to drive away the cawing of the crows of evil that daily raid its land, and kill Iraqis and destroy their property by their bombs. This will help the stability of the region and the world, if it is accompanied by a resolution that will not be based on double standards, to put an end to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and other occupied Arab territories, and if the warmongers stop their aggressions on the Muslims and the world.

Therefore, through you, we reiterate the same words to the Security Council: Send your inspectors to Iraq to make sure of this, and everyone will be sure, if their way of conduct is supervised so that it becomes legal and professional, that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological, as claimed by evil people. The lies and manipulations of the American administration and British government will be exposed, while the world will see how truthful and adequate are the Iraqis in what they say and do. But if the whims of the American administration, the Zionist desires, their followers, intelligence services, threats, and foul temptation, were given the chance to play and tamper with the inspection teams or some of their members, the colours would be then confused and the resulting commotion will distort the facts and push the situation into dangerous directions which is something fair-minded people do not wish for, as well as the people who, including my government, want to bring forward the facts as they are. The fieldwork and the implementation will be the decisive factors that will reveal whether the intentions were really for the Security Council to make sure that Iraq is void of those alleged weapons, or whether the whole thing was nothing but an evil cover by those who were behind the resolution who have no scruples to utter debased slander and to tell lies to the public opinion including to their own peoples.

So, let the inspectors come to Baghdad to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, and then we will hear and see along with who want to hear, see and move according to each one’s responsibility and rights. The final word and reference will still be resolution No 687 with its obligations on both the Secretary-General and Iraq, along will the code of conduct agreed upon in the agreement signed by the Secretary-General in New York on 16 September, 2002, and the press statement of Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Vienna in 30/9- 1/10/2002.

Mr. Secretary-General,
Please assume your responsibilities, by saying and advising the unfair people that their unfairness to Muslims, faithful Arabs, and to all, will be of dire consequences, and that God, the Almighty is capable of doing everything. Tell them that the proud people are faithful and Mujahid and who had fought the old colonialism, imperialism and aggression, including the tyrant’s aggression, for years and years. The price this courageous people paid to safeguard their independence, dignity, sublime principles was rivers of blood, with a lot of deprivation and loss of their riches, along with their eternal achievements and record of which they are proud. Therefore, we hope, that you will, Mr Secretary-General, advise the ignorants not to push things to the precipice, in the implementation, because the people of Iraq will not choose to live at the price of their dignity, country, freedom or sanctities, and they would rather make their lives the price if that was the only way before them to safeguard what they must safeguard.

I wish to inform your Excellency before I conclude this letter, that I intend to forward another letter to you on a later date, in which I shall state our observations the measures and procedures, contained in SCR 1441 that are contrary to international law, UN Charter, the facts already established and the measures contained in previous relevant resolutions of the Security Council.

"Do ye secure He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes."

(Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

Allah is the Greatest.

Naji Saberi Ahmed
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Iraq

Hasan Abu Nimah*, The Electronic Intifada, 11 November 2002

A US war with Iraq may reshape the Middle East, and will certainly have an impact on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Hasan Abu Nimah, who frequently contributes to EI, turns his attention to Iraq and considers whether the new UN resolution brings war closer or pushes it away. What does this mean for the UN and how should Iraq and Arab states react to stave off the threat of a catastrophic conflict?

Following two months of heated debate, and often tough diplomatic confrontation at the Security Council, a resolution to disarm Iraq, hopefully peacefully, has finally been unanimously approved. For the US, many see that as a stunning political triumph, for which Secretary of State Colin Powell can claim much credit, and in fact it is. In spite of much talk about changing American drafts, accommodating other Council members' demands, and even backtracking, the approved text, which is an American text, seems to have earned them a triple victory.

First the Americans got every thing they initially demanded, including a UN cover to go to war against Iraq now, without having to wait for a new Iraqi breach, and there is adequate ground for such action. Resolution 1441 has already decided "that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant (Security Council) resolutions," including resolution 687 (1991). And by recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) "authorised member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolutions..." the US can safely act on that basis. If, however that may not be enough, consider the paragraph in the present resolution that denies the validity of the cease-fire declared by Security Council resolution 687 twelve years ago, on the ground that Iraqi non- compliance with the provisions of that resolution annuls the cease-fire, and, therefore the US could if they decide to do so simply resume the previous, unfinished war.

Second, the resolution has inflicted, with UN approval, so much humiliation and imposed so harsh a set of impossible conditions on Iraq as if to precede the anticipated military attack with a caustic diplomatic defeat. The resolution actually strips Iraq completely of its integrity and sovereignty with the absolute and unlimited authority the UN inspectors have been empowered with, including the right to transfer Iraqis with their families to other countries for interrogation. What if they demanded ministers and Army generals to leave the country for that purpose? And does this provision exclude the president himself or any members of his family? The Iraqi government was left with no authority of its own to object to any provocation or degradation.

Third, it will be much easier once the U.S. decides to attack to do that after Iraq has been disarmed and after any means of defence Iraq may posses has been declared and entirely exposed. For Security Council permanent members, France, Russia and China who stubbornly led the opposition to American pressure to pass a resolution that would serve as a mere cover for a war the US had already decided to wage, the resolution was, in their view, also a substantial achievement in the sense that it prevented the war and gave diplomacy a chance.

According to these members, it prevents the possibility of an instant and automatic US resort to force if Iraq fails to fully and unconditionally abide by the tough terms of the resolution. The present resolution requires that any such violation be reported to the Council first for consideration. They can also claim that the resolution re-asserted the authority of the UN, reconfirmed the principle that the American case against Iraq should only go through the UN system, and that their good work has afforded Iraq a precious opportunity to avoid a devastating war by simply complying with the UN resolutions.

In the end, France, Russia and China approved a text which fell well below the expectations raised by their supposedly stiff opposition to US pressure. But they have to put the best spin on it, and given the danger it would serve no useful purpose to challenge their assertions that the resolution does indeed include the safeguards they sought. Most likely and bearing in mind imperative political realities, nothing better under the circumstances could have been achieved.

Resolution 1441 has left Iraq, and indeed all of us in the region with only one choice. And that is to accept the resolution as is, highlight what can be seen in it as positive, and to encourage Iraq by all available means to accept it and to implement it in full, to the best satisfaction of the Security Council in order to deprive the warmongers of any opportunity to resume their arrogant threats of war on the basis of non-compliance.

But while having to do that for compelling and practical purposes, we should not naively ignore some significant and depressing realities. One: is that the conditions which Iraq is required to meet are almost impossible, apart from the fact that they are also cruel, hostile and crushingly humiliating. No doubt they were specifically designed to inflict misery and to ensure failure. Yet it would only be wise for the Iraqis to suppress their agony and try, even if they may believe that only a miracle can avert the worst. There is of course, a distinct difference between an inevitable failure that results from a sincere and a dedicated effort to do one's best, and one resulting from evasiveness, irresponsibility, recklessness or deceit. While the former will strengthen the hands of those in the Security Council who worked hard to prevent the war so far, and it will most certainly help them to continue to assert their constructive positions, the latter will abort their lofty mission and totally deprive them of any means of defence in a battle which is far from over.

Two: there is no guarantee that any amount of Iraqi compliance will lead to the desired results, and save Iraq from the war. The resolution does not offer any assurance to that effect, neither can the Security Council stop the US from carrying out their war plan once they decide to do so. The only remaining option is to continue the diplomatic pressure, from every possible direction, (and that puts a specific responsibility on the Arab States), on the United States to reconsider its belligerent position and to allow the UN to deal the Iraqi issue correctly and in accordance with the UN resolutions.

Three: the resolution did not in any meaningful sense help restore any of the lost credibility of the UN, perhaps it did the opposite. It is true that the U.S. was pressured to bring its case against Iraq to the Security Council, but what transpired in the end was closer to a UN submission to the American position, rather than asserting the international will by allowing the Security Council to independently and fairly deal with the case. That is why the resolution came out as another example of the application of double standards, a selective approach to International justice, and the unprincipled pursuit of what is convenient rather than what is lawful and right.

The resolution is harsh and unfair. Its tone is clearly meant to humiliate, punish, and provoke rather than seek an objective, and a firm application of the law. Such language has never before been used by the UN in any of its previous resolutions on any case. It unfairly, and certainly deliberately ignores the fact that Iraq did comply for seven years with the inspection regime, it did allow the destruction of most of its WMDs, and continued to do that until the inspectors were withdrawn -- not expelled as the media likes to claim -- by UNSCOM chief Richard Butler, without even informing the Security Council of his decision, which was meant at the time (December 1998) to pave the way for a US missile attack, for totally unrelated reasons. The resolution also failed to recognise the suffering of the Iraqi people after twelve years of harsh sanctions, as it failed to recognise its own obligations to even mention that the sanctions would have to be removed once Iraq had fulfilled its requirements.

We must also remember that the Iraqi decision last September to allow the arms inspectors back in unconditionally was also not taken because the Iraqis believed it would end the crisis, and it did not. What it did, though, was to help the anti-war camp, in and outside the UN to strengthen its case and to achieve results, very modest and of course inconclusive, yet much better than a destructive and a regionally destabilising war. The same is required from Iraq again and for the same reasons. It may be hard and painful to meet demands which are only meant to be prohibitive pretexts for war, but in such abnormal times flexibility and patience remain wise and pragmatic.

We are passing through very dangerous times where nothing should be taken for granted. The situation, in our region in particular is so precarious, so fragile and so critically explosive that only maximum wisdom, realism, and meaningful collective efforts can arrest the fast drift to disaster. One sadly wonders why the Arab Nation with all its kinetic potential does not rise to the challenge, indeed the sweeping danger on all of us, and do something.

* Hasan Abu Nimah is former Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Jordan to the United Nations.