The Legacy of Empire Jack Straw Owns Up To

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

The Legacy of Empire Jack Straw Owns Up To

British Academic Figures Gather Support for Boycott of Israel

Invisible killings:
Israel's daily toll of Palestinian children

Together against the War of Oil and Hegemony

US Lawyers' Statement on UN Resolution 1441

The Abuse of the No-Fly Zones as an Excuse for War

Jack Straw used an interview with the New Statesman in November to blame Britain's colonial past for many global crises. The Foreign Secretary told the magazine: "A lot of the problems that we are having to deal with now – I have to deal with now – are a consequence of our colonial past."

Jack Straw highlighted Britain's historical role in areas from Afghanistan to Kashmir. "India-Pakistan – we made some quite serious mistakes," he said "We were complacent with what happened in Kashmir, the boundaries weren't published until two days after independence. Bad story for us. The consequences are still there." And in Afghanistan the Foreign Secretary highlighted a "less than a glorious role over a century and a half".

As regards the violence in the Middle East, Straw described Britain's role in the birth of the dispute as "not entirely an honourable one".

Turning to Iraq, he also noted that the "odd lines" for its borders were drawn up by Britain.

It might be thought surprising that the Foreign Secretary should own up to the legacy of empire in this way. That he does so is in contrast to the prevailing line of the government, particularly Tony Blair, that Britain’s legacy is one of benevolent close ties with its colonies. But Jack Straw’s recognition of the legacy of empire is one that will not pass beyond admitting "mistakes" to repudiating the crimes against humanity that English colonialists and British imperialists have been responsible for. Nor will it draw the most warranted conclusion that Britain’s role today is precisely the continuation of this legacy of empire and that its interventionist role in the world must be ended for all the problems left over from Britain’s colonial past to be resolved. Instead Jack Straw uses his admission to act as an apologist for modern-day colonialism, the adoption of the role of taking up the "white man’s burden", and the violation of the sovereignty of peoples and nations.

Jack Straw may have let slip the stance of a neo-liberal globalist for a moment, but only to temporarily take up the mantle of a liberal who will acknowledge the cruelties of the world, but will do everything to oppose changing the situation and taking up responsibility for putting an end to the "legacy of empire".

British academics figures have been gaining support for a boycott of Israel since it was first suggested earlier this year, according to a report in the Guardian. Colin Blakemore, an Oxford University professor of physiology, who supports a boycott, said: "I do not know of any British academic who has been to a conference in Israel in the last six months."

Paul Zinger, outgoing head of the Israeli Science Foundation, said: "Every year we send most of our research papers abroad for reference. We send out about 7,000 papers a year. This year, for the first time, we had people writing back, about 25 of them, saying, 'We refuse to look at these.'"

By Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, December 10, 2002

When Israelis are killed and injured by a Palestinian attack, the TV news networks are quick to cut to "breaking news" reports. Harrowing footage from the scene and interviews with outraged Israeli government officials are swiftly broadcast, and harsh statements are quickly issued by government and UN officials to appear in tomorrow's front page newspaper stories.

Meanwhile, the steady killing of Palestinian civilians, many of them children, by the Israeli occupation army goes largely unnoticed and unreported.

By consistently emphasising the suffering of Israelis, and downplaying or ignoring the killings of Palestinians, the media conveys a false impression that Palestinian "attacks" are the principal feature of the conflict.

Statistics unambiguously clarify that this impression is the exact opposite of the reality on the ground. A total of 1,926 Palestinians have been killed from September 29, 2000, up to December 8, 2002, and more than 21,000 injured – 669 of these killings occurred since Israel's total reoccupation of the West Bank began last March, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.

The Electronic Intifada looked at the one-month period from October 31 to December 2, 2002, in detail.

According to its research, 43 Palestinian civilians were killed during this period and dozens wounded or permanently maimed.

Fifteen of those killed and several dozen of those injured were children. A summary of the circumstances of the killing and injury of this group appears below.


Details and circumstances of Palestinian children killed by Israeli occupation forces, October 31 to December 2, 2002

December 2:
Jenin: Mutaz Odeh, 18, died of a gunshot wound to the heart when Israeli occupation forces opened fire on a group of civilians who were stoning Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles. 21 others injured, two seriously. (PCHR, LAW)

November 30:
Gaza City: Hatem al-Ajla, 16, shot dead by Israeli occupation forces, with gunshot wounds to the back, according to hospital sources. (AFP)

November 28:
Hebron: Abbas al-Atrash, 3, was in his house, when he was killed by bullets fired by Israeli occupation forces. Doctors said that he was hit by a bullet in the abdomen as he stood at the window. The occupation army claimed the toddler was killed by shrapnel from an explosive device thrown at its forces. No occupation forces were injured by the alleged bomb. (Agencies)

November 25:
Nablus: Jihad Al-Faqih, 8, was shot and killed by Israeli occupation forces with a bullet to the heart. The killing occurred as many Palestinians decided to ignore the permanent curfew imposed on the city and go to school or work. Some unarmed Palestinians confronted the occupation forces who were in tanks and armoured vehicles, and some people stoned them. The occupation forces opened fire on the civilians, killing Jihad, who was not among the stone throwers. 13 others were injured by the soldiers, including 7 other children and two women. (LAW, Agencies)

November 22:
Jenin: Muhammad Bilalweh, 12, was shot dead by Israeli occupation forces with a bullet to the left eye. The occupation forces opened fire on a group of children who began stoning them after an Israeli armoured bulldozer had demolished a building that was home to six families. Earlier the army had entered the camp in force, firing indiscriminately. Three other children suffered serious injuries from gunshots and shrapnel. (LAW, Agencies)

November 19:
Tulkarm: Ehab Alam al-Zalqa, 16, was shot and killed by a member of an Israeli death squad disguised as a Palestinian. The killing occurred when the death squad, who had been spotted by civilians, was stoned. After killing Alam, the death squad caught and executed on the spot the person they were hunting after confirming his identity. Two other civilians were killed by the death squad, and ten others, including five children injured. (PCHR, LAW)

November 20:
Tulkarm: Amr al-Qudsi, 14, was shot dead by an Israeli soldier with a gunshot to the back. Following an earlier incident, in which an Israeli death squad killed four people in the town, a group of children gathered and stoned an Israeli jeep. The jeep stopped, a soldier got out, took aim at Amr, and killed him. (LAW, Agencies)

November 16:
Jenin Refugee Camp: Ibrahim al-Sadi, 17, was shot and killed by Israeli occupation forces. Israel surrounded a number of houses in the centre of the refugee camp, including the house of Sheikh Bassam Ragheb al-Sa'di, wanted by Israel for alleged activities in Islamic Jihad. Israeli soldiers noticed al-Sadi's son Ibrahim, 17, passing near a house with a gun in his hands. Immediately, they fired at him without warning. He was killed by a live bullet in the chest. According to eyewitnesses, the son passed by the area accidentally and he did not fire at the Israeli soldiers, rather he was trying to get away from them. Ibrahim's brother, Abdulkarim, had been killed by Israeli occupation forces on September 5. (PCHR)

November 15:
Nablus: Imran al-Shila, 15, was killed by a bullet to the chest by Israeli occupation forces who opened fire on a group of children who throw stones at them in the Old City. (LAW)

November 14:
Nablus: Jalal Awijan, 17, was killed by a gunshot wound to the chest, when Israeli occupation forces in tanks and armoured vehicles opened fire on a group of school children. (LAW)

November 13:
Rafah, Gaza: Hamed Asad Hassan al-Masri, 2, was killed by a live bullet to the chest. That evening, Israeli occupation forces began shelling Block J in Rafah refugee camp, forcing the little boy's family to flee their home. As they left the house, Hamed was hit by a bullet fired by the occupation forces. His mother, Asmaa, 31, was critically injured by live ammunition and shrapnel to the abdomen, pelvis and limbs. (PCHR)

November 11:
Rafah, Gaza: Nafez Mishal, 2, was shot by Israeli occupation forces who opened fire on civilian homes in the Tel al Sultan neighbourhood of the refugee camp. He died two hours later of a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Nafez had been sitting on his father's lap playing with a balloon, when the balloon escaped. The toddler got up to run after it and was then cut down by a volley of bullets from an occupation army watchtower. The occupation army claimed it was "returning fire," although all witnesses said that the soldiers had, as they often do, opened fire without provocation. Two other children, aged 9 and 14 were injured in the same incident (The Independent, PCHR)

November 11:
Rafah, Gaza: Muhammad Rifat Abu al-Naja, 9, died of wounds he sustained the previous month. Abu al-Naja was seriously wounded when Israeli forces at the Egyptian border, south of Rafah, shelled Palestinian houses in Block O in Rafah refugee camp on 17 October 2002. Six Palestinian civilians, including 3 children and 2 women, were killed in that incident, and more than 40 others, including Abu al-Naja, were wounded. (PCHR)

November 5:
Rafah, Gaza: Adham Ibrahim Hamdan, 16, shot by live bullets in the head and Eyad Nafez Abu Taha, 17, shot by a live bullet in the head. The two boys were killed by Israeli occupation forces who had invaded Block L of Rafah refugee camp, demolished three houses, and fired indiscriminately at civilians. 12 Palestinian civilians, including 4 children under the age of 18, were wounded. (PCHR)

The following petition has been signed on-line by a number of Arab journalists, lawyers, academics, teachers, students, professionals and others.

While the threats of war are about to explode and while the US is vehemently trying to find an international cover for its criminal project against the lives of the Iraqi people and its vital potentialities, and to exercise absolute control over its resources, foremost oil, within an open-ended aggression to complete its control over the Arab region and its neighbours or even a Global Economy;

We the undersigned, from the various countries of the Arab world and beyond, women and men, writers, artists and media people, teachers and professionals, trade unionist and workers, farmers and students, political, social and cultural activists, citizens concerned with the promotion of science and knowledge, come together to an agreement around the following visions and basic positions:

1. We consider the war against Iraq as a war of open and direct looting and plundering of oil and its products on the one hand and a blow to the human and material resources of the Iraqi people on the other. It is a war that seeks to prevent the Arabs from possessing an effective power capable of protecting their independence and resources. It also targets to strengthen the bases of American hegemony over the whole world.

2. We realise the forthcoming war against Iraq is full of risks and major disasters. Apart from the destruction, which it will inflict upon the Iraqi people, it will also cause major devastation of the environment, to spread of various diseases, misery and death because of the use of modern and most lethal weapons, which may extend to the use of nuclear weapons, according to Israel's threats.

3. We are also aware that the war does not target Iraq alone but also all the peoples of the region, their resources and their vital energies, foremost the Palestinian people who run the risk of complete annihilation of its national cause, including total displacement from its homeland. The matter calls for a firm opposition of this war, jointly planned by Israel, international Zionism and American imperialism. It also calls for the absolute need to undertake all possible initiatives to effectively implement the right of the Palestinian people to establish their independent and fully sovereign state, as well as the implementation of UN resolutions concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their original cities and villages.

4. We strongly condemn the almost declared complicity of the Arab regimes in that war, especially that they have abstained – until now – from any practical expression of their solidarity with the Iraqi people by not undertaking any measures against states contributing to that invasion. Instead Arab regimes have pitifully contributed in securing a cover of the invasion. Examples of such measures include: threat to cut relations, oil export, to withdraw bank accounts, to close water, air and land channels in their faces and to effectively implement the joint Arab Defence Charter against them. In reality the opposite is taking place. Several of them are establishing close relations with the USA, including military relations, and, in the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Cairo, almost all of them welcomed Security Council resolution 1441.

It is of no lesser importance to work towards the release of Arab societies from the many restrictions imposed by emergency and martial laws and to release wide democratic liberties, to the effect of enabling people to be masters of themselves, to enjoy the basic requirements for a dignified and human existence, and to effectively prepare themselves for a successful confrontation of the forthcoming invasion.

We have followed with great admiration and emotion the Anti-War demonstrations in several countries of the world, especially the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated in Britain, France, Spain, Italy and Greece and even inside the USA itself. We believe that it is vital to work jointly with those groups, with a vision that the confrontation would expand and acquire an internationalist scope.

5. We call on the peoples of all countries in the region to head for the streets in large numbers and to use all forms of effective protest, such as sit ins, demonstrations, popular gatherings and to form committees working against the war in order to effectively pressure against the implementation of the American project. In case the war actually breaks out, those committees should act as focal points for effective resistance to the invasion.

6. We call for the mobilisation of the people in the region to use all measures to pressure for the removal of American bases from all countries, whether in Gulf states, Turkey or any other.

7. We believe that the nature of the ruling regimes in the region is a determining factor in allowing the US and its allies to prepare an unchallenged attack against Iraq now, and other states later. Those regimes are oppressive dictatorial regimes, foremost the ruling regime in Baghdad. We stress the need to support the right of the Iraqi people to overthrow this dictatorship with its own strategies and without external interference, to establish a real democracy inclusive of the acknowledgement of the right of the Kurds in Kurdistan/Iraq to self determination – appreciating the objective and democratic position of preserving the unity of Iraq given the current circumstances – in addition to securing complete equality and the cultural and political rights of non Arab minorities such as Assyrians, Chaldeans and Turkmans.

We the undersigned are eager to maintain our collaboration and to unify our forces in a practical translation of those positions. We are aware that any delay in undertaking the above mentioned missions will only pave an easier way for the success of the criminal American plan which may be the most dangerous one that ever threatened this region. A serious mobilisation to defeat it maybe the starting point of a new rising, not only for the movement of Arab masses, but also for the other peoples in the region, including Turkey and Iran, as well as for the international liberation movement.

Two Articles from Foreign Policy in Focus Project (online at http://www.fpif.org):

US Lawyers' Statement on UN Resolution 1441

The Bush administration claims that it does not legally need Security Council authorisation to attack Iraq if the United States concludes that Iraq breaches its obligations to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions. As Professors of Law and practising attorneys, we believe that the administration's legal position is incorrect and poses a grave danger for the future of international law, the United Nations, and a peaceful international order.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defence or when it is authorised by the UN Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorise a US attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral US attack on Iraq illegal under international law.

Self-defence

Article 51 of the Charter sets forth the exception for self-defence. A nation can employ self-defence only "if an armed attack occurs", or, as a number of authorities have argued, in response to an imminent attack. None of the reasons given by the Bush administration for attacking Iraq, including destruction of claimed weapons of mass destruction or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, constitute self-defence under the UN Charter. The Bush administration has presented no evidence that Iraq currently presents an imminent threat of attack against the US.

UN Authorisation

Throughout the now more than decade-long dispute over Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 687 which ended the 1991 Gulf War, a majority of both the Security Council – and a majority of its permanent members – have consistently argued that it is for the Security Council as a whole, and not individual states such as the US or Britain, to decide how to enforce its resolutions. For example, during the last crisis with Iraq over inspections in 1998, a majority of the Security Council disagreed with the US position and argued that no existing Security Council resolution authorised the US, Britain or any other member state to enforce Iraq's disarmament obligations imposed by Resolution 687. France, Russia, China and other nations argued that only a new, explicit Security Council resolution authorising force against Iraq could provide a legal basis for such US/British action.

On November 8, 2002, after almost eight weeks of negotiation and tremendous pressure by the United States, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, which set a new timetable and a new regime of inspections for Iraq. That Resolution does not authorise the United States to use force against Iraq.

Resolution 1441 represents a compromise between the French/Russian view and the American/British perspective. The Council acquiesced to the US by deciding that Iraq "was and remains" in "material breach" of prior resolutions, and recalls that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face "serious consequences" as a result of its continued violation of its obligations. Although, the "material breach" and "serious consequences" language will be used by the United States to argue that the Security Council has implicitly authorised the use of force in response to any Iraqi non-compliance, that is not a legally correct interpretation of the Resolution. Let us be clear: The Security Council resolution does not change the decade-long position of the Security Council that only it can decide how to enforce its own resolutions.

Although the resolution does not explicitly require another Security Council vote on authorisation of military force, it is significant that Paragraph 4 of Resolution 1441declaring that any failure by Iraq to comply with the resolution will constitute a "material breach" does require that such a breach "will be reported to the Security Council for assessment in accordance with paragraph 11 and 12" of the resolution. Those paragraphs require the Chairman of the Inspection Team to report to the Security Council, which will itself convene "immediately" to consider the situation and decide what to do.

It is clear from the resolution that no individual member state is authorised to use any violation by Iraq, whether very minor and technical or more serious, as legal justification to attack Iraq. The resolution requires the Security Council to meet immediately and decide what to do about an Iraqi violation – a requirement inconsistent with member states taking unilateral action. Indeed, France, Russia and China, which provided the critical votes to pass the Resolution, issued a statement upon its enactment that "Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force" and that only the Security Council has the ability to respond to a misstep by Iraq. Mexico's Ambassador was explicit in casting his country's vote for the resolution. He stressed that the use of force is only valid as a last resort, "with the prior, explicit authorisation of the Security Council".

As law professors and practising lawyers, we are encouraged that the Security Council has placed itself front and centre for the resolution of this issue concerning the disarmament of Iraq. The United Nations charter is a treaty binding on the United States and is part of our supreme Law of the land, by virtue of Article VI of the United States Constitution. We urge the Bush administration to comply with the Constitution, to comply with the UN Charter, and not unilaterally attack Iraq.

(Drafted by Jules Lobel, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburg, November 27, 2002.)

Article Index

The Abuse of the No-Fly Zones as an Excuse for War

By Stephen Zunes
December 6, 2002

With the apparent willingness of the Iraqi government to co-operate with United Nations weapons inspectors, the Bush administration and its congressional supporters of both parties seem determined to find an excuse – any excuse – to invade this oil-rich country and replace the current regime with one more to its own liking. This eagerness to wage war could not be more apparent than in recent claims out of Washington that Iraq firing upon British and American aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq constitutes a "material breach" of UN Security Council resolutions that could justify a US invasion.

However, the United Nations never authorised the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq – like any country – has every legal right to fire upon them.

When the cease-fire in the Gulf War went into effect in March 1991, the Kurds in the north and the Shiite Muslims in the south launched a rebellion against Saddam Hussein's regime. The United States banned the use of Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft, which could be of danger to American personnel, but allowed Iraq to use helicopter gunships, which were crucial in reversing the tide of the rebellions and resulted in brutal repression by the Iraqi armed forces against the rebellious populations. In response, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 688, demanding that Iraq cease its repression of minority communities in the country.

No enforcement mechanisms were specified, however.

Despite this, the United States, Great Britain, and France declared a "No-Fly" zone in northern Iraq, forbidding Iraqi military aircraft from entering the area. A second no-fly zone was later established in the south and expanded a few years later. Once the situation stabilised, France withdrew from its enforcement of the no-fly zone, though British and American planes continue to patrol the no-fly zones, which now extend to the majority of the country's airspace.

According to two State Department reports in 1994 and 1996, the creation and military enforcement of "no-fly zones" in fact do not protect the Iraqi Kurdish and Shiite populations from potential assaults by Iraqi forces. The straight latitudinal demarcations of the no-fly zones do not correspond with the areas of predominant Kurdish and Shiite populations. In addition, the targets of the American and British air strikes have no relation to preventing Iraqi attacks against vulnerable minorities. That the United States has allowed the Turkish Air Force to conduct bombing raids within the northern Iraq "no-fly zone" against Kurdish targets is but one indication of the lack of concern about actually protecting the Kurdish population.

In a classic case of "mission creep", the use of force was initially justified to challenge Iraqi encroachments into the proscribed airspace. Then, it was escalated to include assaults on anti-aircraft batteries that fired at allied aircraft enforcing the zone. It escalated still further when anti-aircraft batteries were attacked simply for locking on their radar toward allied aircraft, even without firing. Then, the Clinton administration began attacking radar installations and other military targets within the no-fly zone, even when they were unrelated to an alleged Iraqi threat against a particular US aircraft. Since the Bush administration came to office, the targeting has been expanded still further, with the US attacking radar and command-and-control installations well beyond the no-fly zones.

Despite this, in the bipartisan resolution authorising a US invasion of Iraq, Congress justified a US invasion of Iraq in part because "the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States…by …firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council". After contacting more than a dozen congressional offices, each of them claimed that this was in reference to the no-fly zones, even though none of them could actually cite any such UN Security Council resolutions that authorises their existence.

What began as an apparent humanitarian effort has turned into another excuse for continuing a low-level war against Iraq and perhaps now even as an excuse for a full-scale invasion of that country. The American public must not allow such legitimate human rights concerns to be abused to advance the agenda of right-wing militarists lusting for war.

(Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project. He is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justices Studies Programme at the University of San Francisco and the author of the recently-released Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (available online at http://www.commoncouragepress.com).)