War and peacePosted by john sloboda Sat, January 10, 2015 17:56:55
The traumatic events
of the last 4 days in France have wiped almost all other news off the
headlines. But gross daily
suffering and death did not abate elsewhere in the world.
On the same day that
12 people were killed in Paris in or near the Charlie Hebdo offices, 35 people
were killed by a massive car bomb outside a Police Station in Yemen’s capital
and 53 civilians were killed in 9 separate locations across Iraq (https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/)
In one of the Iraq
incidents, four Iraqi doctors and three Iraqi lawyers were executed in Mosul by
ISIL for collaboration with the Iraqi security forces http://www.almadapress.com/ar/news/42167/داعش-يعدم-سبعة-أطباء-ومحامين-لاتهام.
By a strange twist of
fate, Wednesday was the first day in the three-year Syrian war when no-one was
reported killed by violence, according to Human Rights monitors there. The reason? A fierce snow storm that made fighting impossible simply
brought a different kind of suffering to the dispossessed of the conflict,
trying to survive without homes or heating.
And in the remaining
days of last week, when another 5 Parisian hostages were killed in at a Kosher Supermarket, an
estimated 2000 civilians were killed in and around Baga, Northern Nigeria, by
Boko Haram militants (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/09/africa/boko-haram-violence/.)
The sheer enormity of
the Nigerian tragedy has briefly jostled with Paris for some recent headlines,
but, for the majority of other violent incidents this week, such as those in
Iraq and Yemen, the attention of the world’s media has been negligible.
Of all this week’s
victims, only those connected to the high-profile Charlie Hebdo magazine have
been widely named. Even the
victims of the kosher supermarket siege are yet hardly visible, named only in
one or two obscure places. Because
Yohan Cohen , Yossef Siboni,
Dominique bat Sarah, Sarah bat Louna, and Noa bat Sarah are not public figures,
few seem interested in who they were
In a powerful
and challenging commentary on the week’s events, Teju-Cole, a Nigerian-American
historian writing in the New Yorker sheds some light on this skewed attention
when he points out that “when we rightly condemn
criminals who claim to act in the name of Islam, little of our grief is
extended to the numerous Muslim victims of their attacks” (http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies.)
The killing sprees at the Charlie Hebdo
offices and the Kosher Supermarket were atrocities, for which no justification or
defence is possible. But that
judgement not absolve us of our wider responsibilities. Other people’s wrongdoing does
not change the moral character of our own responses, even when we are the
injured party. For instance:
1. It is a matter of significant regret that the Paris perpetrators are
now dead and therefore cannot face justice in a public court according to
French law. They have, in effect,
received a summary death penalty in a country that has abolished the death
penalty – and I regret that I saw no indication that the French authorities
were strenuously seeking to terminate the hostage situations without any
further loss of life, including that of the killers, or that any section of the
French society was urging this. It
seems to have been just somehow assumed that, of course, the hostage takers
would be killed, thus denying them any of the rights or opportunities offered in
France to defendents of all, including the most heinous, crimes. The justice of the courts has, sadly,
been replaced in this case by the justice of the bullet.
2. There are many highly questionable killings perpetrated or supported
by Western governments, such as the British and American killing in captivity
of prisoners, the USA’s use of drone strikes against civilians in Pakistan and
Yemen, and the killing of women and children in Gaza by the Israeli Defence
Forces. The Charlie Hebdo
killings cannot and should not turn attention away from these other tragedies
and misdemeanours, nor be used to justify our role in them. If they were wrong or illegal before
this week, they remain so now, and justice for these and other victims must
continue to be sought.
3. Although they may not have been breaking any law, many of the
Charlie Hebdo cartoons are - in many eyes including my own - vile, infantile,
prejudiced, and entirely destructive in their intent. Their main purpose seems to be to foment hatred and
misunderstanding of their targets among members of French society. For others to demand that these
cartoons be widely reproduced and circulated as an act of solidarity with the
victims or an act of defiance against radical Islamists, is unacceptable and
counterproductive, and I applaud those who refuse to comply with what amounts
to societal bullying – particularly where their refusal is not out of fear of the consequences
– but out of principle.
We can and should respect the right of the publishers of Charlie Hebdo
to publish their cartoons. They,
and others, need to recognise other people’s right to have nothing to do with
the cartoons, and to actively oppose their use or circulation if they so
choose, by any means other than violent means. Such opposition does not mean that we view the brutal death
of their staff with anything other than the utmost horror and condemnation.
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Wed, November 26, 2014 21:01:50
This is the response from the Advertising Standards Agency to the 700 or more citizens, including myself, who felt moved to complain about the "Christmas in the Trenches" ad.
The widespread complaints were reported in the press, although the number of complaints was eventually far higher than early reports indicated.
ASA have decided not to uphold the complaint.
Dear Mr Sloboda,
YOUR COMPLAINT: A14-286204 J SAINSBURYS PLC in part. with THE ROYAL BRITISH LEGION
Thank you for contacting the ASA and for your patience.
Our role as an organisation is to help ensure that advertising is responsible by, in essence, being legal, decent, honest and truthful. We can intervene if an ad appears likely to be in breach of the Codes of Advertising by, for example, being likely to cause serious or widespread offence, being materially misleading or risking causing significant harm.
In this case, we decided to put your concerns, along with a number of similar complaints we had received about this ad, to the independent ASA Council for consideration, rather than simply using the delegated responsibility of the ASA Executive’s staff. The ASA Council is the jury that decides whether advertisements have breached the Advertising Codes.
They have now carefully considered the ad, in the context of its appearance on TV, in the cinema and on YouTube, and the issues raised by all complainants, but have concluded that there are insufficient grounds for further ASA intervention on this occasion. Although we acknowledge the particular resonance this ad may have for those who lost family in the First World War, or any other conflict, we can only intervene where there has been a specific breach of the Codes we administer.
I should explain that the ASA does not intervene where advertising is simply criticised for being in poor taste. The Code requires that ads must not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence, but ads may be ‘distasteful’ without necessarily breaching this rule. Complaints about offence often require difficult judgements. Apart from freedom of speech considerations, even well-intentioned and thoughtful people will have different and sometimes contradictory opinions about what constitutes ‘bad taste’ or should be prohibited. We can only act if the ad, in our judgement, offends against widely accepted moral, social or cultural standards.
I should also make clear that the ASA has no influence over the wider creative decisions taken by advertisers (or the agencies that work on their behalf) to use a particular character, situation, music or theme in their ad campaigns. We consider the particular content of specific ads and as long as the content of the ad does not breach our Code, it is really up to the advertiser what they want to put in it and what theme they choose.
In this case, we received over 700 complaints about this ad and the ASA Council considered four main issues;
1. Whether the ad was offensive because complainants had found the use of an event from the First World War to advertise a commercial company insulting, demeaning, disrespectful, insensitive and exploitative;
In terms of this first issue, the Council noted that the only reference to the advertiser was the brief inclusion of their logo at the end of the ad and that the only identifiable product was a bar of chocolate, the profits from the sale of which were to be donated to the Royal British Legion, with whom the advertiser had partnered in making the ad. It was understood that the ad had been made, at least partly, as a celebration of the 20 years of support that the advertiser had given to the charity and that they had worked to ensure historical accuracy by basing it on original reports and letters, as well as working with historians throughout the development and production process.
Although the Council acknowledged that some would find the use of an event from the First World War for advertising purposes distasteful under any circumstances, they considered that viewers in general were likely to see the specific depiction in this ad as respectful to both sides of the conflict, relevant to both the First World War Centenary and Christmas, and a poignant reminder of the historical event which inspired the ad.
Despite the fact that it had clearly divided opinion and some had found it to be in poor taste, the Council did not consider the content of the ad likely to cause serious or widespread offence in breach of the Code.
2. Whether the depiction was too "sanitised" and that the ad therefore trivialised and undermined the tragedy and glamorised, glorified and romanticised war;
With regard to the second issue, while the Council noted that the ad was not as graphic as the real events would have been, they considered that viewers were likely to be aware of the horrors of war and understand that the reality would have been very different. They did not consider it likely that viewers would require overtly graphic or explicit imagery of violence and death in order to appreciate the message, or to remember the sacrifices made in the First World War.
The Council considered that viewers generally would see the portrayal in the ad as emphasising the positive nature of the event shown and the message the ad aimed to convey rather than as trivialising or undermining the tragedy of the First World War, or glamorising, glorifying or romanticising war generally.
3. Whether it was inappropriate for broadcast given that this year marked the First World War Centenary and the ad appeared shortly after Armistice Day;
In relation to the third issue, the Council noted that the ad had first been broadcast the day after Armistice Day but that no specific complaints had been received about the ad being broadcast around programmes specifically dedicated to the First World War or Remembrance. Although they understood that some consumers had found the timing to be distasteful, they considered that the ad was likely to be seen as topical and relevant and, given the content, its broadcast around this time was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.
4. The objection that the TV version of the ad did not make immediately clear that it was an ad for supermarket.
Finally, in terms of the fourth issue, the Council understood that the ASA had not received any complaints suggesting that the ad had been shown around programmes specifically dedicated to the First World War or Remembrance and that complainants had believed it to be either a charity ad or a trailer for a programme or film before the advertiser's logo appeared. It was noted that the Code required that ads were obviously distinguishable from editorial content to avoid confusion between the two and that the audience should quickly recognise the message as an ad. The Council considered that the TV ad, in the context of the scheduling they were aware of, was obviously distinguishable from editorial content and given that the complainants had quickly recognised the message as an ad, albeit not one for a supermarket, they considered that it did not breach the Code on this point.
For these reasons, the ASA Council have concluded that there are no grounds for further investigation on the issues raised and that the ad does not breach the Code for the reasons suggested. As such, we will not be taking any further action on this occasion.
I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you had hoped for, but we have passed a summary of the issues raised to the advertiser (without revealing anyone’s identity) so that they’re aware of views such as yours. We will also continue to monitor the response to this ad.
Although we are not taking further action on this occasion, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us. If you would like more information about us or our work, please do visit our website, www.asa.org.uk.
Senior Complaints Executive
Direct line 020 7492 2203
Advertising Standards Authority
Mid City Place, 71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2222
Follow us on twitter: @ASA_UK
Legal, decent, honest and truthful
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Advertising Standards Authority (Broadcast) Ltd will use the information you have given us to deal with your complaint. If your complaint falls under the remit of a different regulatory body, we will normally pass it on to that body. If you are seeking suppression from an advertiser’s database or have not received goods or a refund, we will pass the details of your complaint to the advertiser so it can take action.
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Sat, August 31, 2013 09:37:08
Below is my personal selection of 50 important (and quotable) statements made by MPs arguing against UK military involvement in Syria, extracted from Hansard (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130829/debtext/130829-0001.htm). They are listed in time order in which they appeared in the debate, with name and political affiliation of each speaker.
In the media hype that has followed this unprecedented vote, crude brush-stroke characterisations have by and large bypassed the careful and well-made contributions from so many sides of the house.
It is important that the detail of the debate is attended to, both for what was said, and for who said it. The debate was a profound turning point for British political life, and particularly our foreign and defence policy. For the first time in living memory, the House of Commons showed itself to be mature and thoughtful about issues which, in recent years, it has shown appallingly bad judgement.
For almost the first time since I took an interest in politics, I am proud of the British Parliament, and have hope that, at last, sufficient MPs have begun to take on board perspectives that they have ignored for so long, and that we may be witnessing the beginning of a profound re-alignment of the UK’s stance on what constitutes the appropriate use of its military forces.The 50 statements
1. In our minds should be this simple question: in upholding international law and legitimacy, how can we make the lives of the Syrian people better? Ed Milliband. (Lab)
2. It is incumbent on us to try to build the widest support among the 15 members of the Security Council, whatever the intentions of particular countries. The level of international support is vital, should we decide to take military action. It is vital in the eyes of the world. That is why it cannot be seen as some sideshow or some “moment”, but is an essential part of building the case, if intervention takes place. Ed Milliband (Lab).
3. Any proposed action to deter the use of chemical weapons must be judged against the consequences that will follow. Further work by the Government is necessary to set out what those consequences would be. Ed Milliband (Lab)
4. We all know that stability cannot be achieved by military means alone. The continued turmoil in the country and the region in recent months and years further demonstrates the need to ensure that we uphold the fate of innocent civilians, the national interest and the security and future prosperity of the whole region and the world. I know that the whole House recognises that this will not and cannot be achieved through a military solution. Ed Milliband (Lab)
5. Whatever the justification on 18 March 2003, the fact was that there was an egregious intelligence failure, and it has had profound consequences, not only across the middle east but in British politics, through the fraying of those bonds of trust between the electors and the elected that are so essential to a healthy democracy. Jack Straw (Lab).
6. This morning, we woke up to hear the President of the United States, Barack Obama, saying that by acting in “a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across”Assad’s bow. Let us pause and consider the metaphor that was chosen by the President, because it is revealing. A shot across the bow is a warning that causes no damage and no casualties—shells fired over the bridge of a naval vessel. In this case, it might be a Tomahawk missile that is targeted to fly over Damascus and land in the unoccupied deserts beyond. That cannot be what the President has in mind. We need to know what he really has in mind and what the consequences of that will be. There will be casualties from any military action—some military and almost certainly many civilian. Jack Straw (Lab).
7. This is not a choice between action and inaction; it is simply a choice of what action should be taken. Some of us worry that military action might exacerbate the situation, rather than make it better, and draw us into mission creep, over which we would have very little control. Chris Bryant (Lab)
8. To go to war with Assad—that is what it would be—without the sanction of a UN Security Council resolution would set a terrible precedent. After the mission creep of the Libyan operation, it would amount to nothing less than a clear statement by the US and its allies that we were the arbiters of international right and wrong when we felt that right was on our side. What could we do or say if, at some point, the Russians or Chinese adopted a similar argument? What could we say if they attacked a country without a UN resolution because they claimed it was right and cited our action as a precedent? Dame Tessa Jowell (Lab).
9. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff wrote to the Senate armed services committee last month….about having examined five options. He said that controlling chemical weapons would involve billions of dollars each month and involve risks that “not all chemical weapons would be controlled, extremists could gain better access to remaining weapons, similar risks to no-fly zone but with the added risk to…troops on the ground.” Dame Tessa Jowell (Lab)
10. It respectfully seems to me that we need to examine the matter not in response to the emotion that it undoubtedly engenders in all of us. Emotion is no substitution for judgment in matters of this kind. We must look beyond what might be achieved in the short term, to the medium term and the long term. Sir Menzies Campbell (Lib)
11. I urge the Government to renew their efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Do we think that Tomahawk cruise missiles fired into Syria will make that easier or more difficult? It is clearly understood that this civil war is intractable and that there is little willingness to compromise. Earlier today, I heard an appeal by Sakhr al-Makhadhi, the London-based Syria expert and commentator. He said that the people of Syria, from all backgrounds, are crying out for help to resolve the civil war. Please can the UK Government focus their attention on working with the United States and the Russian Federation, and all others who have influence in the region, including Iran, to bring the different Syrian sides to the negotiating table? Angus Robertson (SNP)
12. There is no automatic approval of, or even trust in, a prime ministerial judgment on an issue such as this involving the country in military action without overwhelming justification, evidence and thorough debate. John McDonnell (Lab)
13. It must be objectively clear that there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. I do not believe that it has been demonstrated that all practical alternatives have been exhausted. In particular, discussions around the permanent stationing of UN weapons inspectors in Syria to prevent the use of these weapons have not been exhausted. That, linked to an insistence on the participation of all sides in a UN peace conference, has not been exhausted. John McDonnell (Lab)
14. Military intervention does not just cost lives; it undermines the credibility of the international institutions that we look to to secure peace in the world and, in the long run, it undermines peace settlements across the globe. Therefore, I believe that we should focus on conflict prevention and conflict resolution and not support military aggression. John McDonnell (Lab)
15. The conversations that have been had with the media over the past few days have talked about Syria not having impunity for the use of chemical weapons. The word “impunity” implies that there is a new doctrine of punishment as a reason for going to war—not deterrence, not self-defence, not protection, but punishment. I believe that, if that is a new doctrine, it needs considerably wider international consensus than currently exists. James Arbuthnot (C)
16. During my time in this House, chemical weapons have been used against the Kurds; they were used in the Iran-Iraq war; and they were used against the people in Gaza, in the form of phosphorous bombs—certainly a chemical bomb. Is not the real reason we are here today not the horror at these weapons—if that horror exists—but as a result of the American President having foolishly drawn a red line, so that he is now in the position of either having to attack or face humiliation? Is that not why we are being drawn into war? Paul Flynn (Lab)
17. The timing of the decision must also be questioned. If, as some of us believe, the decision on military action has already been made in Washington and agreed by the UK Government, that is the real reason why we are here: because Washington feels that there should be some bombs falling this weekend. Many atrocities have taken place in the two years since the conflict began. Surely those seeking to take military action could wait a few days longer, to ensure that their facts are straight. Elfyn Llwyd (PC).
18. From the leaked reports on the one hand we are getting stories that the attack was ordered by Assad’s brother in retaliation for a failed assassination attempt on the leadership, and on the other hand hearing that there is intercept evidence that somebody who was unauthorised was responsible and that there was a telephone conversation in which somebody said, “Why on earth did you do this?” and a panicked reaction to the unauthorised release of poison gas. The point is that it is very far from certain that the evidence stacks up. The Intelligence and Security Committee is cleared to see classified material well up to the level of the material that the JIC and the Prime Minister have seen. I see no reason why those of us who have been cleared for such access should not have it. Julian Lewis (C)
19. If Assad is behaving irrationally and if he is so desperate, what is to prevent him, if he is attacked militarily by us on the perceived basis of intelligence supplied by Israel, from retaliating with a chemical attack against Israel? What will Israel do? It will retaliate in turn. What will America, Iran and Russia do then? I began my speech by referring to the first world war. Next year, we will commemorate the centenary of the events of August 1914. Those events have a worrying parallel. At that time, a series of actions and reactions drew in, in an escalating fashion, one country after another. Nobody thought that the assassination of an obscure archduke would lead to a world conflagration. As Admiral Lord West has said, this is a powder keg, and we should not be lobbing weapons into the heart of such combustible material. Julian Lewis (C)
20. If action is taken, what would the action be? What would its impact be? How many casualties, including among civilians, would it cause? Would Assad say, “Oh, dearie me, I must be a nice boy now”? Anyone who has been in Syria, as I was when I was shadow Foreign Secretary and was trying to liberate our hostages in Lebanon, knows that this is not a nice regime that will behave as we want. The Foreign Secretary said he wanted to punish Assad, but an Assad punished would be worse than an Assad as he is now. Sir Gerald Kaufman (Lab)
21. There is plenty of forensic evidence that will come out of the UN investigation and out of other data that we can obtain by other methods. It is not a question of panic; it is a question of getting the facts right before we act. It is very simple: when we are going to do things which will lead to the death of people, civilians in particular, we should get our facts right first. David Davis (C).
22. On a practical level, we believe that any military activity will be counter-productive and will not save lives but in fact cost them. As was said earlier, it is no more pleasant for a person to be killed by a cruise missile than by gas—they are still dead. Our objective should be to be humanitarian and protect lives. Alasdair McDonnell (SDLP).
23. I wish also to pose the question of how the sight of a British and US-led attack is likely to be perceived across the middle east, not just in Syria, especially if it is carried out without credible UN backing or on the basis of uncertain or confused intelligence. That would risk handing the Syrian regime a major propaganda victory at a pivotal point, which its supporters could rally around. The impact on the wider region is even more uncertain and potentially volatile. Even if such action could ever be morally justified, which I and my colleagues do not accept, there surely needs to be a serious prospect of an endgame that has an outcome of success and of benefit in some shape or form. Alasdair McDonnell (SDLP).
24. I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to Iraq and its consequences. We have all been left scarred by Iraq. Many in this House and in Government will have convinced themselves of the courses of action that should be taken, but they have not convinced the public. I think the public know better. The public have long and bitter memories of Iraq and Afghanistan. All the promises and assurances issued then were not worth the paper they were written on. The public remember the contrived situation, the misleading of this House and the needless deaths of so many soldiers and countless civilians. While I would find it difficult, if not impossible, ever to tolerate or support military intervention, I believe that this House should contemplate such action against Syria only if it were UN approved and if we were convinced that it would improve the situation. Alasair McDonnell (SDLP)
25. I wish the Government well. If they really can come up with a way of stopping Assad murdering his own people, nobody will be happier than me. Everyone in the House would be extremely happy. But the Government have to understand the scepticism of the British people. Assad is mad and bad and it will not be easy to stop him. I fear that we will not be able to do it in a half-hearted manner with a few cruise missiles in the hope that he will not retaliate. John Redwood (C)
26. We are told that intervention could be legally justified without a Security Council resolution under the UN’s responsibility to protect, but the 2005 UN world summit outcome document, in which the Heads of State unanimously approved the new international norm of the responsibility to protect, subsequently approved by UN Security Council resolution 1674, states clearly that it is still subject to UN Security Council agreement. Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who co-chaired a working group on the responsibility to protect, again stressed that it is to be implemented in accordance with the UN charter. That means that the central decision-making authority is the UN Security Council. The conclusion from all this is clearly, if inconveniently for the Government, that military action against a sovereign state, other than in self-defence, without the authority of the Security Council cannot be justified under the responsibility to protect. Caroline Lucas (Green)
27. The Government’s position would be far stronger if instead of coming here proposing military action, they had come here to tell us that they were having serious discussions with the new Government in Iran and a new round of talks with Russia, and that they were trying to build a consensus in the region to bring about what must happen at some point—a political solution to this crisis. Jeremy Corbyn (Lab)
28. We should have seen the Attorney-General’s full legal opinion….. this one-and-a-half-side summary is simply unacceptable. Caroline Lucas (Green).
29. We need to strain every sinew to get all relevant parties around the table for peace talks. On so many levels, as others have said, this is a proxy war, which is why we need China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and many others involved as well. Caroline Lucas (Green)
30. Are we going actively to degrade chemical weapons? There are hideous practical problems in attempting that, with the potential of awful collateral damage. If we go after the command and control structure in a way that is sufficiently active to degrade it, that plainly means going after Assad himself, thus actively intervening on one side in the conduct of the war. Cristpin Blunt (C)
31. This month, the Egyptian Government have, with malice aforethought, murdered well over 1,000 of their own citizens to suppress people who were supporting what had been previously an elected Government. What are they to think about the fact that we are getting ourselves into a position to intervene over Syria, and yet we have said precious little about a crime that is on the scale of five or 10 times what we are debating here? It has not been part of an insurgency yet, but the Egyptian Government have almost certainly kicked an insurgency off as a result of what they are doing. Crispin Blunt (C)
32. Legitimacy to go to war comes not from the UN, nor from international law or international lawyers, nor even from our own National Security Council. That sort of legitimacy comes only from below, not from above. It comes from the demos and those they elect. When the time comes for that second, crunch, vote, there can be no buck-passing, no deferring to a higher authority, no delegating. It will be our responsibility alone, and all the more weighty for that. Douglas Carswell (C)
33. Democracy and liberalism will one day seem as firmly rooted in the south and east of the Mediterranean as they do to the north, but if spreading democratic values is to be the cornerstone on which we are to build British foreign policy, let us do so consistently. We cannot act in defence of democratic values in Syria two months after we failed to speak out in defence of the democratically elected Government in Egypt. We cannot act when hundreds of civilians are murdered in Damascus, but continue to arm the Egyptian junta that slaughtered a thousand in Cairo. We cannot champion the right of self-determination in one part of the Arab world, yet ignore those who seek basic human rights in another, including the Gulf. I am unconvinced that the Government’s intended course of action in Syria is part of a coherent strategy, and I will not support military action until I am convinced that it is part of such a strategy. Douglas Carswell (C)
34. What are we going to do? Apparently we are going to send in a few Tomahawk land attack missiles to give Assad a bit of a spanking because he has used chemical weapons. That is nonsense and a ridiculous proposition that will lead us to the position that a lot of people have already begun to explain. We cannot write Assad a letter and say, “By the way, the TLAM missile was only to give you a spanking over chemical weapons. It didn’t mean that we were interfering in your conflict in any way, shape or form.” Frankly, that is nonsense. We cannot compartmentalise such activities in the way suggested, and there will be an effect. What will that effect be? Dai Havard (Lab)
35. Many accuse those of us who question the idea of military intervention by saying, “You believe that nothing should be done. You’re in that camp that says, ‘We should wash our hands of it and let them get on with it.’” Utter tosh! So much more could be done on the humanitarian front. The refugee camps are desperately short of basic amenities. Britain has a good record—we have done a lot of the heavy lifting—but we could do a lot more, as could the international community. Tens of thousands of women and children are living in extremely poor conditions, and yet the west is saying, “There’s very little more we can do to help the humanitarian situation,” which is utter nonsense. John Baron (C)
36. The west could also do a lot more on the diplomatic front. It makes no sense whatever to exclude Iran from the forthcoming peace talks, but that is what we currently intend to do. Iran is a key regional player and a participant in this conflict. Excluding Iran from the talks is utter nonsense. We need to go that extra diplomatic mile. This is a cliché, but it is true: you make peace with your enemies, not with your friends. We need to talk to the Iranians if we hope for a diplomatic solution. A political and diplomatic solution, and not a military one, is the only long-term solution to this vicious civil war. John Baron (C)
37. We must never under-estimate the cynicism that surrounds our motives and those of our allies. We must never under-estimate the fact that even the most humanitarian of objectives can be misconstrued as a nefarious attempt by the west to project its power. We must never under-estimate the fact that we must first win the battle of perception above all else. Any intervention needs to be demonstrably scrupulous, must involve more than just the usual suspects and must be the last resort of a process that has visibly exhausted all diplomatic means. The recent ratcheting up of rhetoric has come at the expense of reason and has eschewed responsibility. The cacophony of tough words and the insidious indication that attacks could take place as early as this weekend have not facilitated diplomacy or the forging of alliances. David Lammy (Lab)
38. Any military action will, as I said, lead to a completely different attitude among many of our Muslim communities in this country. It will be the catalyst for the build-up of all sorts of extremism. Kate Hoey (Lab)
39. Many of us are reluctant about matters involving peace and war because we previously sat here and listened to a Prime Minister tell us from the Dispatch Box what I now believe to have been a fabric of lies. I cannot sit here and be duped again by any Prime Minister, whether of my party or the Labour party.
My constituents’ instinct is also against any direct UK military action. Like, I am sure, all my colleagues throughout the House, I have received not just form e-mails sent by some lobbying organisation but individually composed e-mails showing the strength of feeling and fear that lie in the British population. Cheryl Gillan (C)
40. This is not the debate that the House expected to have, it is certainly not the debate that No. 10 was planning, and it is not the one that the media predicted would happen, but there have none the less been some excellent contributions. Despite the fact that there will be another debate and vote next week, this has been a useful exercise in testing the issues at stake. Jim Fitzpatrick (Lab)
41. There have been many contributions to the debate in which colleagues have said, “If we do this, that will happen. If we do not do that, this will happen.” Only one thing is absolutely guaranteed: nobody knows what will happen if we go down the road of military action. We have seen that too often in recent decades. The difficulty I have is the fact that we do not have an exit strategy. Jim Fitzpatrick (Lab)
42. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Colin Powell cited the Pottery Barn rule—Pottery Barn is a string of American china shops. The rule is, “You break it? You own it.” The notion that we can make a military intervention on the narrow point of chemical weapons is disingenuous to say the least. Were we to intervene militarily in Syria, we would take ownership of the outcome of the civil war. I see no endgame, no idea of what victory would look like in those circumstances. Diane Abbott (Lab)
43. Assad is lucky, of course, that we are having this debate not in 2002, but in 2013. The year 2003, which so many have referred to, intervened. We must not beat around the bush—Tony Blair and his Administration were dishonest. The result has been to injure our democracy to a degree that no other single action has done, I believe, in the 85 years since women gained full voting equality. And so we are in a position now where our decision now is being influenced by that failure in 2003, and we are asked to draw lessons from that. Ben Gummer (C)
44. What is the difference between an innocent child—a non-combatant—being killed by a conventional weapon and that child being killed with a chemical weapon? It does not much matter to them or their family, because it is still a horrendous death of an innocent. We therefore need to ask whether we are being consistent in saying that this is the red line and it is appropriate for us to take this action. Andrew George (Lib)
45. This has been a great two days for Parliament; I think we have won. This time yesterday morning, the motion would have been used to justify war, perhaps this very weekend. War is not going to happen. The Prime Minister has listened to his Back Benchers. We made it perfectly clear to our Whips yesterday afternoon that we were not prepared to vote for any motion that justified war, and so the Prime Minister has offered us another motion. This is not a motion for war. I will not vote for war. I would never vote for war against Syria. If there is a second vote, I will definitely vote against, but I do not believe there ever will be a second vote, because I do not believe that the parliamentary arithmetic stacks up. It does not stack up because MPs are doing their job and listening to what the public want, and the voice of the public is completely clear: they do not want war. They are scarred by what went on in Iraq. We were lied to in Parliament and we are not going to go down that route again. I voted against the Iraq war and I will vote against this one. Sir Edward Leigh (C)
46. What would it achieve? That is what we must ask ourselves. Why is it any of our business? Has Syria ever been a colony? Has it ever been in our sphere of interest? Has it ever posed the remotest threat to the British people? Our job in Parliament is to look after our own people. Our economy is not in very good shape. Neither are our social services, schools or hospitals. It is our job to think about problems here. If I am told that we are burying our heads in the sand, I would ask: are there anguished debates in other Parliaments all over Europe about whether to bomb Syria? No, they are getting on with running their own countries, and so should we. Sir Edward Leigh (C)
47. Although we have spoken with great moral certitude in this debate, the fact is that our contribution to an attack on Syria would be infinitesimal. Have we not degraded our own armed forces in the past three years, contrary to repeated warnings from myself and others? Do we have an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean? In reality, we would simply be hanging on to the coat tails of President Obama. He was foolish enough to issue a red line. His credibility is on the line, not the credibility of the British people or ourselves. We do not have to follow him in this foolish gesture. Sir Edward Leigh (C)
48. There are two occasions where military action can be justified. The first is where British interests are imminently threatened, and clearly that is not the case in this particular debate. The other is as part of a UN-sponsored humanitarian mission to prevent dictators from causing damage to their own people. I am not convinced that the Government have made that case this evening. The reality is this; there is an evil dictator, but the opposition to that evil dictator is even worse. These are people who will oppose the west at all costs and will cause damage to their own people. They are barbaric and inhuman and we should not support them in any shape or form. I would not support any regime change, or attempted regime change. Bob Blackman (C)
49. Syria is a satellite state of Russia. Do we think that the Russian Government will sit idly by and allow the US and Britain to bomb one of their satellite states? They will react in some way, shape or form. So we should be clear that, if we embark on military action, there will be direct military consequences for the whole region and for this country. We should send a message to President Assad, if we are convinced that he and his regime are responsible for the chemical attacks, to say, “Identify those who are responsible. Make them come before the criminal courts,” so that they can be punished in the best way possible, through due process of law. Bob Blackman (C)
Thank goodness we have a British parliamentary democracy. We MPs can come here and influence the decision of the Executive. Everybody knows that MPs from both sides of the House have influenced the Prime Minister to change the position of the Executive. In the States, there are 100 Congressmen begging the President to let them debate the issue. We are so much better off in this House. Peter Bone (C)
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Sat, August 31, 2013 00:03:06
This is the list of UK members of parliament who successfully voted against military action in Syria on 29th August 2013, thus ending a tradition of over 200 years whereby parliament has always supported military action advocated by a Prime Minister. According to some commentators, the last time Parliament voted down a Prime Minister in this way was in 1782, at the time of the American War of Independence.
Whatever one's position on the vote, all can agree that this is a remarkable moment in British politics, and one that could have far-reaching consequences.
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Allen, Mr Graham
Amess, Mr David
Anderson, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Betts, Mr Clive
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Buck, Ms Karen
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, rh Paul
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Cooper, rh Yvette
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
Davies, David T. C.
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Eagle, Ms Angela
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Field, rh Mr Frank
Flint, rh Caroline
Francis, Dr Hywel
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goggins, rh Paul
Hamilton, Mr David
Hancock, Mr Mike
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hood, Mr Jim
Howarth, rh Mr George
Huppert, Dr Julian
James, Mrs Siân C.
Johnson, rh Alan
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lewis, Dr Julian
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCann, Mr Michael
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Miliband, rh Edward
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, Grahame M.
Mudie, Mr George
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Roy, Mr Frank
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shepherd, Sir Richard
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Timms, rh Stephen
Turner, Mr Andrew
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Walker, Mr Charles
Ward, Mr David
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Weir, Mr Mike
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Mr Iain
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Thu, August 08, 2013 11:13:03
When is a referendum not a referendum? Sleight of hand in the Falklands.
On March 11th 2013, some – but
not all – Falklands Islanders took part in a “referendum” whose widely publicised
results were that 99.8% of those who voted, answered YES to the question
you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current status as an Overseas
Territory of the United Kingdom?”
What is less well known is that (a) this
was not a referendum in the usually understood meaning of the term, and (b)
that the announced result was based onthe views of only 64% of the adult
population. 36% of them did not
participate in the vote.
I’ll explain why these are relevant, after outlining some international
reactions to the vote.
Minister David Cameron said Argentina should take "careful note" of the referendum result and that Britain
would always be there to defend the Falkland Islanders.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague
countries should accept the results of this referendum and support the Falkland
Islanders as they continue to develop their home and their economy"
Argentina's foreign minister, Hector
United Kingdom lacks any right at all to pretend to alter the juridical status
of these territories even with the disguise of a hypothetical referendum"
Castro, Argentina’s ambassador to London said
"This (referendum) is a ploy that has no legal value,"
said Alicia Castro. Negotiations are in the islanders' best interest. We don't
want to deny them their identity. They're British, we respect their identity
and their way of life and that they want to continue to be British. But the
territory they occupy is not British"
The Argentinian government has never
accepted British claims to sovereignty.
It believes that the territory belongs to Argentina. It will continue to hold to this position
until and unless Britain comes to the table and engages in serious
In 2012 a
poll to mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands war indicated that 89% of
Argentinians support the sovereignty claims of Buenos Aires. Many believe the
timing of the 2013 referendum is linked to the discovery of extensive oil and
gas deposits, as well as growing interest in the Antarctic, which is likely to
become an important source of fresh water and other resources. Veterans say it is absurd that the small
community of islands should decide the fate of an strategically important area
of land and sea that is bigger than Argentina itself.
The International Community is hardly
enthusiastic about Britain’s claims. The United Nations has passed several
recent resolutions calling on Britain and Argentina to negotiate on a range of
issues concerned with the Falklands.
Britain has consistently refused.
Immediately after the referendum, only one
state, Sweden, announced public support for Britain’s position. Even the USA, supposedly the UK’s
most significant global ally, remained silent on the issue. On the other hand, Latin
America is vocal and united in support of Argentina’s historic claims of
4 June 2013, the organisation of American states (OAS) adopted a declaration
that calls for negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the
‘sovereignty’ of the Falkland / Malvinas Islands. The resolution was
passed as part of the 43rd annual OAS assembly in Guatemala. All
Latin American countries expressed their full support for the measure.
Canada was against the OAS final declaration, while the USA did not take
a position on the matter.
I’m not attempting an assessment of the
strengths of the opposing sovereignty claims here, other than to say that it is
clear that neither side possesses an overwhelmingly convincing and
unproblematic case. Otherwise
the dispute would not have rumbled on for 180 years, and have been the occasion
of a war between the two countries in 1982.
What I want to focus on here is the
“referendum” itself, and how Islanders (and British politicians and mainstream media)
have depicted this event in unsubtle ways which don’t fully reflect the reality.
Was this a valid referendum?
The term “referendum” is a technical term
for a kind of consultation that involves the entire electorate of a nation or
province. By custom and practice,
only a state can mount a referendum. The Falkands Islands is not a state. The British Government played no formal
part in the exercise.
This referendum was organised by the
Islanders themselves, with no official involvement of any government. They invited John Hollins, the former
Chief Electoral Officer of the Canadian province of Ontario and the current
Chair of the Board of Directors of The Delian Project, to act as an election
In general, for a referendum to be
considered valid, those posing the question need to assure the population (and
the international community) that all relevant individuals have received the
invitation to vote, have had a free and fair exposure to both sides of the
argument, and have been able to express their views freely – without fear of
pressure or coercion – at the ballot box.
Nowhere can I find any statement that the
Argentinian Government were able to put any proposals before the Falklands
voters for their consideration.
What proportion of the population actually voted?
In relation to who voted, I have been able
to piece together the following, mainly from information supplied by the
Guardian’s excellent data blog:
At last census (2012), the Falklands population was 2,841. This is a decline from the high of 3,053 in 2001. 16% of the population (454) identify as
Chilean or St Helenean, not British. The majority of people living on the
Falklands today were not born there. They are immigrants, many of whom presumably went
there for work. 1723 of the adult
population are in employment (75%).
485 of these work for the government (28% of all jobs). Other major sources of employment are
fishing-related and tourism. 25%
of adult Falklands residents are not in paid work.
Approximately 20% of the population are
under 18, so ineligible to vote. So the adult population is approx 2300.
Only 1649 of the Falklands population were deemed
eligible to vote in the 2013 referendum (adults who were born there or who are
long-term residents). Thus these 1649 eligible voters constituted 71% of the
adult population. This meant that 29%
of adult residents (650) were denied a vote.
Only 92% of the 1649 people eligible to
vote actually did so (1517), comprising 66% of adult residents. Thus 34% of adult residents did
not vote, most because they were denied the opportunity, and so the world does
not know their views.
These facts are largely unknown, and have not
been reported or further investigated by journalists, certainly not in
Britain. They seem to me to
tell a much more ambiguous and inconclusive story than most have cared to tell.
Why does this matter?
It matters because Falkland islanders deserve
security. Security can never
be guaranteed by Britain alone.
It has to involve some viable accommodation with the people and
politicians of the country and the continent where the Islands are, backed by
processes supported by the International community at large, through the
UN. Those in the British
political and media circles who paint the “referendum” as some kind of
black-and-white decisive moment, do the people of the Falklands no favours. We need to understand and grasp
the complexity and subtlety of the situation if Falklanders’ lives are ever to
be lived other than under the threat of further insecurity, whether political,
military or economic.
I’ll be coming back to this issue (and
similar issues facing Britain around the world, such as in Gibralter!) in
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Sat, April 13, 2013 08:56:03
MARGARET THATCHER, WEAPONS, AND WAR
April 13th 2013
I was 29 when Margaret Thatcher won her
first election in 1979 and served as Prime Minister for 11 years. Prior to her election, I
had little or no interest or involvement in politics. It was her eager and unprecedented agreement to allow
US nuclear weapons onto British soil (in Cruise Missiles at the US Military
Base in Greenham Common, Berkshire) which catapulted me (and many around me)
into political awareness and activism.
The early responses to Margaret Thatcher’s
death have given surprisingly little attention to this aspect of her premiership,
which was, at the time, one of the most controversial and contested. Indeed, only two of the many
tributes to her in the special session of the UK Parliament held on 10th
April 2013 even mentioned her deployment of Cruise missiles.
It is worth recalling that under the
inspirational leadership of former Catholic Priest Bruce Kent, the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament (CND) became one of the most formidable and effective foci
for opposition to Thatcher’s policies. In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister,
CND membership nationally stood at 4,000. By 1984, under Kent’s leadership it had risen to
100,000, with another estimated 250,000 members of local branches around the
country. October 1983 saw 400,000 CND supporters
rally in London against Thatcher’s nuclear policies, one of the largest
anti-government rallies in modern history (only exceeded 20 years later by the
February 2003 rally against the Iraq invasion). So effective and articulate was
Kent’s CND in publicly opposing her policies that individuals and organisations
with close links to Thatcher and her government were spurred to mount a
well-funded propaganda and “dirty tricks” campaign against CND, which involved
such things as infiltration of their offices, and promotion of spurious claims
that CND was funded by the KGB.
The Falkands crisis was an extremely
fortunate opportunity for Thatcher to regain public support for British
militarism in the face of the extraordinary political successes of CND in
challenging the raison-d’etre of British defence policy and spending. Many within CND supported the Falklands
War and argued that CND should not oppose it, as a “distraction” from their
For me, however, the Falklands War was as
disturbing (perhaps even more so) as the nuclear issue. It re-established in the national
psyche the notion of Britain as a country of successful expeditionary war, sending
British troops to far-off places, against the odds, to kill and defeat odious
needs to be recalled that since the 2nd World War, the only major
expeditionary involvement of Britain was the disastrous Korean War of 1950-53,
which involved 100,000 British troops and ended in stalemate with more than 2
million people killed. The
equally disastrous British response to the Suez crisis, alongside the rapid
unravelling of the British Empire, meant that by the late 1960s it was no longer clear what the British military
(as a fighting force) was actually for.
The Falklands War was, in my estimation, the “touch paper” that prepared
national consciousness (and mood) for the far more consequential and ugly
British military involvements in Kosovo/Serbia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
In one sense, I need to thank Margaret
Thatcher. It was her definite and
uncompromising policies, translated into equally definite action, that helped
me define my own stance on these issues in reaction, and motivated me to become
active in pursuing the goals that have developed into the specific peace-oriented
projects that now take up much of my time and energy. Perhaps sometimes one needs to become more sharply
aware of what one is against before one is able to work out what one is for and
what to do about it.
Margaret Thatcher was a towering and formidable force in British and
World affairs, who showed me very clearly a view of Britain’s role and place in
the world which is not the one I want for it, or for myself as one of its citizens. Britain maintains the
world’s fourth largest military budget. I hope I might live to see Britain move way down this
hierarchy, as a matter not of national disgrace, but of national pride and joy.
a more comprehensive account of the British anti-war movement, see Sloboda
& Doherty, 2007. The
Psychology of Anti-War Activism (1): The British Anti-War Movement
1956-2006. In R.Roberts (Ed.) Just War: Psychology, Terrorism, &
Iraq. Ross on Wye: PCS
books. Downloadable freely from
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Wed, November 07, 2012 08:49:28
Tony Blair is to be the keynote speaker at the inaugural conference of University College London's Institute of Security and Reslience Studies next week (see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isrs/events/isrsconference). This is my letter to UCL about this. I will post here any reply I receive.
Professor Malcolm Grant
President and Provost
University College London
London WC1E 6BT
7th November 2012
Dear Professor Grant,
Tony Blair and the Institute for Security and Resilience Studies
I am an alumnus of UCL (PhD in Psychology 1974) and I have always worn my UCL affiliation with pride. I hope I can continue to do.
It is a matter of some concern to me that Tony Blair has been listed as the top invited speaker at the inaugural conference of UCL’s Institute for Security and Resilience Studies (ISRS) on 13th November.
Many people in Britain, and around the world, would consider that Tony Blair has done more to undermine our security and resilience than any other living British politician. When Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently withdrew from a Leadership summit after discovering that Blair was on the platform, he was appropriately expressing global public opinion.
It is also a matter of concern that, as far as the UCL website informs the world, the leadership of the ISRS does not reside in the outstanding scholars and researchers on which UCL’s international reputation rests. Rather, it is staffed and advised mainly by people whose major experience has been within the Military, Government, and the Defence Industries.
Allied to this, it is of concern that two major defence multinationals (EADS and Ultra Electronics) are listed on the home page of the Institute, without any clear explanation of their role. The natural conclusion to be drawn is that they fund and determine the policy and direction of this Institute, exploiting and undermining UCL’s intellectual and moral independence.
I very much hope that the senior management of UCL will pay careful attention to internal and external concerns raised by this Institute and its activities, which are substantial and growing, and will issue a public statement on this matter.
John Sloboda, FBA
Research Professor, Guildhall School of Music & Drama
Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Keele University
War and peacePosted by john sloboda Sun, May 20, 2012 16:08:55
30 years ago today (20th May)
the first British troops began to land on the Falklands/Malvinas islands and
Britain was officially at war with Argentina as peace negotiations
By the end of the conflict 907 people,
Argentinian and British, were violently killed, either by British or
Argentinian fire. Another
1,188 Argentinians and 777 British were injured.
The names of the UK military personnel
killed have already been engraved on the Armed Forces Memorial at the National
Arboretum in Staffordshire, which was opened in 2007. The Armed Forces Memorial lists all those British military
that have been killed on active service since 1945. The number currently stands
at over 15,000.
However, until today the three British
civilians that were killed in the Falkands War have not been officially memorialized. Today a new memorial was
unveiled, which included, for the first time, their names.
and Mary Goodwin
were killed by UK fire during the
bombardment of Port Stanley on 11th June. The new memorial also contained the names of those UK
service personnel and merchant seamen who were killed.
The Falkands war was the start of Britain’s
history of active engagement in interventionary wars in modern times. It was also the start of a new form of
UK citizen anti-war protest, which focused on the actual people being killed
with British weapons, rather than the hypothetical future victims of nuclear
On 2nd May 1982 UK forces sank the
Argentinian ship the “General Belgrano”, killing all 329 crew members, as the
ship was sailing away from the conflict area. This was my “Damascus” moment, which sparked the
activism which has become an increasing part of my life since then.
That act was clearly aggressive (some use
the more slippery term “pre-emptive”) rather than defensive in intent. That aggressive stance set the
precedent for what followed over the ensuing decades, in Kosovo-Serbia (1999),
Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), and Libya (2011) when British bombs were dropped on people
who had neither attacked British forces nor had any imminent intention to.
It is salutory to be reminded that all this
started in 1982 when British forces were responsible for the violent death of
three non-combatant British women.
Those responsible are to be commended for finally giving civilian dead
equal status to military dead, even though it took 30 years.
But it is not enough! It is also salutary to notice that
nowhere in Britain is there any memorial, official or unofficial, to the
Argentinian victims of this conflict. The main Argentinian memorial is in Buenos Aires,
where the names of the Argentinians who died are listed.
There are no worthy or unworthy victims of
this war. All are simply victims,
humans who unnecessarily died because of the choices made by political leaders in
both countries, who could have chosen otherwise.
I yearn for the day when it would be
natural and uncontroversial to have all names of the dead of this, or any,
conflict, in one place, rather than separated by country, nationality or
status. Every Argentinian
casualty of this war was just as much a tragedy as every British casualty. When we British concentrate only on our
own dead while ignoring the dead of the so-called “enemy” we are sowing the
seeds for future conflicts.