Amnesty International

A message from Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General

On 19 August 2003 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed in a bomb attack on the UN building in Baghdad, almost 10 years after the Office of the High Commissioner was established to uphold and promote human rights.

As one of the most prominent international human rights defenders lay dying in the rubble, the world had good cause to ponder how the legitimacy and credibility of the UN could have been eroded to such a fatal degree. Bypassed in the Iraq war and marginalized in its aftermath, discredited by its perceived vulnerability to pressure from powerful states, the UN seemed virtually paralysed in its efforts to hold states to account for their adherence to international law and their performance on human rights.

It was easy at that moment to wonder whether the events of 2003 had also dealt a mortal blow to the vision of global justice and universal human rights that first inspired the creation of global institutions such as the UN. If human rights are used as a cloak by governments to put on or cast away according to political expediency, can the international community of states be trusted to bring about that vision? And what can the international community of citizens do to rescue human rights from the rubble?

The answer came the same week that the UN office was bombed, when a group of women in Mexico won the first step towards achieving justice for their murdered daughters. Marginalized and poor, they had fought for 10 years to get that far but, finally, they compelled Mexican President Vicente Fox and the federal authorities to intervene. I was with the mothers of Ciudad Juárez when the news of this breakthrough came through. I will never forget the joy on the faces of the women and their gratitude to the thousands of people around the world whose efforts had helped bring about change. A worldwide web of international solidarity had globalized their struggle. Looking at them, I saw how much can be achieved for human rights through the dynamic virtual space of global civil society.

The challenges facing the global movement for human rights today are stark. As activists, we must confront the threat posed by callous, cruel and criminal acts of armed groups and individuals. We must resist the backlash against human rights created by the single-minded pursuit of a global security doctrine that has deeply divided the world. We must campaign to redress the failure of governments and the international community to deliver on social and economic justice.

The Baghdad tragedy was a clear reminder (though by no means the only one) of the global threat posed by those who are ready to use any means to further their political objectives. We condemn their acts unequivocally. They are guilty of abuse of human rights and violation of international humanitarian law, sometimes amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes. They must be brought to trial but – and here we part company with some governments – in accordance with standards of international law. Human rights are for the best of us and the worst of us, for the guilty as well as the innocent. Denial of fair trial is an abuse of rights and risks converting perpetrators into martyrs. This is why we call for Saddam Hussein to be tried in accordance with international standards. This is why we oppose military commissions for the detainees at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that fail to meet international standards.

There is no path to sustainable security except through respect for human rights. The global security agenda promulgated by the US Administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, and using pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty.

Look at the growing insurgency in Iraq, the increasing anarchy in Afghanistan, the unending spiral of violence in the Middle East, the spate of suicide bombings in crowded cities around the world. Think of the continued repression of the Uighurs in China and the Islamists in Egypt. Imagine the scale and scope of the impunity that has marked gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law in the "forgotten" conflicts in Chechnya, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nepal – forgotten, that is, by all except those who daily suffer their worst effects.

Double speak brings disrepute to human rights but, sadly, it is a common phenomenon. The USA and its allies purported to fight the war in Iraq to protect human rights – but openly eroded human rights to win the "war on terror". The war in Iraq was launched ostensibly to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, yet the world is awash with small arms and conventional weapons that kill more than half a million people a year. To make matters worse, in the name of combating the so-called "war on terror", many countries have relaxed controls on exports to governments that are known to have appalling human rights records, among them Colombia, Indonesia, Israel and Pakistan. The uncontrolled trade in arms puts us all at greater risk in peace and war.

Iraq and the "war on terror" have obscured the greatest human rights challenge of our times. According to some sources, developing countries spend about US$22 billion a year on weapons and, for $10 billion dollars a year, they would achieve universal primary education. These statistics hide a huge scandal: the failed promise to attack extreme poverty and address gross economic and social injustice.

According to some analysts, there is a real risk that the targets of UN Millennium Development Goals – such as the reduction of child and maternal mortality, getting all children to primary school, halving the number of people with no access to clean water – will not be achieved because international attention and resources have been diverted to the "war on terror".

The poor and the marginalized are most commonly denied justice and would benefit most from the fair application of the rule of law and human rights. Yet despite the increasing discourse on the indivisibility of human rights, in reality economic, social and cultural rights are neglected, reducing human rights to a theoretical construct for the vast majority of the world's population. It is no mere coincidence that, in the Iraq war, the protection of oil wells appears to have been given greater priority than the protection of hospitals.

Nor is it surprising that big business can do what it wants and get away with it, or choose not to do what it ought to do by claiming that it has no clear legal responsibility or accountability for human rights. The UN Human Rights Norms for Business, approved in 2003, are an important step towards corporate accountability but, sadly, have come under concerted attack by companies and governments.

Against this backdrop of abuse and impunity, hypocrisy and double standards, what can we do to make human rights matter?

We can show that human rights offer a powerful and compelling vision of a better and fairer world, and form the basis of a concrete plan of how to get there. They bring hope to women like Amina Lawal in Nigeria whose death sentence was set aside as a result of the massive support her case generated. They provide a tool to human rights defenders like Valdenia Paulino to fight her battles against police brutality in the favelas of São Paulo in Brazil. They give voice to the powerless: the prisoner of conscience, the prisoner of violence, the prisoner of poverty.

In times of uncertainty the world needs not only to fight against global threats, but to fight for global justice. Human rights are a banner to mobilize people globally in the cause of justice and truth. Thanks to the work of thousands of activists in Latin America, the tide is turning against impunity in that region. Despite the crusade by the USA to undermine international justice and ensure global immunity from prosecution for its citizens, the International Criminal Court appointed its prosecutor and began its work in earnest. Slowly, the courts in the USA and the United Kingdom have begun to scrutinize government attempts to restrict human rights in their "war on terror".

Human rights promise the certainty of equality and equity to millions of women around the world. Recent legislative changes in the status of women in Morocco will open a new chapter in gender equity in the region. Recognizing the power of human rights to universalize the struggle of women, members of Amnesty International are joining hands with women's rights activists and many others to campaign globally to stop violence against women. We call on leaders, organizations and individuals to make a public pledge to change themselves and to abolish laws, systems and attitudes that allow violence against women to flourish.

Human rights are about changing the world for the better. Using the powerful message of human rights, Amnesty International has launched a joint campaign with Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) to achieve global control of small arms. To those who say this will not work, we point to the coalitions that led to the banning of landmines and the creation of the International Criminal Court. Combining public pressure and government support, we are determined to bring about change.

We celebrate these and other gains in this report, but we have not allowed them to obscure the very real challenges that persist. We live in a dangerous and divided world where the relevance of human rights is daily put to the test, the legitimacy of activists is questioned, and the "accountability gap" of governments, international institutions, armed groups and corporate actors is growing. It is precisely in such a world that we need a bigger humanity that will say, "This has to stop. Things must change".

There is no stronger international community than global civil society. Through its members and allies in the human rights movement, Amnesty International is committed to reviving and revitalizing the vision of human rights as a powerful tool for concrete change. Through the voices and visions of millions of men and women, we will carry the message of human rights forward.

May 22 2004

I need help translating you will never walk alone into Thai!!

I have tried to avoid commenting on the proposed investment vy the Prime Minister of Thailand or Shin Corp of the Thai tax payer in venerable Liverpool Football Club.

Business is business. Thaksin first wanted to buy a stake in Fulham, now Liverpool; and if he doesn't get a stake in Liverpool then he will look elsewhere. Memo to the Prime Minister - Watford always need the cash.

There is a lot of skepticism in Liverpool and in Thailand about this deal. But for once I am a contrarian. It is potentially brilliant.

The intent is to acquire a 30 per cent stake in Liverpool football club, using Bt4.6bn (£63m) raised through a national lottery. Each lottery ticket will cost Baht 1,000. At least 8 million tickets will need to be sold to cover the investment and prizes and costs.

Fixing Bangkok airport

May 17, 2004

Bangkok airport really is a miserable place; it works in that passengers get processed on and off airplanes with reasonable efficiency; but that is about it !

But it is hardly a warm welcome to the land of smiles.

Arriving last night the lady at immigration had clearly been trained in cold war Russia.

Then after immigration and customs you are confronted by the limousine vultures. There is only one way out of the terminal and that is through this throng of touts. Why they cannot be restricted behind desks where they can be approached only if the service is needed is a mystery.

They tug at you, follow you, ask where you are going. They say they are taxis; they are not. The queue for the public taxi service is outside the building. The are not allowed to tout inside. The limo services are about double the cost of the public taxis. If you want to go by the expressway do check whether the toll is or is not included in the limo fare.

The only catch with the public taxis is that all the new taxis are in the city. The oldest crocks are all at the airport. I have no idea why this is given that there are so many new taxis in the city.

Mirror editor sacked

May 15 2004

If he had resigned he could have gone with greater dignity. Instead Piers Morgan was escorted off the Mirror premises as the newspaper was forced to apologise for being hoaxed.

The Iraq war gets another casualty. The head of the BBC had to resign over the Hutton affair. Now the editor of a major UK tabloid. There are some interesting lessons for good news reporting.

Misleading people and endangering lives

May 14 2004

The UK government has now stated what many people suspected; that the front page pictures carried by the influential tabloid - Daily Mirror were in fact staged fakes taken outside Iraq.

The Mirror is digging its heels in and defiantly challenging the government to produce its evidence. But the pictures show no faces; and the source of the pictures is unknown.

The investigation of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by British forces continues. There was clearly a problem. Although it appears to have been dealt with quickly and s not as widespread as the US abuses.

But if the pictures are fake then there are some hard questions that need to be answered by the newspaper's editor, Piers Morgan. How was he misled? What checks did he perform before publication? What money changed hands? Why - if there was any shadow of doubt in his mind - was the paper's presentation of the pictures so unequivocal? What was the urgency?

India's election shock

May 13, 2004

2004 may become a defining year for the vitality of democracy.

Against all predictions the BJP today has conceded defeat to Sonia Gandhi's Congress Party. Ms Gandhi, is set to become the new Prime Mininister. She has pushed for a secular India in contrast to the BJP's Hindu nationalist message, is the widow of the former prime minister Rajiv Ghandi who was killed in a 1991 suicide bombing.

The BJP were generally expected to ease to victory based on their "Shining India" campaign, which showed off a surging economy, relative peace with Pakistan, a successful cricket team and even good monsoon rain.

Now 57, Ms. Gandhi became an Indian citizen in 1983. Born in Italy she went to India as a 21 year old bride. She married into a dynasty that had dominated Indian politics since independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, headed the country from independence until his 1964 death. He was followed by his daughter, Indira Gandhi; she was killed by her own bodyguards in 1984. Her son Rajiv, an airline pilot and Sonia’s husband, was reluctantly forced to take the political spotlight.

Rajiv won the following election with an unprecedented majority, but his attempts to open India’s stagnant economy and shrink its bloated bureaucracy cost him a lot of his popularity. He lost power in 1989, and was killed two years later while campaigning.

Ms Gandhi officially took charge of the Congress Party in 1998 and was elected to parliament in the last elections in 1999.

Under her leadership, the party turned in its worst performance since Independence in the 1999 general elections. Congress also performed indifferently in last year’s state elections.

However, the Gandhi name is still revered in India and Congress is looking to Mrs Gandhi to translate that feeling into votes. And traveling widely throughout the country in this campaign she appears to have done exactly that.

Congress will not have a clear majority in Parliament. But then nor did the BJP. The Congress led coalition is likely to have to depend on the support of leftist parties, who registered their best performance yet.

The new government is likely to continue the reforms crucial for Asia's third-largest economy. But the message that they will have heard is that the benefits must percolate down to the poor.

The rural poor have sent a loud message that the new economic wealth of India cannot be restricted to the urban upper classes. The people have spoken. Isn't democracy wonderful?

Our Immoral World

May 13, 2004

Find me a religious text anywhere that says that you can saw a man's head off in the name of God. The chilling video and pictures of the execution of an American civilian have given the American hard-liners exactly the message that they need to support their war.

It is almost like a game of which side can outrage the other more in order that they can continue this barbaric war.

Below are two very different views of world, from the Guardian in the UK and from the Republican Boston Herald newspaper.

All I know is that listening to President Bush saying that those who murdered Mr Berg would be hunted down and brought to trial was profoundly depressing. An eye for an eye, however it is done, will not win the war. The war is for the hearts and minds of the people. No one is winning right now. 

Singapore's Happy Loos !

May 12, 2004

The Associate Press carried the following report today. As a public service to my reader I have to share this with you. And as a further public service this is the link to the World Toilet Organization.

Did you know that the 2004 World Toilet Summit will be held in Beijing where apparently you will be able to meet the movers and shakers of the industry !!! Must be all that "All Bran" served at the breakfast meetings!

Surely there must also be a World Toilet Graffiti Organization !

Anyway back to the AP article: hopefully the map will be fully absorbent just in case their is a papers shortage in you favoured loo !

"When finicky tourists in Singapore hear nature's call, they'll know where to go.

How others see Thailand

11 May 2004

I had always assumed that Britain's "The Guardian" newspaper was a bit more fair minded than most. Much of their writing is intelligent and thought provoking. But occasionally stereotyping and cheap commentary appears in their columns as well.

In a report on Thai Prime Minister Thaksin's proposed purchase of 30% of Liverpool FC the Guardian wrote:

It is the opening line that is so unnecessary. Is that really what educated outsiders think of Thailand? If it is then the Proposed purchase of Liverpool FC and the marketing and branding opportunities that come with it may make the investment a public relations master stroke.

But really the Guardian can and should do better. One of the reasons that such a poor image of Thailand continues is that it is too easy to take cheap shots rather than consider Thailand for all its complexities.

I sent the following to the Guardian reader's editor. I will be interested to see his response, if any.

The China squeeze

9 May 2004

If it was not enough to have a large part of the Chinese Navy sailing through Victoria harbour the mainland authorities are stepping up pressure on Hong Kong's freedom of speech.

The state-run Xinhua news agency quoted a top official with China's liaison office in Hong Kong as saying local legislators would be acting unconstitutionally if they consider motions that express "discontent with" or "condemn" China's ruling on democratic reform.

It was the first such warning since the territory reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.

In a sadly unhelpful addition to the debate, Cheng Siwei, vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, was quoted in one of Hong Kong's Chinese newspaper's, Ming Pao, as branding the Legislature's democracy advocates as "bananas" - yellow-skinned Chinese with Western beliefs. "These people, who bad-mouth China and Hong Kong, are sinners of the Chinese nation," he said. "They are just like bananas, yellow outside but white inside."

The navy visit at the start of May included two guided-missile destroyers, four guided-missile frigates and two submarines. It was the first such show of military strength since the territory's transfer to China by Britain in 1997. Since the handover the Chinese military has been very low key in Hong Kong. The People's Liberation Army said that the visit was to honour the navy's 55th anniversary. But there was no such visit for the 50th anniversary in 1999. It can be no coincidence that the show of force came as people favouring popular elections in Hong Kong find themselves under growing pressure.

Hong Kong's best-known radio talk show host, Albert Cheng, a longtime supporter of greater democracy and a critic of the local government, flew to Europe last Sunday for a holiday "lasting the rest of year".

He left behind a tape recording, broadcast on Monday, in which he complained of growing threats of violence against himself and his family and what he said was an increasingly "suffocating" political atmosphere.

There will be significant protests in Hong Kong on July 1, marking the 7th anniversary of the handover and the first since last years mass demonstrations.

Anyone who cares for freedom of speech, expression and the right to choose who you are governed by and how should be there. I will find out more details and publish them nearer the time.

Rumsfeld must go; he would not be missed

7 May 2004

One defining US characteristic is that responsibility lies with the boss; Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defence; he withheld terrible damaging information from his President and from the US Senate. The decent thing to do is to resign; if he des not resign he must be told to go.

The Economist says this far better than I can. I am beginning to suffer Iraq fatique; as I fear is my long suffering reader. But the story is too important to be ignored. And what happens in Iraq could define the Middle East and Arab/Western relations for the next generation.

This is a link to the full story of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners as carried in the New Yorker magazine.

Resign, Rumsfeld

Responsibility for errors and indiscipline needs to be taken at the top

YOU are fighting against international terrorists in a battle that both they and you describe as being one about values. You fight a war against Saddam Hussein at your initiative, not his, and you say that it is a war about law, democracy, freedom and honesty. A big metaphorical banner hangs above both wars proclaiming that your aim is to bring freedom, human rights and democracy to the Arab world. All of that sets admirably high standards for the conduct of your forces as well as of your government itself. Now, however, some of your own armed forces are shown to have fallen well below those standards. What do you do?

One answer is exactly what George Bush has done in response to revelations of torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib jail: to make it clear, in public, that you find such action abhorrent and unacceptable, and that the perpetrators of it will be punished. That has also been the approach of the British government in response to the publication of photographs that may well be fakes but that could nevertheless indicate that genuine abuses have taken place. Yet such statements are not enough, especially in the American case. The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light. Moreover, the abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken—and to be seen to be taken—at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him.

That recommendation will elicit several different responses. One, from critics of the war, will be to point out that the highest level is in fact held by Mr Bush, and that it is the president who should go. The answer is that the electorate has a chance to dismiss Mr Bush in November, while Mr Rumsfeld is an unelected official who, if he is loyal to Mr Bush, ought to want to take the bullet in order to protect his boss. Another response, though, will be to say that the expulsion of Mr Rumsfeld would be disproportionate: wars always bring some abuses, for the soldiers who take part in them have been trained to kill, and the important question is whether the abuses are properly punished when they occur. A third response would be a cynical one: perhaps he should go, it may be said, but he won't. It's an election year. Get real.

The cynics may be proved right; they usually are. But these are exceptional circumstances. The pictures of abuse, especially the one on our cover of the hooded man wired as if for electrocution, stand an awful chance of becoming iconic images that could haunt America for years to come, just as the famous photograph of a naked girl running during a napalm attack did during the Vietnam war. One way of dealing with that risk is by countering it with your own iconic act: ejecting the man at the head of the Pentagon, the man most identified with America's use of military power during the past three years. He is also, however, the man most identified with the wider culture to which these abuses may be connected.

That approach was epitomised by the setting up of a prison camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba in 2001. The decision to detain combatants caught in Afghanistan for an indefinite period, with no access to lawyers and no legal redress, was understandable as a short-term response to the threat of terrorism and to ignorance about who might actually be terrorists, but it was nevertheless both wrong and disastrous for America's reputation. It was wrong because it violated the very values and rule of law for which America was supposedly fighting, and soon produced evidence of double standards: some American citizens captured in Afghanistan were allowed to stand trial in American courts in the normal way, but such rights were denied to mere foreigners, every single one of whom was labelled as a dangerous terrorist by Mr Rumsfeld, regardless of any evidence. It has been disastrous for America's reputation because of that hypocrisy but also because it has become a symbol of a “we'll decide” arrogance.

The Geneva conventions that have governed the treatment of prisoners of war for decades were waved aside. And the argument used to justify America's rejection of the new International Criminal Court—that its soldiers would be vulnerable to unreasonable persecution, with necessary military actions defined as crimes—looked ever more hollow. Thanks to Guantánamo, critics could argue that America really does need the check of the ICC, and that its claim that abuses would readily be dealt with in domestic courts was also hollow.

The domestic courts are now gradually taking on the issues raised by Guantánamo, with a ruling awaited from the Supreme Court. And the promise by Mr Bush and Mr Rumsfeld this week that abuses in Iraq will be punished is no doubt sincere. It may be that the shoulder-shrugging pragmatists are right when they say that abuses are an inevitable consequence of war; and it may be that they would have happened regardless of Guantánamo. But the culture that it represented, with all prisoners considered guilty until proven innocent, with dubious interrogation methods widely considered to be condoned, could well have had an influence on the attitudes and behaviour of lower ranks. To stem such an influence right now, and to offer an indubitable demonstration to all Iraqis of the importance America places on eliminating such abuse, Mr Rumsfeld must take responsibility.

Some may worry that a change of defence secretary now would further endanger the effort in Iraq. The opposite is the case, for although Mr Rumsfeld is rightly credited with a successful steering of the conventional war a little over a year ago, he and his team have also been responsible for many of the blunders since then: appalling post-war planning, inadequate troop numbers, excessive deBaathification, and more. For that reason, if he were to go it would be unwise to replace him simply with one of his own team, such as Paul Wolfowitz.

As the recently retired British envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, writes in this issue, nothing is easy in an Iraq mired in violence and with fractured and volatile political groupings. But the political course now set, of handing more authority to a new, UN-picked interim government after June 30th in preparation for elections next January, is the right one. All efforts must be made to prevent that course from being disrupted or blocked by violence, by sectarian divisions or by Iraqi mistrust of the whole process.

This week, things seemed to be improving as an Iraqi-led force began to police Fallujah, the rebellious Sunni town to which the Americans had laid siege, and as the main Shia rebel, Muqtada al-Sadr, was becoming more isolated by his fellow Shias. Mr Bush's television broadcasts condemning the abuses at Abu Ghraib and promising punishment probably helped cool the atmosphere, though he ought also to have offered a straightforward apology. Better still if he and Mr Rumsfeld were now to demonstrate one of the true American values: that senior people take responsibility.

Final farewells for Frasier and Friends

6 May 2004

After 11 years and 10 years respectively Frasier and Friends have their TV finales this month. I do not know either show that well. I moved to Hong Kong in 1994 and even if the shows are shown on Star they are usually a season or two out of date.

Friends has its finale tonight, after 236 episodes and 10 years. The trouble is that in ten years the characters seem as shallow as when the debuted. And I have absolutely no interest in Ross and Rachel whose on and off romance was about a stimulating as watching paint dry.

Friends irritated more than entertained. It was an advertisers and TV network manager's dream. The show started with six not well known young actors sitting in a coffee shop chatting . The show targeted at the young and upwardly mobile that was aired on a Thursday to get the disposal spend on the weekend. Friends final episode will be watched by over 100 million Americans at 9.00pm EST tonight. It has been America's top-rated comedy for six years in a row. It is in syndication worldwide and it will live long in re-runs. Advertising for the show tonight will cost US$2 million for a thirty second slot.

Frasier ends next week. Frasier was caustic and clever and well written. A spin off from Cheers the show centered on the life and work of Dr. Frasier Crane as a radio psychologist in Seattle. It was a warm, well paced and very observant show often using farce as the basis of an episode.

It will be interesting to see how both shows age as they have endless seasons of re-runs. MASH is still very watchable; but it may be easier to show in re-run because it has a historical setting in the Korean War. 

The enduring Thai gem scam

4 May 2004

The Thai gem scam is alive and well. You have been warned. You can read all about it on the web or in tour books. But still people fall for it.

My friend is an overseas educated Chinese lady. A smart girl. She had read the guidebooks. I had warned her the night before. But walking the sights unaccompanied, guide book in hand makes her the ideal target.

Yes she believed the well spoken government official who told her that the Grand Palace was closed for some royal function. And yes off she went to another temple and onto a jewellery store. The good news is that she is not into jewellery and did not buy anything.

You have been warned. This scam has been going for some 25 years. It survives due to the greed of the visitor and the complicity of the authorities.

These are professional, organised criminals. They do not work alone. They pass you from one member of the gang to the next; whether professional in appearance or driving a tuk-tuk. Often they also employ people who speak your language and who may have lived in your country. They are looking to form a bond with you and to steal from you.

Here are examples of how the scam works:

http://www.into-asia.com/bangkok/gemscam/experiences.php

And these are the guidelines that you need to consider: go if you are curious; just don't take out you wallet or purse!

Thailand does, in theory, offer bargains on gems and jewelry, it's just that buying them is such a risky proposition that it is not recommended unless you really know what you are doing. If you are planning to purchase, the comments below should help to ensure you are not ripped off when buying:

Barbarians masquerading as liberators

1 May 2004

When Tony Blair stood side by side with the USA and took Britain into the Iraq war he surely did so because he believed that it was the right thing to do; because he believed that Saddam was a genuine threat and because he believed that he could free the Iraqi people from tyranny.

The troops were sent in a liberators.

Now those liberators are seen as no more that an unwanted army of occupation.

And western values of respect and decency and the rule of law have been wiped out by one single image  of an Iraqi prisoner held by US forces in Abu Ghraib prison, forced to stand on a block with electrical wires attached to his body, clothed in a Ku Klux Klan-style hood. There are other pictures of US troops being abused and humiliated.

All the fears of the people of Iraq and of the Muslim world have been confirmed in those images. We have no moral high ground on which to stand. We have lost any justification for staying in Iraq and we have no possible support that can vindicate our actions.

Many of us accepted Tony Blair at his word; those of us who believed that Saddam should go and be replaced by good democratic government for the people by the people. We even thought that having the Brits alongside the Americans might act as a moderating force.

Well we were wrong.

The beating and humiliation of prisoners is not just from the US side. There is now evidence of UK brutality as well.

War is ugly. But in an age of instant media there is no escaping the real facts. The US have been demanding that the Arab media, in particular the al-Jazeera network show a more balanced coverage. It may well be that their coverage was the real story.

The people of Iraq want the troops to leave. We should do exactly that. We have no goodwill left in Iraq. We have overstayed our welcome and we have abused the very people that we sought to liberate.

It is simply pathetic to say that the allied abuses are not as bad as the abuse under Saddam's regime. We are not seeking here to see who is at the lowest possible rung on the ladder. We are held to a far higher standard of behaviour and we failed. America preaches human rights to the world. I only hope that they understand the sad irony and the lasting damage now done.

It is time to leave.