Reflections of a green ecosocialist.
"The time has come the walrus said
To talk of many things
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings"
Lewis Carroll: Alice through the Looking Glass
Interview with Joe Glenton after his release from prison on Monday for refusing to serve in Afghanistan and speaking out at the Stop the War coalition protest several months ago. Joe is speaking at a public event on July 26th with Caroline Lucas MP - details below.
AFGHANISTAN - TIME TO GO!
7pm, Monday, 26th July
Conway Hall
25 Red Lion Square
London, WC1R 4RL
Joe Glenton, jailed for refusing to fight in Afghanistan, speaks out againstthe war alongside another ex-soldier. With Caroline Lucas and other MP's.
More speakers TBA.
The war in Afghanistan is in crisis. The strategy is crumbling, with Obama's sacking of General McChrystal and an increasingly corrupt Karzai government.
The violence is intensifying with No clear goals and even fewer results. ThousandS of Afghan civilians are dying every year and very little rebuilding is being done. Despite the 77% of people being opposed to Britain's involvement in Afghanistan, this government continues to send troops to kill and die in a war that is being lost.
This war is wrong, this war has failed and it's Time To Go
This morning I was present outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand, together with Stop the War Coalition and Palestine Solidarity Campaign protesters, as well as Green Left comrades to support the hearing seeking to overturn the draconian sentences handed out to those young (mainly Muslim) demonstrators who protested outside the Israeli embassy in January last year against the Israeli attack on Gaza. It is widely regarded as a miscarriage of justice that they have been handed jail sentences of several years as a 'deterrent to others' for taking part in a demonstration and is seen as a blatant attempt to criminalise and silence the Muslim community.
Last night Channel 4 showed a programme which demonstrated that far from attacking the police, as was claimed, many of those arrested were in fact attacked by the police. http://gazademosupport.org.uk/articles/gaza-protesters-receive-met-police-payouts/
The result of the appeal is expected tonight and hopefully many of these sentences will be overturned and the young people returned to their families. It is also expected that if these appeals succeed that the other cases planned will also collapse. Further information here http://gazademosupport.org.uk/
As an Irish person I recognise the similarity with the attempt to criminalise the Irish community in the 70s and 80s and regard this as a really serious miscarriage of justice.
“Polling numbers presage a possible complete wipe-out of the Green Party and a cull of Fianna Fáil TDs of such magnitude as has never been previously imagined possible.”
An end of term report on the state of Irish politics. Interesting that despite having one of the highest deficits in the EU and massive cuts to salaries, welfare etc, the Irish parliament still has one of the shortest sitting terms in the world. The TDs and Senators are about to head off for 3 months leaving the Executive to its role of planning further cuts. Everyone else in the country has to face lower salaries (15% cut in the state sector) and higher productivity. The coalition can maintain its contract until the general election due in two years time. In order to avoid that eventuality as long as possible, the government has refused three parliamentary by elections, leaving some constituencies with no representation for the last year.
The words of Grattan on the Irish parliament of the 18th century spring to mind when he warned of the excessive powers of the Executive: "And these walls, where once the public weal contended and the patriot strove, will resemble the ruin of some Italian temple, and abound not with senators, but with animals of prey, in the guise of senators, chattering their pert debates, and disgracing those seats which once belonged to the people." (Corruption by Government. February 1st, 1790)
Two important events coming up organised by Stop the War Coalition and the anti-war movement. I will be going to the protest at the Court of Appeal but want to take this opportunity of saluting the courage of soldier Joe Glenton. Never has it been more necessary to speak out against the war in Afghanistan.
JOE GLENTON TO BE RELEASED FROM PRISON
Soldier Joe Glenton, who was court martialled and imprisoned for
refusing to fight in Afghanistan, will be released from military
jail in Colchester on Monday 12 July and Stop the War supporters
will be there to welcome him.
As well as refusing to return to fight a war he regarded as
unjustified and unwinnable, Joe courageously spoke out publicly,
giving his reasons at Stop the War demonstrations and meetings.
BACKGROUND:
* Joe delivers a letter to then prime minister Gordon Brown: why
I won't return to Afghanistan: http://bit.ly/eO3V0
* Joe speaks out at Stop the War's Bring the Troops home
demonstration on 24 October 2010: http://bit.ly/reppW
If you live in the London area and would like to join us when we
welcome Joe on his release, contact the Stop the War office for
transport arrangements: Tel: 020 7801 2768
JOE GLENTON'S RELEASE
MONDAY 12 JULY 10.30AM
MCTC, BERECHURCH HALL CAMP,
COLCHESTER, ESSEX, CO2 9NU
*************************************
PICKET IN SUPPORT OF GAZA PROTESTORS
Over 100 people were arrested last year after demonstrating
against the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Seventy-eight were charged
with violent disorder, and many were given deterrent sentences of
up to two and a half years for as little as throwing a plastic
bottle. Almost all of those charged are very young and from
Muslim backgrounds. (SEE http://bit.ly/9sIjcO )
Ten protestors will appeal against their sentences on Tuesday 13
July. If successful, the appeals will impact on all current and
any future cases where the courts try to pass deterrent
sentences.
A picket has been called at the appeal court at 9am, calling for
the release of all those imprisoned, the dropping of any further
charges, an end to the intimidation of the Muslim community and
While the world's attention has been focused on the environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico something similar has been going on in the Niger Delta in Nigeria for years without anything being done about it. US and European oil companies are destroying the landscape through oil pollution with fires burning day and night. But then this is only Africa so who cares? This report from French broadcaster France 24 gives an impression of what is happening.
The Nigerian environmental activist interviewed calls for an international tribunal for environmental offences? I think this is a really good idea and long overdue. When one saw the arrogant insouciance of the Chief Executive of BP recently in front of the powerful US Senate hearings, one wonders how he and his ilk would react to calls from African governments and environmental organisations to appear and give evidence. Probably would not even bother to reply. The oil companies need to be brought down to size and the international community needs to act firmly. This is one area where the EU could also act against the actions of its own oil companies and what they are doing in the Niger Delta.
It's that time of year again, when Total Politics asks you to vote for your Top 10 favourite blogs. This is the fifth year of the poll. The votes will be compiled and included in the forthcoming book, the Total Politics Guide to Blogging 2010-11, which will be published in September. For the second year running, the poll is being promoted/sponsored by LabourList and LibDemVoice as well as Total Politics, and that of their publisher, Iain Dale. I hope that many of my readers will take part. Rules etc are below. Happy voting!
Caroline Lucas speaks out against the war in Afghanistan and Trident at the joint event organised by Stop the War Coalition and CND on Wednesday night in London.
Unfortunately as the Green Party's recently re-elected delegate to the Stop the War Coalition I was unable to attend last Saturday's Steering Committee meeting as I was in Bristol, but here is a report on the war in Afghanistan which was presented at that meeting.
The following was given as a report to Stop the War Steering Committee on Saturday 26th June 2010, by Steve Bell.
This week we registered a new stage of crisis for the NATO occupation of Afghanistan.
The dismissal of General McChrystal by President Obama is not a case of personal animosity, or of military arrogance towards civilians, although these factors undoubtedly are present. At the heart of the incident is a conflict of policy.
Last year, at the time of Obama’s review of US strategy in Afghanistan, McChrystal suggested that there should be an immediate deployment of 40,000 of troops, and a further 40,000 after that. The assumption was that an extended occupation was necessary. This was in line with the views of Senator General John McCain, who had spoken of an occupation that could last a 100 years.
In response, Obama agreed a surge of 30,000 additional troops. But in a concession to domestic concerns, Obama stated that by July 2011 a process of withdrawal would commence.
In practice then, McChrystal has been carrying out a policy that he did not agree with. But the implementation of the Obama policy was by a plan jointly drawn up by McChrystal, and his replacement, General Petraeus.
In his West Point speech in December 2009, Obama outlined the 3 themes which made up the new US strategy: “…..a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that re-enforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan”.
Six months on, all three elements seem to be failing. The military effort involved a combination of counter insurgency with the “Afghanisation” of security by a massive build up of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP).
The counter insurgency operation had its first big test in Operation Moshtarak where the aim was to inflict a defeat on the Taliban in the area around Marjah. Despite the deployment of 15,000 NATO troops and five brigades of Afghan forces, no effective engagement was achieved with the Taliban.
A spokesman for the Taliban said: “We have withdrawn tactically from some areas. We never flee”. TheTaliban claimed minimum causalities, despite the strength of the deployment against them.
Counter insurgency theory suggests that one solider is necessary for every 50 civilans in an area of operation. The area of operations in Marjah had a population of around 30,000. This operation involved a ratio of one solider for every two civillans, and was still ineffective.
McChrystal had notoriously claimed that after a military victory in Marjah, he had a replacement local government “in the box” which could be established to counter a return of the Taliban.
Three months after victory has been declared, the Taliban remains active in the area; McChrystal has characterised Marjah as “a bleeding ulcer”; and a stable local government remains “in the box”.
Nor has the process of the “Afghanisation” of security registered any success. The ANP is known to be corrupt and demoralised. McChrystal stated that only 25% had received any basic training.
However, the army was supposedly a more effective organisation. Yet on June 14th 2010, a Time Magazine report found:
“9 out of 10 Afghan enlisted recruits can’t read a rifle instruction manual or drive a car, according to NATO trainers. The officers corps is fractured by rivalries; Soviet-era veterans vs. the former mujahedin rebels who fought them in the 1980s, Tajiks vs. Uzbeks, Hazaras and Pashtuns. Commanders routinely steal their enlisted men’s salaries. Soldiers shake down civilians at road checkpoints and sell off their own American-supplied boots, blankets and guns at the bazaar – sometimes to the Taliban. Afghans, not surprisingly, run when they see the army coming.
Recruits tend to go AWOL after their first leave, while one-quarter of those who stay in service are blitzed on hashish or heroin according to an internal survey carried out by the Afghan National Army(ANA). One NATO major from Latvia stationed in the north, complained to a Time video team that when a battalion’s combat tour was extended, three Afghan officers shot themselves in the foot to get medevacked out.”
At the time when no military progress is being made, there can be no reinforcement via a “civilian surge”. There have been no increase in NGO or NATO reconstruction on the ground. One anecdote best illustrates this. All the tabloid and broad sheet newspapers in Britain, extensively covered the operation by the British Army to deliver a turbine to the Kajaki dam which would mean, we were told, the people of Kandahar receiving hydro electric power.
In its June 26th issue, months after the operation, the Economist reports: “Alas the turbine dispatched for this purpose, in an operation involving 5,000 British troops, still lays in the Kajaki dirt, the Taliban having made it impossible to truck in cement to install it”.
And the third theme, the greater involvement of the Pakistan Government, and military, has not led to the border becoming more secure. Despite intense pressure from the US, the Pakistan military has not launched a major offensive in North Waziristan.
But there are many signs of Pakistan assuming a greater influence, independently of the US Government. A spokesman for the Pakistani Army, Major General Athar Abbas said “The American time table for getting out makes it easier for Pakistan to play a more visible role”.
Indeed this assertiveness runs to the Pakistan Army outlining a policy which is decidedly out of line with US policy. A policy of negotiating peace with the insurgents is being actively pursued by the Pakistan Army.
In three trips to Kabul, Afghan officials have confirmed, that Pakistan Army General Kayani and General Pasha had offered to broker a peace deal involving the Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqani fighting force. This is not what Obama had anticipated.
Can we expect a difference approach from Petraeus? Although he drew up the current plan with McChrystal, Petraeus is a position to move away from Obama’s compromise.
Of immediate concern must be that Petraeus may set aside McChrystal’s policy of “courageous restraint”. This placed limits upon NATO utilising night raids, bombing and pursuit into populated areas and villages.
Although the number of civilian causalities reached its highest point in 2009, this is down to the general increase in fighting. If Petraeus sets the policy aside, the first change that will be registered will be a further escalation in civilian causalities.
Petraeus has not ruled out an increase in troop numbers. McCain recently suggested a further 10,000 US troops may be necessary. All surge troops will be in Afghanistan by summer, amounting to 105,000 US troops and 48,000 from NATO allies. So additional troops will be on top of these numbers.
Petraeus is probably of the view that an extended occupation is necessary. When asked this week whether he supported the July 2011 drawdown date, he offered a “qualified yes”. Obviously he could not blatantly contradict Government policy, but the qualification did so implicitly.
Obama himself is moving away from his previous policy. On June 24th, when questioned about the deadline, he said: “we didn’t say we would be switching off the lights. We said we would begin a transition phrase that would allow the Afghan Government to take more and more responsibility”.
This wriggle away from the commitment runs counter to government policy. Vice President Jo Biden gave a recent interview where he said: “….in July of 2011 you are going to see a whole lot of people moving out. Bet on it”.
Obama and Petraeus had indicated that there would be a “strategic assessment” of policy in December 2010. In the meantime the crisis deepens. June 2010 was the deadliest month since the war began for NATO troops, 79 killed so far, in comparison to the previous record of 77 in August 2009.
There have also been serious set backs for Obama with the Afghan political process. The clearest expression of this is the weakened connection to the Afghan Government.
In April, within the space of a week, President Karzai met twice with President Ahmadinejad- of Iran – and once with representatives of the Chinese Government. This prompted an unscheduled flight by Obama to Kabul to meet Karzai. Iran and China are the two border states to Afghanistan that the US administration believes have no role in its future.
Karzai has also publicly claimed that the US tried to fix the presidential elections in 2009; claimed that the US fired rockets at his Peace Conference; said he might end up joining the Taliban; sacked the two most pro-US Ministers, intelligence Chief Amrullah Saleh and Interior Minister Hanif Atmar. These Ministers have been vocal in their public opposition to the Iranian and Pakistani Governments influence.
Karzai also lobbied Obama to retain McChrystal, presumably because he feared the loss of the “courageous restraint” policy.
In this growing assertiveness of Karzai and the Pakistan Government, we can see, albeit in a highly mediated manner, the strengthening of anti-imperialist forces in the region.
But if we are entering a new stage of crisis, there is no automatic resolution. The current issue of the Economist is titled “Losing Afghanistan”, this does not mean Afghanistan is yet lost for the occupiers. But it does mean that the anti-war movement must considerably step up its activity in Britain and the US.
There is the sense of growing disengagement internationally. The Netherlands Government are withdrawing their troops in August. The Canadian Government is committed to withdrawing combat troops by next summer. On Thursday 24th June, the acting President, and likely victor in Poland’s Presidential Election, Bronislaw Komorowski, asked the Polish Government to prepare for a Polish withdrawal by 2012. In all cases the US administration is seeking a reversal of policy.
In Britain, the election of the Coalition Government has brought out more in the open some tension about the future of the intervention.
From the point of view of the Coalition, there is a hole of £36 billion in the defence budget in the next decade. This in itself is a prompt for examining an intervention in Afghanistan which is running at around £5 billion a year.
But the Conservatives have always had a more pragmatic and business like attitude to colonial wars. This comes from the hundreds of years of accumulated experience of colonialism which exists in the Tory party. Labour politicians are much more concerned about ridiculous issues like being seen as unpatriotic, or weak on defence.
Consequently, the last couple of months have seen the first signs of real disquiet in Government. At the end of May, The Independent on Sunday quoted “senior military sources” as saying that talks were underway with US Commanders on scaling down the British commitment to war.
On the 9th May, the Times published the conclusions of an investigation with senior military figures, politicians and civil servants on the move of British troops to the south of Afghanistan in 2006.
The report said that the MOD and Whitehall departments had grossly under-estimated the threat from the Taliban. Warnings of inadequate troop numbers had also been ignored.
The original move was to send 3,300 troops to Helmand for 3 years and at a cost of a billion pounds. John Reid famously said, from military opinion given, that they would be able to leave: “without a shot being fired”. Four years later there are 8,000 British troops in place, along side 20,000 US Marines, with hundreds of causalities.
This sense of disquiet exists amongst Tory MP’s. Last year, Adam Holloway MP, in a report, wrote of an “ill conceived mission” and that “attempts to impose a central Government…..are over ambitious and likely to fail”.
Recently, Patrick Mercer MP said that it is “unsustainable for this number of troops to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan for an indefinite period”. This is true of course, but also is an admission of British Special Forces operating inside Pakistan.
Julian Lewis MP a former Shadow Defence Secretary, has spoken of “…..pointless patrols creating target practice for the Taliban”.
It is clear this disquiet is having an impact upon the Coalition Government too. In early June, Cameron held a strategy review. He has since ruled out increasing the number of British troops – a statement of inflexibility which reeks of concern about the future.
Cameron has also indicated that withdrawal from next year may be possible, in line with Obama’s initial policy. Cameron stated that Britain “cannot be there in 5 years times”, further reinforcing the impression of disquiet about the future.
The most obvious expression of policy tension in the Government came on a trip to Kabul by Ministers. Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary said “we are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education of a broken 13th century country. We are there to see our global interests are not threatened”.
This clearly came as news to Andrew Mitchell, the Development Secretary, who said at the same time “….providing basic education and health care facilities was crucial”.
The lack of coherence in the coalition Government is likely to become more pronounced as the crisis of the occupation becomes more apparent.
The Parliamentary Labour Party continues to lag behind the deepening crisis. Some on the right of the party, such as Eric Joyce MP and Denis MacShane MP, have realised how hopeless the intervention now is. But, of the potential leaders of the party, it is only Diane Abbott who has clearly called for withdrawal.
Yet the anti war movement must be aware of how vital it is to increase its activity. Parliament is full of new MPs, many of whom can be placed under real pressure by organised lobbying.
In the coming weeks, facing a potential offensive in Kandahar, and perhaps a more aggressive pursuit of military goals, the anti war movement is necessary now more than ever.
Joseph Healy stood as the Green Party's Parliamentary Candidate for Vauxhall at the last general election.
Joseph was also Number 4 on the Green Party's European list in London.
He was Male Co-Convenor of Green Left, the ecosocialist, anti-capitalist platform within the Green Party, for two years and was the Secretary for the last year. He is an officer of Coalition of Resistance, the leading anti-cuts campaigning organisation. He resigned from the Green Party this February in protest against the Green Council in Brighton & Hove voting through budget cuts.
He has also been recently elected as the Treasurer of Queers Against the Cuts.
He was also the Green Party's delegate to the Stop the War Coalition and an active anti-war campaigner.
He is an active trade unionist and a member of UNITE.
He was working for four years as director of a Pan London disability charity in Brixton (Transport for All) campaigning for better accessible transport for disabled people and is himself disabled. He currently works for Lambeth's main disability organisation, Disability Advice Service Lambeth on a part time basis.
After having been Vice Chair of the London Ambulance Service Patients Forum, the largest public and patient involvement group in the NHS, he was elected Chair in 2010 and re-elected Chair in 2011.
He was also active as a pioneer in the LGBT rights movement in the Irish Republic in the 70s and early 80s and has campaigned strongly in London on issues connected with HIV and health.
Joseph lives in Camberwell with his partner and his cat.
