Michael Meacher - Labour's Future

Gordon Brown wants to reassure Bush at the Mansion House tonight that the ‘special relationship’ still lies at the heart of UK foreign policy. After a teeny-weeny bit of independence in beginning to withdraw British troops from Iraq, we have to genuflect again. The real question we should be asking is: are we seeking a closer relationship because we believe that US policies are broadly right or simply because that is where the power is?

There is of course no special relationship, almost by definition, since the essential tenet of the neo-con philosophy is unilateralism, Might is Right, and self-interest overrides everything whatever their ‘friends’ may say. We are no more likely to carry influence if we play the deferential courtier than if we play the critical friend. As we found out painfully throughout the Blair years, playing to the American tune unremittingly on every occasion gained not a singly demonstrable concession.

So are American policies right? Of course there is a considerable US-European consensus across a broad spectrum of policy which nobody seriously doubts. But there are some very important areas of discord where we have a responsibility to make our voice heard.

Iraq is a prime example, though far from the only one. It is becoming clear that the US intend a permanent military presence in Iraq as long as Saudi, Iraqi and Iranian oil lasts, amounting in total to more than half global oil reserves. For this purpose the US is strong-arming an oil law through the Iraqi Government which is virtually expropriating all future Iraqi oil revenues which on some official US estimates could reach the stupendous level of £30 trillions, 12 times the UK GNP! The Americans are now building five colossal military bases across Iraq to enforce their will. We should be telling them this is a recipe for an endless insurgency which is not only flagrantly illegal, but an unwinnable quagmire which can only erode the West’s position to the benefit of Iran, China and Russia.

Second, the US won the Cold War in 1989, but then blew it by passing up a priceless opportunity to win over Russia as a long-term ally. Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down, pulled the Red Army back inside its border, removed the Communist Party from absolute control, and embraced American-style capitalism. Putin went out of his way to aid American forces after 9/11 and did not use his Security Council veto to block the US invasion of Iraq. What has been his reward? The US, exploiting Russian weakness at every turn, moved NATO into Eastern Europe and then into the former Soviet republics. The US bombed Serbia for 78 days in 1999 despite Russian protests, and is now placing a missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic as well as unilaterally abrogating the ABM Treaty which has produced stability for 30 years. Is it any surprise that Putin is now so suspicious and uncooperative towards the West? This is fundamentally the wrong policy, and we should be saying that loud and clear to the US before we alienate yet further one of the great powers that should be our ally.

Third, instead of continually fudging his options over Iran, Gordon Brown should be making clear that whilst we support economic and diplomatic pressures to deter an Iranian nuclear bomb, we do not and will not support a military attack on Iran. It would have catastrophic consequences – setting the whole Middle East alight, provoking intensified Iranian intervention in Iraq, seriously disrupting the world oil supply a quarter of which passes daily through the straits of Hormuz, unleashing murderous retaliation maybe as far as Western capitals, All without being able ultimately to prevent an Iranian bomb, and indeed generating a national unity behind the mullahs when otherwise an unpopular regime might steadily unravel because of economic failure.

It is our duty to make clear to the Americans now our strong opposition to their perverse and counter-productive military threats towards Iran. Otherwise, the Cold War will be succeeded by another long term geo-political conflict, only conducted at much higher temperature.

Graphic: Project Gutenberg

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:39 PM | Permalink

Des Browne's sneaked out announcement that Britain is to provide part of Bush's Missile Defence System sends out all the wrong messages as Gordon Brown tries to demonstrate that under him things are now different. I suspect that this is only the first of many cases that show that in terms of New Labour's fundamentals they are not.

Putting out an extremely contentious statement by written answer on the last day of Parliament is certainly back to the bad old days that Jo Moore made famous: latching on to a good day to bury bad news. Nothing new or better here. And it spoils GB's proclaimed wish to foster greater transparency and involve Parliament more. What is the point of offering Parliament a debate every time the police say they need to hold a terrorist suspect more than 28 days, yet denying Parliament the right to decide whether we should consign our nation to the risk of nuclear attack in a new hyped version of Star Wars?

The central reason to oppose allowing the communications base at Menwith Hill to become part of the US missile system, together with upgrading the Fylingdales radar for the same purpose, is that it will increase our vulnerability, not decrease it. It will put the UK on the frontline in future wars, opening up this country as a prime target at the start of any future Big Power hostilities.

US missile defence is provocative, since it allows the US to launch nuclear first-strike attacks without fear of retaliation. Russia is boud to devise its own counter-system, and after 20 years of building down nuclear stocks, the nuclear arms race will be relentlessly ratcheted up again. the Russians are already known to be developing the RS-24 inter-continental missile which is specifically designed to overcome missile defence systems.

Nor should we ignore that this new space race will be stupendously expensive, and without any guarantee of success. As one military analyst put it, Star Wars is like trying to hit one bullet travelling at 17,000 mph with another bullet also travelling at 17,000 mph. The idea that our security should depend on 100% success at every such encounter is, frankly, sheer madness.

It is outrageous that Parliament has been repeatedly informed that there was no plan to use RAF Menwith Hill for missile defence, and is now abruptly told that a deal has been done with the US behind the back of Parliament and it's now too late to do anything about it. The truth is, it isn't. Parliament must insist on a debate and vote on this as soon as it reconvenes, and that vote should be the final say on whether the UK participate in Bush's Star Wars, not a secret behind-the-scenes Government deal.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:15 AM | Permalink

The carefully choreographed distancing of UK foreign policy from the US – first announced, then denied, coded message now clearly received – will be received with palpable relief by the Labour Party and the overwhelming majority of British people. The umbilical cord by which Blair insisted on embedding himself in Bush was humiliating, demeaning and ultimately fruitless because it never produced a shred of reciprocity.

However, once again we should look very carefully at what actually happens, not just at a gesture waved in our direction. Two issues immediately stand out.

One is, what would happen if, in the 18 months left to Bush, the neocons in a last fling launched their long-planned strike against Iran, almost certainly bombing raids whether by the US itself or possibly Israel? Would Gordon Brown the next morning come down in favour of Bush or would he repudiate such madness and back the British people? At the one leadership hustings that took place in May, I asked him this question. He evaded it with several minutes of waffle – it won’t happen, diplomacy is winning through, multilateral alliance are being forged, etc. etc. Since he hadn’t answered the question, I immediately asked it again. I was treated to a repetition of the same waffle. It’s worrying he won’t tell us.

The second key issue is, will Brown withdraw British troops from Iraq when the British commander on the spot, Sir Richard Dannatt, says, as he has, that the presence of occupation troops is actually exacerbating, not helping, the security situation, or will he keep them there as long as the Americans insist on having a diplomatic fig-leaf to cover their own occupation? Clearly Bush, success or no success with his surge, is not intending any significant reduction in US forces in the year and a half before the end of his Presidency. It is all too likely that American troops will remain in Iraq, albeit with some limited cuts in numbers, far beyond that. After all, the reason they invaded Iraq has nothing to do with stopping Saddam’s brutalities or replacing him with democracy; they’re there because of the oil. As peak oil rapidly approaches and competition with China intensifies over the remaining repositories of oil left in the world, the US is not going to give up any time soon its priceless economic, political and military prize astride the three countries – Saudi, Iran and Iraq – with far and away the biggest global concentration of oilfields left.

So if Bush clicks his fingers and says No to a full British withdrawal within a 6-12 month period at most, will Gordon Brown defy him, or will our poodledom continue? We are entitled to know.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:49 PM | Permalink

Today's Guardian splash seems to be another step on the path of softening up public opinion for a potential attack on Iran. I can understand why American defence officials would want to see their allegations splashed across the front of the war sceptical Guardian. But this is essentially a rehash of a story that has been properly discredited already, when the Pentagon trotted it out last, in February.

These are eerily familiar claims that suit the political agenda of the US more than they suit the facts. Sources speaking on condition of anonymity last time have become “senior US officials.” The apparent threat now is against Bradley armoured vehicles rather than the more heavily protected Abrams tank. But the other claims, particularly about weapons and their sources are the same and were conveniently repeated by Tory defence spokesperson Patrick Mercer in a BBC R4 interview on the Today programme this morning- introduced by a summary of the Guardian article.

Just in case Iran is not bug bear enough, we are treated to claims of a link with al-Qaeda link up across the Sunni-Shiite divide and even more incredulously, that the shelling of the Shiite dominated Iraqi parliament was the work of Shiite militias closely allied to Iraqi Shiite political parties and indeed trained by them. Professor Juan Cole of Michigan University has more on this in his Informed Comment blog.

There is, however, a grain of truth in the report, where it says “General Petraeus’s report to the White House in early September will be pivotal and a decision to being troop withdrawal or continue the surge policy will hinge on the outcome.”

That explains why the story is being peddled by unnamed US sources, but not why the Guardian should choose to believe them.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:08 PM | Permalink

From today's Times:

Politics is in a curiously disorientated state in Britain today. On one side, old-style Toryism was voted out in 1997, and has now been replaced by a soft veneer of environmentalism and family-centredness that contrasts sharply with the excesses of private equity capitalism. On the other, the persistent shifting to the right under new Labour has now blown itself out, as the polls indicate, leaving a large segment of political space occupied by mainstream Labour opinion and probably a majority of the electorate as a whole largely disenfranchised.

This key part of the spectrum urgently needs representation to give it fresh direction — not old Labour either, but a modern progressive politics addressing the big issues now being ducked and championing key groups now being marginalised.

First, we need a change of direction to heal the divisions that are increasingly straining the fabric of our society. The Government has made some progress in reducing poverty, but not nearly enough. Inequalities are actually increasing. The average pay of the chief executives of the top FTSE 100 companies is now £46,150 a week, 250 times the minimum wage and 500 times the state pension, while at the same time there are still 12.5 million people, including more than 2 million children, living in households below the Government’s poverty line. This matters because reducing inequality leads to less violence, better health, longer life expectancy, lower teenage birth rates and higher educational attainment.

We need a new approach to cutting crime if we genuinely believe in being as tough on the causes of crime as on crime itself. It’s not sensible to go on banging people up even faster than we can build new prisons without tackling much harder the causes of criminality, and putting much more emphasis on reducing recidivism. Despite unprecedented increase in the use of custody, reconviction rates have soared. The hardline policy isn’t working.

We must drastically reduce the prison population, confining it to violent and dangerous offenders. We should provide instead secure units in the community where lesser offenders are required to attend compulsory courses on anger control, money management and parenting, and also to receive education and skills training and treatment for drug addiction and mental health needs, and are made to do unpaid work to repay the community.

Probably the best crime reduction value for money comes from parenting programmes and youth inclusion panels, bringing together local services to focus support on 8 to 13-year-olds at highest risk. Of course there are increased costs involved in intensive rehabilitation, but if prison places and reoffending costs can be significantly reduced, there should be a substantial net saving in public expenditure.

We need too to arrest the overcentralisation of power in this country. Key decisions, such as the replacement of Trident and the restoration of nuclear energy, should not be taken without consultation of the Cabinet, Parliament and public opinion.

Indeed, the most direct way to win back public trust and reconnect with the electorate is for the Government to be seen as genuinely accountable, listening and being prepared to adjust in the face of strong public demand.

It also means Parliament reasserting its authority by taking the right to ratify (or not) nominations to the Cabinet made by the Prime Minister, by appointing committees of inquiry where the Government refuses to do so (as over rendition flights), by ending the Royal Prerogative whereby the Prime Minister can unilaterally declare war and authorise military action, and through its select committees tabling its own motions for debate and voting on the floor of the Commons. Giving the public the right to initiate legislation through referendums is another issue to explore.

We also need much more vigorously to tackle the greatest threat facing the world today: climate change. It must permeate every policy area of Government — not just energy, but transport, industry, building, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy. It is not enough merely to talk of the end of oil dependence when our electricity generation from renewable energy is, at just 4 per cent, by far the lowest in Europe.

We need an overall plan to meet the scientists’ target of reducing carbon emissions by at least 60 per cent by 2050. It is a colossal challenge, but a win-win-win-win scenario. It will increase energy efficiency hugely, create large savings for industry and some of our poorest households, protect our economy against sudden destabilising external shocks and safeguard us from climate catastrophe.

Finally, we must stop being subservient to the US. We can’t go on being America’s glove puppet, as we have been over Iraq and Lebanon, and, most worryingly, Iran. We need a foreign policy that robustly reasserts our own essential British interests and our commitment to the UN. The first demonstration of that should be strong opposition to any potential US or Israeli attack on Iran, and insistence that the nuclear impasse must be resolved by negotiation or by UN sanctions, not by violence.

We should take the advice not of the US but of British military commanders on the spot in speeding up our troop withdrawal from Iraq. And we should push for a wider international peace conference for a joint settlement of interconnected Middle East issues that cannot be solved one by one. The latest reports of a US change of heart about talking to Iran and Syria make this now a serious possibility.

It is because I believe that radical new policies of this kind would reenergise politics in this country that I am standing for the leadership of the Labour Party.

www.michaelmeacher.info

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:04 PM | Permalink

From

The recent cabinet agreement in Baghdad on the new draft oil law was hailed as a landmark deal bringing together the warring factions in the allocation of the country's oil wealth. What was concealed was that this is being forced through by relentless pressure from the US and will sow the seeds of intense future conflict, with serious knock-on impacts on the world economy.

The draft law, now before the Iraqi parliament, sets up "production sharing partnerships" to allow the US and British oil majors to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years. While Iraq would retain legal ownership of its oil, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP that invest in the infrastructure and refineries would get a large share of the profits.

No other Middle Eastern oil producer has ever offered such a hugely lucrative concession to the big oil companies, since Opec has always run its oil business through tightly-controlled state companies. Only Iraq in its present dire condition, dependent on US troops for the survival of the government, lacks the bargaining capacity to resist.

This is not a new plan. According to documents obtained from the US State Department by BBC Newsnight under the US Freedom of Information Act, the US oil industry plan drafted early in 2001 for takeover of the Iraqi oilfields (after the removal of Saddam) was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, calling for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oilfields.

This secret plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. However, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme. As Ariel Cohen of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation later told Newsnight, an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oilfields.

Now the plan is being revisited, or as much of it as can be salvaged after the fading of American power on the battlefield made enforced sell-off impossible. This revision of the original plan has been drafted by BearingPoint, a US consultancy firm, at the request of the US government. Significantly, it was checked first with Big Oil and the IMF and is only now being presented to the Iraqi parliament. But if accepted by the Iraqis under intense pressure, it will lock the country into weakness and dependence for decades. The neo-cons may have lost the war, but they are still manipulating to win the most substantial chunk of the peace when and if it ever comes.

It isn't difficult to see why. The super-giant oilfields of south-eastern Iraq, particularly the Majnoon and West Qurna, together with the East Baghdad field, are the largest concentration to be found anywhere in the world. Oil exploration costs are among the cheapest globally, with the current cost estimated at around 50c per barrel compared with the current retail price of about $60 a barrel. Petroleum geologists have discovered 73 major fields and identified some 239 as having a high degree of certainty. Yet only 30 fields have been partially developed and only 12 are actually on stream. Undrilled structures and undeveloped fields could represent the largest untapped hydrocarbon resource anywhere in the world. While most other Middle East countries are fully exploiting their reserves, large parts of Iraq are still virgin.

This prize is cast in even greater relief by recent assessments of the looming imminence of global peak oil production. The International Energy Agency now estimates that world production outside Opec has already peaked and that world production overall will peak between 2010 and 2020. Optimists who project large reserves remaining of over 1 trillion barrels base their figures on three illusory premises - inclusion of heavy oil and tar sands whose exploitation would entail colossal economic and environmental costs, exaggeration by Opec countries lobbying for higher production quotas within the cartel, or new drilling technologies which may accelerate production but are unlikely to expand reserves. In contrast, the pessimists are steadily gaining ground, and against this background Iraq remains potentially the last remaining major breakthrough.

Nevertheless, on every count the latest US plan to get control of Iraqi oil at almost any cost is profoundly misconceived. Even from the point of view of America's own self-interest, its security is imperilled more by the failure to develop alternative energy options than by the lack of capabilities of its weapons systems. Yet the US government continues to spend about 20 times more R&D money on the latter problem than on the former. It is still the case that funding the import of oil represents about 40% of the current US trade deficit, yet no vigorous programme in renewable technologies is being supported.

As Senator Richard Lugar and James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, said prophetically in 1999 about growing US dependence on increasingly scarce Middle Eastern oil, "our losses may come suddenly through war, steadily through price increases, agonisingly through developing nation poverty, relentlessly through climate change - or through all of them".

Secondly, in neo-conservative eyes Iraq was also required as an alternative to Saudi Arabia to provide a military base for the US to police the whole of Gulf oil. It was no longer possible for the US to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia for that purpose without risking the collapse of the dictatorial Saudi regime and its giant oil assets falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. The removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia was the principal demand contained in Osama bin Laden's fatwa of 1996. This was why, shortly after invading Iraq, the US announced that it was pulling its combat troops out of Saudi Arabia, thereby meeting Bin Laden's principal pre-9/11 political demand. But unfortunately for the US, al-Qaida is now seeking the removal of US troops from Iraq as well.

Above all, the policy is flawed by its extreme short-sightedness. Even if the US were to win its war in Iraq, which now looks virtually impossible, its incremental gain before the oil runs out would be short-term, while its exposure to intensified and unending insurgency because of perceived US seizure of Iraqi oil rights, especially if extended to Iran, would be disproportionately enormous both in the Middle East and maybe also at home. It is diametrically the opposite of the policy to which the whole world will be forced ineluctably by the accelerating onset of climate change. Perhaps the single greatest gain of the west learning this lesson of weaning itself off its oil addiction is that it would end this interference in the internal affairs of Muslim countries simply because they happen to have oil - the central cause of world conflict today.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:02 PM | Permalink

Michael's speech to the People's Assembly against the War, yesterday evening in Westminster.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 07:14 AM | Permalink

Speaker list

Register to participate

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:46 PM | Permalink

This piece on the outcome and effects of last night's vote appears on the New Statesman website, as does an article from a Trident supporter, Tom Watson MP.

Whatever the arguments over the wisdom of retaining nuclear weapons, he and I both seem to agree that the way in which the matter was handled within the PLP and indeed the Labour Party as a whole needs to change drastically if we are to see Labour regain electoral support.

Continue reading "Closing down options for disarmament" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:11 PM | Permalink

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West and Royton) (Lab): One cannot but draw encouragement from the fact that when occupants of both Front Benches come together in agreement there must be a good deal to be said for the opposite argument. So it is today. Like others, I do not believe that the Government have adequately or convincingly answered certain fundamental questions about renewing Trident, in particular its true cost, why a decision has to be taken now, whom it is meant to deter, and how it is genuinely compatible with non-proliferation.

Nor has there been a real opportunity to obtain fuller answers, because the process of consultation has been unjustifiably squeezed. There is an unmistakable sense in this latest exercise that both Parliament and the electorate are being bounced into this decision. I still believe that there is a strong case for further and fuller consultation of the electorate before such a momentous decision—which will cost taxpayers some 6 per cent. of GDP—is made.

The argument against renewal of Trident is extremely strong—

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): I think that my right hon. Friend meant 6 per cent. of the defence budget, not 6 per cent. of GDP. He may wish to amend the record.

Mr. Meacher: No, I am referring to a cost of £75 billion—I shall discuss that further in a moment—which is roughly 6 per cent. of GDP. It is substantially higher as a proportion of the defence budget.

Continue reading "Speech in Trident debate" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:10 AM | Permalink

BBC Online are running an poll on whether we need to build a new generation of submarines to carry Trident D5 missiles. Show your opposition to this premature and politically misguided proposal by voting in this poll.

So far, 4000+ people have voted, more than doubling the numbers of votes cast in a period of about two hours.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:57 PM | Permalink

Posted by Michael Meacher at 09:24 AM | Permalink

The consultation on Trident has been a sham. By fixing a vote in the House of Commons for next Wednesday, No 10 is bouncing us into a momentous decision years before expert opinion says it is necessary.

As leader, I would re-open this decision. I would arrange a full and proper consultation lasting at least six months, embracing all the relevant options and making sure public opinion is properly heard, followed by at least a two day debate in Parliament, ending with a fresh and much more authoritative vote.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:25 PM | Permalink

Meacher: why Spectator readers should vote for me

A leadership election opens up, uniquely, the opportunity to debate and decide on the future course of a government. I am standing because I believe there are several areas of policy where a fundamental change of direction is now needed. And though Spectator readers may initially be sceptical about the relevance of my policies to them, I believe that if they read on with an open mind, they'll find much that they agree with. I'm sure they'll agree, for instance, that New Labour and Tory policies have become similar, almost overlapping, which means that politics has become increasingly fixated on personalities, as though a blanket consensus on policy had been achieved. This is ridiculous. Old-style Toryism was rejected in 1997, and now New Labour - the continuing moving-right show - has clearly faded. It's time, not for Old Labour either, but for a mainstream Labour approach - which may well represent majority opinion within the electorate but has been suppressed for over a decade - to be reasserted as a modern progressive politics with new solutions to today's profound problems.

Continue reading "From the Spectator (3 March 2007)" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 10:09 AM | Permalink

(From the Independent)

Labour leadership contender answers your questions, such as 'Why not sell your flats to help fight against poverty?' & 'What's your guilty pleasure?'
Published: 05 March 2007

Are you a socialist? What does that mean today? MIKE WOODBRIDGE, Brighton

Yes, I am. A socialist believes that while the market has its proper place, the fundamental principles underpinning society should be equity, social justice, equality of opportunity, and democratic accountability. Even where the market is a dominant force, socialists believe it should be regulated to ensure high environmental, social and labour standards.

Why, as a socialist, do you own so many houses? GARY BROWNE, Glasgow

As I have regularly stated in the register of Members' interests, I own four flats. I have saved throughout my life, and put my savings into property. I don't think [that] is contrary to socialism.

Given your views on poverty, why not sell some of your houses and give the money to charity? Or are you just another hypocritical politician? V AHMAD, Birmingham

I already give a significant amount to charity . I agree there is an urgent need to build much more social, affordable housing but selling my flats which are already occupied would not contribute one iota to that.

Isn't it delusional of you to challenge Gordon Brown for the Labour leadership? MAURICE BURKE, Birmingham

No. There should be a contest because only an election enables us to debate the real policy issues. I also believe that members of the Labour Party should have the right to choose their own leaders. I believe, too, that as New Labour, of which Gordon Brown is perhaps the main architect, has moved continually ever further to the right, the mainstream majority of the party has been left disenfranchised and without a voice. It is not sensible to assume the results of any election before the electors have had a chance to deliver their opinion which may sometimes come as rather a shock to the chattering classes. Not too many people I guess expected David Cameron to come from behind and win the Tory Party leadership.

Don't you think Gordon offers Labour the best hope of winning the next election? VALERIE EVANS, Cardiff

Have you seen the last two polls? Both put the Tories 11 per cent ahead, and one poll found that if Gordon was leader, the Tories would be 13 per cent ahead.

I am a Labour supporter, but I despair that Gordon Brown has been such a coward over the war, talks nonsense on 'Britishness' and seems so in love with Rupert Murdoch that he will hand the next election to Cameron. Do you agree - and if not, which bits do you disagree with and why? DAVE FISCHER, Sheffield

Cameron has certainly, at this stage at least, improved the Tories' poll ratings, but not, I think, for the reasons you give.

A majority on the Labour left support John McDonnell and see your campaign as a spoiler which will only split the vote and stop a contest. Will you stand down if John has more nominations when Blair resigns? SUSAN PRESS, Calder Valley

There is no evidence whatever that a majority of people on the Labour Party left and the affiliated trade union movement support John McDonnell for leader. I have a great deal of respect for John, but I don't believe he can get the necessary 45 nominations, whereas I believe I can. I am not splitting the vote, but rather giving the centre-left the chance, to run a candidate who can pass the nominations threshold. But I do agree that whichever of the two of us has the larger number of nominations, the other should stand down when Tony Blair resigns.

Why not use that photo of you on Blackpool beach (very Daniel Craig) for your campaign posters? CONOR MURPHY, Reading

Good try. At least it shows I'm healthy.

Do you think Blair should stand down now?STEVE HARRISON, Bolton

The sooner he stands down, the better.

Why did you vote in favour of the invasion of Iraq?DEAN PALMER, Norwich

I made the biggest mistake of my political life when I supported the war, on the grounds that the Prime Minister repeatedly gave chapter and verse about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and assured us that if only we knew all the intelligence available to him, we would have no doubts about the necessity for this action. I still find it deeply disturbing for democracy that a prime minister can so massage and fabricate the evidence in order to push through a preconceived war plan.

Do you think Blair lied to his MPs and lied to the country over Iraq?JEFF TERRY, Dundee

I think the highly selective manipulation of such evidence as there was, together with the highly prejudicial use to which it was put, was deeply dishonest.

You claim you were misled that Saddam had a WMD programme. Yet you say the West has no right to tell Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Aren't you being rather inconsistent over Iraq and Iran?JIM ROLAND, London NW11

No, these are two quite separate arguments. Yes, we were certainly misled over Saddam's alleged WMD programme. While we should try to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons by negotiation and UN sanctions, we cannot say that nuclear weapons are indispensable for our own security, and then say Iran does not need them for their own security, especially when Iran (unlike the West) is surrounded by seven states which are nuclear-armed and some very hostile.

Do you truly believe that the US government knew about 9/11 but failed to prevent it?CHRIS QUIGLEY, by email

Clearly the US government did not know the precise time and location of the al-Qa'ida attack, but equally clearly there was a great deal of intelligence beforehand which, for whatever reason, it seems that they did not follow up.

You have suggested that the US government knew about the 9/11 attacks (which is pretty obvious I reckon, but fair play to you nonetheless). How complicit do you believe the UK Government was in 7/7? PAUL HUGHES, by email

Not at all.

Do you also believe that the FBI shot John F Kennedy, that Princess Diana was murdered and the US government has covered up the landing of aliens?BEN TROTTER, Cirencester

No. Such allegations are cheap and rather silly.

What steps will you propose to counter global warming? DR GEORGE BLAIR, by email

We should rapidly increase our use of renewable sources of energy (windpower, solar, and micro-generation in people's homes). We should require the airline industry, like every other industry, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions each year. We should increase vehicle excise duty sharply for gas-guzzling cars and use the proceeds to subsidise bus and rail, and smaller-engine cars. We should give each family a carbon entitlement which then has to be reduced each year.

How often have you flown in the past 12 months? FIONA MILLS, Edinburgh

Not at all.

You criticise the 'Westminster bubble' but said you spent the last two months talking to MPs about your campaign. Does this not show you have the same disrespect for people's views as the rest of the Westminster bubble? MARSHA JANE THOMPSON, by email

I said that when people around the country come to vote, they may well take a quite different view of things from the inward-looking Westminster scene, and should be listened to. But I also extensively canvassed my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party because they alone are the ones who make the nominations.

Why did it take you so long to announce your intention to stand for the Labour leadership when John McDonnell has been campaigning up and down the country for months?MAX MITCHELL, by email

I have been told that John McDonnell announced his candidature without consulting his colleagues. I thought it right first to consult extensively to confirm that my candidature would have the necessary range of support.

What are your guilty pleasures (apart from homeowning)?ALICE SHERWOOD, Tadworth

Wouldn't you like to know! Dropping childish comments in the waste paper basket is one of them.

You always look a bit boring. Are you? ROB JACKSON, by email

No. Why? Are you?

Posted by Michael Meacher at 12:28 PM | Permalink

We learnt today that the Trident renewal vote will take place on March 14th. There is no way a genuine consultation can take place under such an unwisely truncated timescale. Taking a decision to buikld a new generation of nuclear missile capable submarines now is, in the words of nuclear weapons expert Dr Richard Garwin, “premature ... I see no reason why they should not last 45 years.”

Dr Garwin was speaking to the Defence Select Committee in January. Forcing us into an unnecessary vote now will undermine the important work of the committee in considering the arguments and informing the public and MPs. The government is bouncing us into taking an expensive £65bn decision - to take the MOD estimate - by deliberately preventing a real debate in the country.

UPDATE: CND have called an emergency lobby of Parliament on that day - download and forward the flyer to build the lobby.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 02:24 PM | Permalink

From

There are three reasons why there should be an election for a new leader when Tony Blair finally goes. Only an election confers democratic legitimacy on the succession. Second, party members expect to have a choice about who should lead them. They have hardly been listened to for most of the last 13 years, and have every right to demand that their voice be listened to now. And third, there are major differences of view about the government's direction of travel which need to be understood, debated and voted on within the party. There are other, better alternatives.

New Labour has over-centralised power at the top, which has undermined democratic accountability at all levels. Its economy, driven exclusively by market forces, has played down intervention to secure a stronger manufacturing industry, a more balanced regional policy, and a lift out of its low pay, low skill, low productivity base. Its authoritarian civil society has eroded civil liberties across the board. Its deregulatory philosophy plays down environmental standards and labour rights.

Its indifference to, indeed embrace of, inequality -- "New Labour is relaxed about people getting filthy rich", as Peter Mandelson told us so charmingly -- has presided over a sharp increase in the gap between rich and poor. And its obsession with privatisation is leaching away the public service ideals which lie at the heart of a caring and committed society.

Because Labour and Tory policies are now so similar, politics has increasingly focused on personalities. But that is a fundamental misapprehension. A large part of the electorate on the centre-left, perhaps even a majority, has effectively been disenfranchised for the last three decades. Old-style Toryism was discarded by the voters in 1997, and now New Labour -- the continuing moving right show -- has clearly run its course. It's time, not for old Labour , but for a new implementation of core Labour values in a modern progressive politics addressing today's profound problems.

We need a new foreign policy which is based on fundamental British interests, not subservience to the US, particularly over the middle east. If our political status is to rise across the world, it is not sustainable to continue as America's glove puppet. We need a new social policy if the growing divisions within our society are to be healed. It is not sustainable for £9 billion of city bonuses to be doled out last year while 12.5 million people, a fifth of the population, remain in poverty.

We need a new penal policy if we are going to be genuinely as tough on the causes of crime as on crime itself. It is not sustainable to go on banging people up even faster than we can build prisons without trying to deal with the underlying causes of criminality and doing more to reduce recidivism. We need a new climate change and energy policy if we are not to become over-dependent on imported fossil fuels. It is not sustainable, let alone not legal, to go on fighting wars to grab control of the remaining reserves of Middle East oil when anyway the oil will soon run out.

So what should be done? To end the continuing horrendous carnage in Iraq, to complete our troop withdrawal and break the impasse over Palestine, we should use our political clout to initiate a wider international peace conference bringing together all the relevant actors for a joint settlement of the related middle east issues of contention which from experience cannot be resolved singly. That must include not only Iraq and Palestine within such a grand bargain, but above all a negotiated, not a military, settlement over Iran. If the US were to attack Iran, I would not put at risk a single British soldier or a single RAF pilot in support of such a crazed venture.

Domestically, the Unicef report marking Britain bottom of the table for children's experience shows how urgent it is to reverse the growing rich-poor divide. Less inequality leads to less violence, stronger community life, better health, longer life expectancy, lower teenage birth rates, as well as more social mobility and higher educational attainment. We should start by raising the national minimum wage (one of Labour's best achievements) quickly to £6 an hour, and then soon to £7 an hour. And recognising that wealth creation is not an individual but a team effort, we should move towards a system where there is no more than an acceptable ratio between top pay and bottom pay, so that pay rises at the top draw up the lower paid behind them too.

Globally we are at war against climate change. Business as usual, while relying on improved technology as a get-out card, is a fool's game. We need a profound change in every aspect of government and our way of life -- not just energy, but transport, industry, building, agriculture, public expenditure and taxation, and foreign policy, in order in every area to give absolute priority to combating climaten change. We need a crash programme, as we have done before in wartime, to develop renewable sources of energy, in which we are very well endowed, plus a massive programme to improve energy efficiency and energy conservation.

Peace, social justice, climate survival - those should be our top priorities. That is why the future lies with a centre-left agenda, and clearly there must be a centre-left candidate to lead this agenda forward who has the necessary nominations in the Parliamentary Labour Party to stand. I am fully confident I do have that necessary level of support, and that is why I am standing.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:39 PM | Permalink

Things have been hectic today, so much so that a planned video interview that was going to appear here has had to be put off until next week. As has been well documented, both on televison and radio as well as on a number of blogs, I declared today that I am standing for the leadership fo the Labour Party.

We need an election. We cannot stumble on without the issues being debated. We have seen inequality grow to levels higher than at any time since the 1930s. The world has become a less safe place in which to live. We are simply strolling without the necessary urgency along the path to controlling carbon emissions and dealing with climate change.

Elections have their own dynamic and the ballot could be 3-4 months away. Some of the coverage has predictably focused upon the issue of MP nominations. I am confident that I have the required supoport to be on the ballot. That's not an issue that can be settled until the nominations are actually made. Until then I intend to spend that time campainging hard to make sure the arguments - the alternatives to New Labour - are heard.

The BBC's James Landale seemed to be the only journalist who picked up on the real issues when he said on News 24 that the point of the campaign was to pick up the banner of the Labour left and wave it as loudly and visibly as possible. That's why taking the railways back into public ownership, rejecting renewal of Trident and the gross discrepancies between the highest paid and the lowest were issues I raised at the press conference this morning.

Crucially, he also said the interesting thing will be to see how these policies resonate with party members over the coming months.
Do they want to see Trident renewed? Most polls suggest otherwise, that people know there is no enemy against which they can be used, not terorrists, not rogue states.

Do they want to see the wage packets of the lowest pay to also rise when city bonuses are handed out? I think the answer is yes.

Do they want to see a massive investment in renewable energy technologies, cutting carbon emisisons and providing jobs in manufacturing and in research and development? Addressing global warming does not require wearing a hairshirt, it requires committment and innovation - and the rewards are huge.

If, as I believe, the centre-left is actually the mainstream, then these arguments should resonate loud and very clear. Only by putting them to the party can we see if that is the case. I think I have the policies, experience and expertise required for the job - now I want the party to have the opportunity to decide.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 08:03 PM | Permalink

The US (and the UK) doesn’t have an exactly unblemished record when it comes to providing evidence to back its claims regarding military action in the Middle East. A forged signature to “prove” that Saddam was trying to acquire yellowcake from Niger. Meteorological trucks portrayed as chemical weapons labs. Claiming that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda. And, of course, the now infamous 45-minutes-to- deploy-WMDs claim.

The latest “briefing” given by US military officials in Bagdad on high level Iranian involvement in Iraq is another case in point.

Three unidentified men described only as US defence officials and speaking on condition of anonymity showed weapons parts to journalists in a packed room where all recording devices – TV cameras, voice recorders, even mobile phones were banned. The official photos of the weapons were released later

Can you blame people for being sceptical? There is good reason to be so. Though coverage has included reference to doubts about the claims, only the BBC World Service (you'll need to click on the yellow 'podcast' button to hear the programme, from 12 February) has spoken to independent military analyst, ex RAF and former MoD adviser, Simon Pearson.

He has pointed out that the most sophisticated weapons - such as the RPG-29 - come from Russia and were supplied by them to Syria. What’s more, the Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP), the ones the US says are responsible for most of their military casualties were actually developed by Hizbollah in Lebanon - possibly with help from Iranian technicians. Hardly the same as high level Iranian involvement in Iraqi violence, presumably the excuse the US is looking for to authorise military action against Iran.

When pressed as to how the US can draw the wrong conclusions – particularly after taking much longer than expected to reveal this evidence, Pearson’s answer was hugely instructive.

He said that the US administration is sometimes blinded to reality - their view is that “Iran is to blame, therefore we must find a way of blaming Iran.”

Posted by Michael Meacher at 11:06 PM | Permalink

Update 19February 2007: links to NPF reports added.

According to these reports from last weekend’s NPF, Des Browne was less than complimentary about the efforts of NPF members to consult with Labour Party members on the issue of renewing Trident.

Lest you assume that this indicates a reluctance to hear the views of Labour Party members, you might be relieved to hear that the party has produced a consultation process of its own, for MPs to poll their constituents. When you read the questions, you’ll probably be disappointed again.

The questionnaire opens with this neutrally phrased gem:

Do you agree that in an increasingly uncertain world the Government should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent?

It takes a very long time to build a submarine and with the current fleet of subs reaching its expiry date do you think that the Government needs to make this tough decision now?

In both cases, the questionnaire asks for a ‘yes/no’ response. This follows a long letter from the MP which sets out the MP’s position as being in favour of Trident renewal and that not renewing it will “be to take a gamble with the nation’s security”. It also makes the claim that not taking the decision now means “We would effectively be abandoning our deterrent.”

This is plainly not true. As the evidence of Dr Richard Garwin to the Defence Select Committee showed, building new submarines now is premature, as the life of Vanguard submarines (which carry the missiles) could be extended until the 2030s. Renewal of such systems is not unusual - B-52 bombers are still flying today, more than 30 years beyond their projected life span.

It seems that the Party apparatchiks have not learned from the fiasco of the questionnaire on 90 days detention, which was so unbalanced, the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke had to apologise. Labour activists across the country are agreed on the need to renew the Labour Party. Fake or biased consultations like this are not going to help.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 01:54 PM | Permalink

(from Comment is Free)

It is astonishing that the decision to go to war, the gravest decision ever facing a nation, is still taken in this country by one person alone, the prime minister, and there is no requirement to seek parliamentary approval. What is even more astonishing is that even where the prime minister of the day does allow a parliamentary vote, and that vote is opposed to war, the prime minister still has the absolute power to ignore the result of the vote and to commit the nation to war.

This applies both where the vote is taken after the declaration of war, as in the case of the Attlee government over the Korean war and the Major government over the 1991 Gulf War, and where the vote is taken shortly before the start of a war, as was the case of the Blair government with Iraq. In any case, the prime minister would be within his or her constitutional rights to override a parliamentary vote.

It is equally true that there is, at present, no requirement at all to have a parliamentary vote on a substantive motion to take the country to war. That was the case when Britain went to war in the Balkans in the 1990s and there was lengthy fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is also true that even where a vote is called, it can be arranged at such a time - for example, at the last minute when British troops are fully deployed just before the outbreak of hostilities - that parliament is in a very difficult position to abort the build-up to war. This happened over the Iraq war on March 18 2003.

This is not an argument that it was wrong to take Britain to war in Iraq and therefore the decision-making procedures should be changed to prevent such a result in future. The issue is a much wider one - that irrespective of the rights or wrongs of particular wars, the decision to go to war is so paramount to the life of the nation that it should be taken, and only taken, by an elected parliament on a substantive vote, and well before events had moved to such a point that parliament had little or no alternative but to ratify a decision already reached.

This issue, perhaps more than any other single issue, raises the question of democratic accountability in Britain, which has withered away in the face of a marked centralisation of power over the last 30 years. Many of the previous checks and balances have been eroded, and some of the pre-existing autocratic prerogatives in the hands of successive prime ministers have been consolidated further. The right to take the country to war irrespective of parliamentary or public opinion is the clearest example of the latter.

Under the royal prerogative which dates back centuries, the powers of the Crown exercised by the prime minister, without consultation of cabinet or parliament, include the rights to declare war or make peace, sign or ratify treaties, confer honours, make appointments, establish commissions, and grant pardons. The democratisation of these prerogative rights is now being increasingly challenged by all the political parties. In opposition, Labour stated that it would ensure "all actions of government are subject to political and parliamentary control, including those actions now governed by the arbitrary use of the royal prerogative", and emphasised in particular going to war and the ratification of treaties as central areas of concern.

But in addition to the democratic dimension, there is also the strong constitutional argument that the evidence cited to justify such a momentous decision as going to war should be full and transparent, subject to the strict dictates of national security. In the case of the Iraq war, that would mean that the full advice of the attorney general on the legality of the war, the evidence on the existence and threat of weapons of mass destruction, and the proper reporting of the key French position on possible use of the veto in the security council would be laid before parliament. All of these matters would then be much more thoroughly scrutinised, and any manipulation of the evidence would become much more problematic.

For all these reasons, therefore, I am introducing a bill into the Commons tomorrow (2 February) which requires that the approval of parliament must be sought before British armed forces can be deployed in military action. For this purpose it also requires the prime minister to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the objectives, legal basis and likely duration of the military action proposed. The bill does allow for situations where the prime minister determines that deployment is urgently necessary before approval of the House of Commons can be achieved. But in such circumstances, which would be rare, it requires that the prime minister must still lay the report before parliament within seven days after troop deployment has begun.

Nor are the demands of this bill out of step with constitutional practice elsewhere. In the US for example the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that if the approval of Congress for waging war is not secured within 60 days, the president must withdraw US forces within a further 30 days. But in the UK the bill is a crucial change whose implementation is long overdue.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:41 PM | Permalink

The debate last week on Iraq and the wider Middle East was covered fairly extensively in the media but a crucial issue went mostly unremarked: it was an adjournment debate put forward by MPs, not a full debate of the House. It’s not surprising that it happened in that way, given the immense reluctance of the government to have the decision to go to war in Iraq and that the consequences of that decision formally examined in a Parliamentary debate.

At a time when public trust in politicians is at a low ebb, refusing to take part in the debate and hiding from it (as well as Tony Blair’s absence from the chamber, the government did not appoint tellers, so there could be no vote and presumably, to their way of thinking, no awkward headlines) is a poor tactic to pursue.

All this underlines the thinking behind my decision to propose a Waging War (Parliament's Role and Responsibility) Bill when I found that – for the first time in 30 years – I had actually got a place in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. I don’t expect my Bill to become law – I came 18th in the ballot and the chances of such a bill getting through the required stages would be slim even if a government were supportive. But if we are to restore some belief in the political system, this wouldn’t be a bad place to start.

Image: © Parliamentary copyright.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 08:59 PM | Permalink

A debate in Forest of Dean, where I, Bruce Kent from CND and the local MP Mark Harper – who is also the Tory spokesman on Defence – were the speakers, came down decisively against Trident renewal. A vote at the end of the debate showed 125 people against renewal with only 15 in favour.

The debate was chaired by Ian Mean, the editor of the local newspaper, the Gloucester Citizen and they had done a good job of running articles in the days leading up to the debate so that people were aware it was taking place. CND had also sent down copies of their Alternative White Paper for distribution. None the less, despite its proximity to Gloucester, Forest of Dean is generally a rural constituency.

Such meetings can often be sparsely attended, to add to which, the trains had not recovered from the blockages caused by Thursday’s storms. I have to admit that I was concerned whether the meeting would be a success.

So when I arrived and found the hall packed with at least 150 people, it was the strongest possible indication that people want a debate to take place - and a thorough refutation of the idea that the UK population are somehow bored of politics. They may be bored of spin, and mistrustful of some politicians, but when they have an opportunity to take part in a debate, voice their opinion, they are eager to do so.

Having such an emphatic margin of victory was simply the icing on the cake of a very positive evening.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:58 PM | Permalink

(From Comment is Free)

The report last Sunday about a likely Israeli/US bombing raid on nuclear installations in Iran, plus the news that the Pentagon is proposing to send a second aircraft carrier to increase the huge US naval build-up in the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, increasingly suggests that Bush's last throw in the Middle East is not the extra 21,500 US troops to try to stabilise Iraq, but a settling of scores with the real enemy, Iran. Indeed recent events are eerily reminiscent of the path to war in Iraq four years ago. The news this morning of a US military raid on an Iranian consulate in the Iraqi town of Irbil will only stoke tensions more.

It is said that US military planners believe that after five nights of bombing, the nuclear targets could be destroyed. However, because of the gaps in US intelligence on Iran, there can be no certainty about how much of the Iranian nuclear programme might survive. Furthermore, to limit likely retaliation, the target range would have to be substantially expanded. Iran's medium-range ballistic missiles that have recently been moved closer to Iraq would have be hit, as well as 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. And in order to protect Gulf shipping, Iranian cruise missile sites, diesel submarines, and other naval assets would need to be targeted. In addition, Iran's two chemical weapons production plants would no doubt be added to the hit list.

Whether sustained air bombardment along these lines would destabilise, let alone overthrow, the regime is however quite a different question. If this is the real US goal, as Colonel Sam Gardiner, USAF (retired) former Pentagon war games planner, has recently been declaring, the far more likely result is that such strikes will strengthen rather than weaken the clerical leadership and harden resistance even of a recalcitrant nation behind them. Air blitzes never succeeded with their objectives in the Second World War, nor in Korea or Vietnam, nor most recently in Lebanon. There is no reason to expect any different result in Iran. Even if all the military targets could be put out of action, which is highly unlikely, Iran also has millions of fellow Shia supporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, who would very likely rise in revolt, and it must be very doubtful if American forces in the region could contain such a heightened and widespread insurgency. As an Iranian general recently commented to the US, "you can start a war, but it won't be you who finishes it".

Continue reading "A war down memory lane" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:31 PM | Permalink

After we handed in the CND Alternative White Paper in to No 10 yesterday, I asked Tony Blair, when he made his Trident announcement in the Commons: "At a cost of up to £75bn, including maintenance costs over a 30 year lifespan, how can his proposal conceivably be justified in an utterly different post Cold War environment, when it will severely restrict much more needed conventional defence expenditure, it will clearly undermine the nuclear non-proliferation treaty worldwide and it will drain off colossal sums of money from where it is most needed, dealing with the real threats that face us from terrorism, climate change and long term energy insecurity?"

The only answer, repeatedly, from Blair was that we had to have nuclear weapons because you never know what nuclear armed enemies might arise to threaten us in future. There are three counters to this argument which lethally undermine it.

Continue reading "No security with Trident" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:28 PM | Permalink

Article from The Times

The seismic shift in British attitudes to the European Union inevitably draws our relationship with the United States into focus too. There are two reasons for continuing to hug America close. One is the belief, that Tony Blair shares, that European and British politics is downstream of Washington, so the best way to influence events is to keep as close as possible to whoever is president.

Second we are so dependent on the Americans for our strategic defence capability that we have no alternative but to stay close. It is widely believed that we cannot fire cruise missiles or use our nuclear weapons or even operate our ballistic missile submarines without US permission. Both claims need to be re-evaluated.

On the first, any cost-benefit examination of the “special relationship” exposes how one-sided it has always been. In 1982, the State Department declined to support Britain over the Falklands until President Reagan intervened, and successive US governments turned a blind eye to IRA fundraising. As a counter to the blind adherence to the US line over Afghanistan and Iraq, it is claimed that Mr Blair persuaded the US to return to the UN for a second resolution over Iraq, but that was only because American troop formations were not yet ready.

As for the second claim, do we need access to US technical military sophistication and strategic thinking? The problem here is that Britain’s dependence can only intensify as the US funnels mega sums into reinforcing its military dominance. The choice is between accepting that subservience indefinitely or paying a short-term, albeit significant, price to secure greater independence. The long-term balance of advantage strongly favours the latter.

The aim of US foreign and military policy is to preserve and strengthen unilateral American hegemony, while the aim of British foreign policy must be a stronger role for the United Nations in support of multilateralism and the rule of international law. Those goals clearly do not coincide, as we have recently seen most starkly over Iraq. Where they differ our bottom line must be British interests, not Washington interests. That requires that we keep open the option of supporting

UN or EU operations even if it conflicts with American goals, and therefore slowly but systematically develop a more independent technological base.

We should insist on significantly greater reciprocity. Despite Britain providing valued international support for the US in Iraq, the enormous contracts for rebuilding the economy have gone overwhelmingly to American companies, notably Halliburton. British territory is currently used exclusively for US purposes, whether at Fairford for the B52s or Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, but without any obvious quid pro quo. British intelligence data, primarily from GCHQ at Cheltenham, is made fully available to the US communications intelligence agencies, but with limited traffic the other way. The CIA often sits on the UK Joint Intelligence Committee, but MI6 does not sit on its top intelligence body. The Fylingdales radar station in Yorkshire remains an integral outpost of the Star Wars early warning system, and may well be upgraded to US specifications with little or no benefit to the UK. Most recently, Britain has agreed, shamefully, to extradite Britons to the US without even prima-facie evidence of guilt, yet the US refuses to extradite their citizens on that basis.

While negotiating the European constitution, Britain repeatedly, and rightly, asserted “red lines”. We should do the same in negotiating with the US over foreign and defence policy. We should be prepared to criticise the US more openly. That includes recent occasions when the US reneged on the Kyoto protocol, boycotted the International Criminal Court, refused to sign a nuclear test ban treaty, withdrew from the international bioweapons treaty and broke its promise at the Doha World Trade Organisation meeting to provide cheap drugs to counter epidemics in developing countries.

And we should determine the earliest point at which UK troops can be safely withdrawn from Iraq, not tamely accept US pressure to stay on to help to provide cover for the US occupation.

Posted by Michael Meacher at 06:32 PM | Permalink

The west is losing the war on terror on a global scale. Only if Britain takes an independent line can we protect our security

The Guardian

Despite the revelations of torture, the US-British policy is unchanged: see this historic struggle through to its conclusion for the sake of democracy and civilisation; apply overwhelming force against terrorists and extremists; and show unremitting resolve to root out resistance wherever it is found. Whether it is Americans in Iraq, Israelis in Palestine or the west against al-Qaida, the approach is the same: a policy proclaimed in the name of freedom, tolerance and a decent world order that, ironically, could hardly be better calculated to produce the opposite.

The policy is lethally flawed by its unwillingness to contemplate what lies behind the hatred: why scores of young people are prepared to blow themselves up, why 19 highly educated young men were ready to destroy themselves and thousands of others in the 9/11 hijackings, and why resistance is growing depsite the likelihood of insurgents being killed. To deal with this reality, we first have to understand it.

The appeal of Osama bin Laden lies in his capacity to radicalise and mobilise the world's Muslims. His denunciation of the US military occupation of the holy land of Saudi Arabia, his condemnation of repressive, corrupt Arab states - often seen as western inspired - his invective against US domination of the Middle East and protection of Israel, and his capacity to fight back have all resonated in the Arab street.

Continue reading "Playing Bin Laden's game" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Observer

Lord Hutton will report shortly on the 'circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly', but is likely to regard as beyond his remit such key questions as how the September 2002 dossier appears to include several dishonest claims and whether the country was falsely led into war. It is crucial, if Lord Hutton feels unable to tackle these central issues, that a separate judicial inquiry is now set up to establish beyond doubt what the truth really is and what the implications are for Britain's governance.

On 10 February last year, five weeks before the war started, the Government's Joint Intelligence Committee gave its assessment that there was no evidence that Iraq had provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, though in the event of an imminent regime collapse 'there would be a risk of transfer of such material'; in other words an attack on Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism. Tony Blair did not disclose this briefing before the war, and it only became known when the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee released it on 11 September.

It is quite clear that throughout 2002 both Washington and London were actively seeking, contrary to intelligence assessments, evidence to justify the case for war. Four key items were deployed for this purpose. One was almost immediately exposed as plagiarised from a student thesis more than 10 years old. The other three were documents purporting to show that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium for nuclear bombs from Niger, the claim that Iraq was able to deploy WMDs within 45 minutes, and 'evidence' from a top-level Iraqi defector that Iraq had produced several tons of the deadly nerve agent VX.

Each of these raise worrying questions of credibility which require systematic investigation by an independent inquiry. However, enough of the facts are now known to draw some important conclusions.

Continue reading "The truth about WMD lies beyond Hutton" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 04:03 AM | Permalink

This article originally appeared in The Financial Times

Four months ago Britain's oil imports exceeded exports, heralding the decline in North Sea oil already well under way. North Sea oil output peaked at about 2.9 million bpd (barrels per day) in 1999, and has been predicted to nearly halve to only 1.6 million bpd by 2007. Even the latest discovery of the new Buzzard field, the biggest British oil find in a decade with a total of 0.4 million barrels recoverable, won't alter much the overall picture.

This prospect might not be so bleak were it not that similar trends are now becoming manifest across the world. The three main oil-producing regions are OPEC, the former Soviet Union, and the rest of the world. Modelling OPEC's future production is open to some question, but it is expected to peak in 2020 at about 40-45 million bpd. The under-production in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s following the Soviet collapse is now leading to a new surge in East Siberia and Sakhalin and new discoveries in the Caspian, which will yield a peak of about 10 million bpd in 2010. For the remaining 40 or more major oil-producing countries around the world as a whole, the broad overall pattern is similar, with some local variations.

Combining the three crude oil models for OPEC, the former Soviet Union and the rest of the world puts ultimate world oil recovery at some 2,200 billion barrels, with a peak at about 80 million bpd between 2010 and 2020. To this may be added non-conventional oil and other liquids brought into commercial production by the rising oil price as oil scarcity tightens. This includes oil from coal and shale, bitumen and derived synthetics, heavy and extra heavy oil, deep-water oil, polar oil and liquids from gas fields and gas plants. These sources, though at very much greater cost, could provide an ultimate recovery of about 800 billion barrels, and might peak in 2050 at around 20 million bpd. The combined model for all sources suggests a peak of about 90 million bpd around 2015.

Continue reading "Plan now for a world without oil" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:35 AM | Permalink

This article originally appeared in The Guardian

David Kelly referred obliquely to Operation Rockingham. What role did this mysterious cell play in justifying the Iraq war?

David Kelly, giving evidence to the prime minister's intelligence and security committee in closed session on July 16 - the day before his suicide - made a comment the significance of which has so far been missed. He said: "Within the defence intelligence services I liaise with the Rockingham cell." Unfortunately nobody on the committee followed up this lead, which is a pity because the Rockingham reference may turn out to be very important indeed.

What is the role of the Rockingham cell? The evidence comes from a former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, who had been a US military intelligence officer for eight years and served on the staff of General Schwarzkopf, the US commander of allied forces in the first Gulf war. He has described himself as a card-carrying Republican who voted for Bush, but he distinguished himself in insisting before the Iraq war, and was almost alone in doing so, that almost all of Iraq's WMD had been destroyed as a result of inspections, and the rest either used or destroyed in the first Gulf war. In terms, therefore, of proven accuracy of judgment and weight of experience of the workings of western military intelligence, he is a highly reliable source.

Continue reading "The very secret service" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:30 AM | Permalink

This article was first published in The Guardian.

The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.

We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

Continue reading "This war on terrorism is bogus" »

Posted by Michael Meacher at 03:02 AM | Permalink

From The Times

World peace and the future of the planet are threatened by the overwhelming power of an "aggressive and unilateralist America" run by a right-wing President with close connections to the oil industry.

Such is the view of Michael Meacher, who until being sacked, or "liberated" as he put it, in last week's reshuffle had spent six years as Environment Minister. During his period in office he was described as Tony Blair's green fig leaf, a lone voice supporting environmental policies or even the last Bennite in government.

In an interview with The Times, Mr Meacher insisted that none of this was really true. He is his own man and a supporter of the Prime Minister and of a Government that has worked as a team since coming to power to "embed a fresh approach to sustainable development".

His charity does not, however, extend across the Atlantic to George Bush, with whom Mr Blair has forged a close alliance in the war against terrorism. Mr Meacher's departure from the Government comes as the Kyoto Protocol for tackling climate change is "on the cusp" of international ratification, despite the US President's opposition.

He said that America's stated reasons for refusing to sign up are "ridiculous and wrong-headed". The cost of adhering to the protocol, he said, would be between 0.1 and 1 per cent of the extra growth predicted for America by 2010. "They say, what about the rest of the world like China and India? But those coutries will only come on board if the rich nations show they mean business."

Instead, he suggested that a more sinister motive may lie behind Washington's decision as he highlighted the new US investments in oil production in Africa and South America. "Everyone knows that George Bush is a Texas oil man, his family have long-term connections, nearly all his senior advisers and closest aides have connections to a very, very powerful oil industry," he said. "I think that is a relevant consideration. They believe in the oil business and the traditional way of generating power and if they gain personally that is a bonus."

Mr Meacher said that these interests played their part in the decision to go to war in Iraq: "America is pursuing future oil supplies with extreme vigour, so it is difficult, when you look at Iraq, which has the second biggest oil reserves in the world, not to think it was a factor."

He did not, contrary to reports at the time, oppose military action. "What persuaded me was the idea that getting rid of a murderous, barbarous, genocidal regime responsible for millons of deaths overrode anything else," he said. "It was a justification for military action." He added: "It was not the reason why we went to war. My view is that we went to war because America wanted to establish a political and military platform in the Middle East, it saw a need for oil and of course it wished to support Israel. Weapons of mass destruction, if they existed, even on the most threatening predictions, were certainly not going to put Europe or the US at risk. But Tony Blair took the view that if you are a close ally you have more influence than if you are a protagonist. That is a view which still prevails. The problem is that Bush is not Clinton."

Mr Meacher is deeply concerned about the US "occupation" of Iraq and the sidelining of the UN, suggesting that Mr Blair should start puting some distance between himself and Washington. "The biggest political problem in the world today is the overwhelming power of the US. That is very serious for the world order. How you deal with an aggressive unilateralist like America is a problem for us all, but there are no easy answers."

Mr Meacher denied that Britain had been too soft on America on Kyoto, saying that Mr Blair had been taken by surprise by Mr Bush's decision to oppose ratification and had since tried to bring the US "on board" for a programme to reduce fossil-fuel emissions through technological change.

Since being sacked last week, however, he has focused his efforts on the looming government decision on allowing commericial production of genetically modified crops. Mr Meacher said that the GM food lobby had already won its battle in America, partly because of the links between the Washington Adminstration and firms like Monsanto.

Mr Meacher talked about the "happy days" spent negotiating with his EU counterparts on the environment, suggesting that Europe, which has risked a trade war with the US by opposing GM food, could be a bulwark against Washington. He promised to be a "sympathetic but critical friend" of the Government, saying it had done much good for the NHS and education but should pay more attention to a traditional Labour agenda of tackling poverty and improving equality.

From his new position on the backbenches, however, he will have already discovered that his views about Mr Bush chime with those of many of his colleagues. "My view is that we should not get too close to America. It is an important friend and ally, but in the end we should make our judgments about where the public interest lies and we should take note of public opinion in that as well."

Posted by Michael Meacher at 05:58 PM | Permalink