SPOKESMAN BOOKS
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation
|
|
Catalogue
|
Haditha Ethics - From Iraq to Iran?
The Spokesman, 91
THE BERTRAND RUSSELL PEACE FOUNDATION
2006
Number 20
Ken
Coates interviewed by K. Kia. A journalist from Fars Press in Iran sent
some questions, which are printed in italic type. Ken Coates’ replies are in
ordinary type.
How
does the achievement of uranium enrichment by Iran affect the regional and
global arrangements?
Well,
if men were normally rational creatures, it would not have any very marked
effect. The effect that it does have is based on the wholly unjustified
assumption that Iran is moving closer to the capacity to manufacture nuclear
weapons. Repeated denials by the Iranian authorities are scarcely reported in
the West, and obviously largely ignored.
It
was not always like this. In the days of the Shah, there were strenuous
efforts by the American Government to encourage Iran along the nuclear path.
But that was a different Iran. Today, it is clear that the central thrust of
the present criticisms of the Iranian administration is closely mixed with
hysteria. A non-hysterical response would seek to recover the initiative for
the creation of a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East, including
Iran, for sure, but also including Israel, which is the key proliferator in
the region, disposing, it is widely admitted, of some two hundred nuclear
warheads, including an arsenal of thermonuclear bombs.
If
a peaceful solution to nuclear proliferation were sought, surely it would be
difficult to achieve. But public opinion would find the argument compelling,
and that is the beginning of wisdom.
What
changes will be caused by these effects?
A
variety of warlike noises is being ‘justified’ by the Iranian scientific
advances. None of them can rest on honest argument. The result is a
whole range of harmful changes, undermining the peace of the region. If we
seek beneficial change, then surely it is high time to develop an extensive
and inclusive campaign to realise a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, by
mutual agreement. This should not only prohibit, by consent, the manufacture
of nuclear weapons by all participant states, but it should also prohibit the
deployment of nuclear weapons by external nuclear powers, for purposes of
intimidation and threats.
How
should Americans respond to Iran’s new nuclear status?
Arational
response would require a move away from reliance on nuclear weapons by the
Americans themselves, and by other existing nuclear powers. The
Non-Proliferation Treaty, properly interpreted, includes the commitment by
nuclear powers themselves to embark upon a thoroughgoing process of nuclear
disarmament. Although specific measures in this direction were agreed at the
beginning of the Millennium, they have not been implemented, nor even has
their implementation begun, however tentatively. It is this which has put the
Non-Proliferation Treaty in jeopardy.
In
the beginning it was seen as a means of affording security to non-nuclear
nations. Now it is seen instead as a means of policing the non-nuclear powers
by the nuclear ones. In particular, one nuclear power has assigned to itself
the role of universal judge, jury and guardian. If the NPT is to be
safeguarded, its status as a voluntary association should be maintained and
developed.
The
American and other client administrations have been deliberately changing the
phraseology of non-proliferation. Today, they commonly speak of counter
proliferation
measures, which imply the use of various kinds of force to prevent
proliferation. But the Non-Proliferation Treaty established no such
institutions, which have no democratic sanction, and no diplomatic validity.
The NPT, I repeat, was a voluntary engagement for those who possessed nuclear
weapons to negotiate comprehensive disarmament measures. It is clear that
present rhetoric on proliferation has been profoundly contaminated by
hypocrisy, and that those who genuinely seek to prevent nuclear proliferation
must recover an impartial respect for the relevant Treaties and maintain their
opposition to all nuclear weapons whatsoever.
Diego
Garcia: Court Victory on Right to Return
In
Spokesman 81, Lindsey Collen and Ragini Kistnasamy reported how the Indian
Ocean island of Diego Garcia was stolen from its residents by the British and
leased to the United States for the construction of a strategic military base
that was crucial to the conduct of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Now,
their campaigning group Lalit (www.lalitmauritius.com)
has sent this report of the latest victory in the long
campaign for the islanders’ right to return.
On
11 May 2006, the inhabitants of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the
Chagos Archipelago won their Court Case in the High Court in London for the
right to return to their islands. They were forcibly removed in the 1960s and
1970s by the British, who illegally stole the islands, and rented them to the
US Armed Forces for one of their largest military bases.
For
the first time in British history, the Queen of England’s signing of
‘Orders in Council’ has been overturned. These decrees take place behind
the back of Parliament. Two Orders in Council in the year 2004 banned
inhabitants of the Islands from returning, following an earlier court judgment
in 2000 granting the right to return.
The
inhabitants were forcibly removed to make way for the base, and the islands
were separated from the rest of the Mauritius Islands. Lalit has for 30 years
been running ongoing campaigns for the right to return plus reparations, for
the closing down of the military base, and for the re-unification of
Mauritius, through the decolonisation of what is called the ‘British Indian
Ocean Territories’.
Iraq:
50,000 US Troops to stay ‘for many years’
There
has been a lot of speculation about permanent American bases in Iraq.
Francis Harris contributed this interesting perception to the Daily
Telegraph on 12 June 2006.
‘America
plans to retain a garrison of 50,000 troops, one tenth of its entire army, in
Iraq for years to come, according to US media reports ... But despite fierce
domestic pressure to reduce troop levels before November’s critical mid-term
elections, there were growing signals that General George Casey, America’s
Iraq commander, may raise troop levels in the short-term. Mr Bush said in his
weekend radio address that ‘violence in Iraq may escalate’ as terrorists
tried to prove that they had survived the loss of their leader [Abu Musab al-Zarqawi].
General
Casey has already summoned his main reserve unit, a 3,500-man armoured brigade
based in Kuwait, and has alerted a Germany-based brigade that it may be needed
soon. Military planners have begun to assess the costs of keeping a 50,000-man
force in Iraq for a protracted period of time. At present the total number of
serving American troops is about 500,000. The plan has not yet received
presidential approval. But it would fit with the administration’s belief
that while troops numbers will fall, American forces will have to remain in
Iraq beyond Mr Bush’s departure from the White House in early 2009.
Military analysts have noted that significant American spending is
already being committed to permanent bases in Iraq. They say Iraq’s military
may soon be able to fight by itself, but it cannot feed or supply itself and
it has no air force to speak of ...’
Iraq
and Afghanistan: How many dying?
Dr
Gideon Polya has published some 130 works over four decades, most recently a
major pharmacological reference text Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive
Compounds (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and
is currently writing a book on global mortality. He is a contributing editor
to Media With Conscience News Magazine (www.mwcnews.net),
where a longer version of this article may be found.
Avoidable
mortality (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual
mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, well-run
country with the same demographics (that is, with the same birth rate and the
same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter
to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs –- it is the
bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal,
regional and global policies.
Today,
mainstream media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the
avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently
totalling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World
dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).
Several
years ago, as a humanist scientist interested in the fundamental problem of
human mortality, I set out to determine ‘avoidable mortality’ for every
country in the world since 1950, using publicly-accessible data from the UN
Population Division.
The
population, death rate, birth rate, under-5 infant mortality rate and other
demographic statistics from the UN go back to 1950, a time when all the world
potentially had access to the life-preserving basics such as universal
literacy, a tolerable per capita income, antibiotics, anti-malarials, mosquito
netting, soap, antiseptics, clean water, sanitation, some basic immunisations,
basic health care and preventative medicine.
My
approach was to graphically estimate base-line values of ‘expected mortality
rates’ for all countries of the world (a very complicated process). Having
this information it was possible to determine ‘avoidable mortality rates’
and thence ‘avoidable mortality’ for every country in the world since
1950. The post- 1950 avoidable mortality totalled 1.3 billion for the world,
1.25 billion for the non-European world and about 0.6 billion for the Muslim
world.
These
numbers were so horrendous that they demanded some sort of independent
corroboration. I achieved this by independently calculating the ‘under-5
infant mortality’ for every country in the world since 1950. This process,
based on UN infant mortality data, involved no complicated ‘base-line’
estimates the calculations simply involved straightforward arithmetic.
The
post-1950 ‘under-5 infant mortality’ has totalled 0.88 billion for the
world, 0.85 billion for the non-European world and about 0.4 billion for the
Muslim world. Further, comparisons with First World countries (which all have
very low infant mortality rates) revealed that for Third World countries about
90% of ‘under-5 infant mortality’ has been ‘avoidable’.
Avery
important number derived from this analysis is that for the non-European world
‘post-1950 under-5 infant mortality’ has been numerically about 0.7 of the
‘post-1950 avoidable mortality’. This has the important operational
consequence that if you know the ‘under-5 infant mortality’ for a high
mortality country, simply dividing by 0.7 will give you a rough idea of the
‘avoidable mortality’ (remembering that the ‘highly technical’
estimation of ‘avoidable mortality’ described above is arduous and
involves some complicated assumptions).
Over
the last few years I have been performing thousands of calculations relating
to avoidable mortality and writing a huge book on the subject. However, I have
also taken a lot of time trying to tell the world about this appalling
continuing catastrophe – following the example of Continental Europeans who
tried to tell an unresponsive world about the expanding Jewish Holocaust about
60-65 years ago.
In
particular, over the last two years I have reported the steadily increasing
post-invasion avoidable mortality and under-5 infant mortality in Occupied
Iraq and Afghanistan that now total 2.3 million and 1.8 million, respectively.
Every day 1,300 under-5 year old infants die in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan
(1,200 avoidably) and 29,000 under-5 year old infants die in the non-European
World (26,000 avoidably).
Under-5
infant mortality figures are presented in updated UNICEF reports for
essentially every country in the world. For Iraq and Afghanistan they tell us
the following: in 2004, the under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 in Occupied
Iraq, 359,000 in Occupied Afghanistan, and 1,000 in the occupying country
Australia (noting that in 2004 the populations of these countries were 28.1
million, 28.6 million and 19.9 million, respectively).
From
this data, assuming that the figures have been roughly the same each year
after invasion (they have actually got worse) we can readily estimate that the
post-invasion under-5 infant mortality in Occupied Iraq over three
years has
been 122,000 x 3 = 366,000 and that in Occupied Afghanistan over four
years has
been 359,000 x 4 = 1,436,000 i.e. a total of 1,802,000 [as compared to my
‘highly technical’ calculation of 1.8 million].
Assuming
for ‘bad outcome’ Third World countries that ‘under-5 infant
mortality’ is numerically about 0.7 of the ‘avoidable mortality’, we can
estimate that the post-invasion avoidable mortality in Occupied Iraq and
Afghanistan = 1,802,000/0.7 = 2.6 million [as compared to my ‘highly
technical’ calculation of 2.3 million].
Similarly,
the post-invasion ‘avoidable mortality’ can be estimated roughly to be
366,000/0.7 = 0.5 million for Occupied Iraq and 1,436,000/0.7 = 2.1 million
for Occupied Afghanistan [as compared to my ‘highly technical’ estimates
of 0.5 million and 1.8 million, respectively).
The
‘easy, layperson-friendly way’ yields essentially the same results for
post-invasion avoidable mortality in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan as my
‘careful, highly technical, precise method’ based on UN Population
Division data. It must be noted that this ‘easy, layperson-friendly’
approximate approach is only valid for ‘bad outcome non-European
countries’ - but then these are the countries we are interested in from an
urgent, humanitarian perspective (‘avoidable mortality’ as conservatively
measured by me is zero or essentially zero in other countries – even the
unusually elevated ‘avoidable mortality’ in Hungary, which is among the
countries in the world with the lowest infant mortality, ‘only’ accounts
for 35,000 Hungarians each year).
Gideon
Polya
