5 REASONS WHY THE IRAQ WAR WAS A MISTAKE

There are still people out there who continue to defend Tony Blair's decision to follow the US into war with Iraq. The reasons given for their pro-war stance are varied, but the most common tends to centre around the argument that the removal of Saddam has put an end to genocide and oppression, paving the way for democracy and freedom. This reasoning does not really paint an accurate picture of what life is like now for many Iraqis. Nor does it take into account the high price paid to remove Saddam. Here are 5 reasons why the war was a big mistake:

1. Legality of war 

Under international war, there are certain conditions that must be met before engaging in conflict with another country. These conditions were not met, a point that was not lost on the majority of the international community, and a reason why a subsequent vote in the UN favoured giving weapons inspectors more time to gather evidence, rather than using force. I recently read someone's argument for going to war which stated that we shouldn't let “legality” get in the way of doing what is morally right. There way be times when a quote such as this holds some validity, certainly in regards to some authoritarian regimes or to some archaic laws that are no longer relevant to the modern world. But, when it comes to international law, to ignore certain laws in order to justify acts of aggression only serves to encourage others to commit crimes if they deem it beneficial. How can we turn around and criticise a county who flaunts the law when we are also guilty of this.

2. The rationale for going to war was based on lies 

Many lies were bandied about during the build up to war, with Tony Blair and George Bush at the helms of their respective governments being the worst culprits. Many experts had doubts regarding the quality of the intelligence being cited as justification, Hans Blix being one example. But since then the information has been made public, making it quite clear that a mixture of lies and exaggerated truths were used to encourage public support for the war. Did Saddam Hussein have connections to Al-Qaeda. Did he possess WMDs? Was he a threat to us or our allies? Of course, we now all know that the answers to these questions are no. This therefore brings us on to the next point; what were the actual motives for war.

3. Immoral motives 

Since Iraq was not a threat, and Blair and Bush both stated at the beginning that regime change was not their objective, ruling out reasons based on humanitarian grounds and stability (or though this was later stated as an objective once the security threat could no longer be wheeled out as justification), then what on earth could have been driving our leaders to send our troops to invade a foreign land? Well, looking at who benefited most from the war, that is to say, mainly Western companies involved in oil, construction, security, as well as arms manufacturers and suppliers, then it's not hard to come to the conclusion that our motives were not born out of the highest of moral standards.

4. Death and suffering 

Civilian deaths related to the war are estimated to be anywhere between over 100,000 at the very conservative end, to over 600,000. Either way, the statistics are depressing and do not include long term injuries, both physical and mental. Then, added to that are the deaths and injuries that the coalition and Iraqi troops sustained. I know some feel little sympathy for Saddam's forces but they had the right, under international law, to resist foreign invaders. And whilst some troops were loyal to Saddam and/or Iraq, many fought out of fear for him. Can all this combined suffering we worth the removal of Saddam and his regime? As we know, the suffering continued long after regime change, and continues to this day.

5. The aftermath (the suffering continues) 

While some lives have undoubtedly improved post Saddam, like those of the Kurds in northern Iraq, many areas of the country are less stable and the quality of life has worsened when compared to Saddam's reign. Sectarian violence, unemployment, lack of education and access to healthcare are all common complaints, while woman's rights have also taken a step backwards.

As an outsider looking in, ask yourself, would you have preferred to live in Iraq pre or post regime change? I know in terms of my safety I would be better of picking the former. For Iraqis the answer to this question would depend on factors such as where they live or of what religion persuasion they are. What is clear is that for a great many number of Iraqis life has got much harder, and shows little sign of improvement any time soon.  

Drug Test For Every Employee

There is a school of thought at the moment that as part of the fight against drugs, every single employee should be drug tested at their place of work. This proposition seems to have gained at least some popular support, although as far as I can tell no politician is pushing for this yet. Leaving aside any possible breach of human rights and invasion of privacy, which is not to be taken lightly, this seems to me to be an ill-considered proposal which would have deeply damaging social implications.

Of course, the idea is that employees who take drugs will reconsider doing so, due to the possibility of loosing their job through being tested positive at work. This may well be the case for some occasional drug takers, but what happens to those, for example, who are regular cannabis smokers and who are not willing to forgo one of their pleasures? Estimates of adult cannabis usage in the UK put the figures anywhere between 6% - 9% of the population. Even if we take a very conservative estimate, that's well over 3 million cannabis users of working age. That's potentially 3 million people, many of whom are good and productive workers, now unemployed and claiming benefits. And the perverse thing is that takers of harder drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine, have a better chance of keeping their jobs as their drugs of choice take a much shorter period of time to work their way out of the body.

What a scandal this would lead to if passed in law. Employers would loose many of their best workers, those who lost their job would find it extremely difficult to find new employment, and the drain on our already very tight public funds would be immense. I'm not condoning anyone going into work under the influence of any drug, including alcohol, but as long as an employee is doing their job to a satisfactory level, is it really of any concern to the employer what they do outside of work? 

MEP Ashley Fox Backs Apartheid Regime

I recently emailed MEP Ashley Fox regarding the vote on the EU-Israel Protocol on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA). The vote takes place on October 23^rd 2012 and if implemented would essentially mean better trade conditions between the EU and Israel. I asked Ashley Fox to show support for Palestinian human rights by voting against this agreement.

Below is his response:

Thank you for your e-mail. Please allow me to be absolutely clear on what is happening.

The European Union is discussing a protocol to an already existing agreement between the EU and Israel. I believe that refusing consent to this Protocol would cause economic damage to both the EU and Israel at this time of international financial crisis. It would also affect the EU's ability to project positive political influence within Israel for promoting lasting peace in the region. I support EU trade agreements with both the Palestinian and Israeli Authorities and will continue to do so.

I believe than an eventual progression from the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords towards a two state solution will lead to final and comprehensive settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on implementation of the Road Map with land for peace swaps. This would create a peaceful and sovereign Palestinian State, with Israel enjoying secure and recognised borders. Each country should enjoy normal relations and capacity for trade with its neighbours.

I support the PA led by President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad as the legitimate government of the Palestinians. Any sovereign future Palestinian state would have to be able to reign in terrorist groups such as Hamas, which has to date refused to uphold the Oslo Peace Accords.

The Association Agreement with Israel (signed in 1995 and in force from 2000) does not include either the occupied territories, or goods originating in these territories. Indeed, goods originating from the Israeli occupied territories are not entitled to preferential tariff treatment under Community law.

I believe that Palestine should be governed by the Palestinian people. I have sought assurances from the European Commission that any free trade agreement with Israel includes safeguards to prevent the economic exploitation of the West Bank and Gaza territories.

I believe that to effectively isolate Israel will only exacerbate the problems in the region. Trade allows the flow of goods and with them ideas. It allows us to influence Israel in ways that would not be possible if we stopped trading with them. Indeed, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso visited Palestine in July this year to show that support.

Israel has behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation. The only way to change this behaviour is through trade and 'soft' influence. Forcing Israel into an isolated corner has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. I will continue to support free trade agreements, with proper safeguards, with both Palestine and Israel.

Yours sincerely,

Ashley Fox

Unsatisfied with his response which showed either a lack of compassion or a large amount of ignorance, I replied:

Dear Mr Fox

Thank you for replying to my email regarding the ACAA agreement. However, I feel I must reply in response to some of the points you have made as they are inaccurate.

1.) “refusing consent to this Protocol would cause economic damage to both the EU and Israel”.

Although refusing consent may cause some minor adverse effects to the economy of the EU, any negative consequences to the Israeli economy can only be a positive outcome, as this would highlight two important points: Firstly, that we are unwilling to improve trade conditions with an apartheid regime that consistently breaks international law through the abuse of human rights and the occupation of Palestinian land. Secondly, as trade with Europe and probably the world will be hampered, Israel's economy, and therefore it's people, will suffer as a consequence, possibly causing them pause for thought regrading their harmful policies.

2.)  “the EU's ability to project positive political influence within Israel”.

Israel currently enjoys brilliant trade relations with countries such as ourselves and the US. This has only helped to enable Israel to implement and maintain its system of oppression. If we improve Israel's trade prospects what kind of message would that really send? Can't you see that by doing this we will be condoning their despicable policies and actions?

3.)  “Any sovereign future Palestinian state would have to be able to reign in terrorist groups such as Hamas, which has to date refused to uphold the Oslo Peace Accords.”

Hamas have committed some abhorrent crimes, I would not question this. But so have Israel and on a much larger scale. Israel is a terrorist state; anyone who has an interest in this issue and is without bias, knows this. Assassinations, indiscriminate killings and sometimes the intended killing of civilians, torture, the demolition of civilian structures ( houses in particular), detention without trial (including children), these are all done systematically and on a regular basis by the state of Israel. Therefore, do you not agree that if Hamas has to be reigned in, so does Israel?

As far as upholding the Oslo Peace Accords, why are you not also referring to Israel's continued illegal settlement building, as well as the crimes just mentioned above?

4.)  “The Association Agreement with Israel does not include either the occupied territories , or goods originating in these territories.”

This may be true but many illegal Israeli settlement goods are sold throughout Britain, many through the big supermarket chains. Like I said, we already have good trade relations with Israel, and so far we have not used this as a lever to affect change. Why is this? You state that “to isolate Israel will only exacerbate the problems in the region”, but how much worse can it get for the Palestinians? Didn't boycotts and sanctions help to bring apartheid in South Africa to an end?

5.)  “Israel has behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation.”

I think you would do better to turn this sentence around – Palestinians have behaved appallingly in many ways, but not without provocation. Israel is a prosperous country, many of the population have access to good healthcare, education and jobs. This is not true of Palestine, where the majority of the population live in poverty with very little hope for a better future. Even the most basic and essential supplies sent to them by the international community are often stopped from reaching them by the Israel. It is this lack of hope and desperation that sometimes leads Palestinians to commit horrific acts of violence.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would very much appreciate a reply to the points I have set out. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

I now await his response, fully aware that he will go ahead and vote yes to this agreement anyway. It will be interesting to see how he justifies voting yes when answering the questions I put to him.