|
|
|
CND in the News
CND in the News: 13-20 March 2006
…………………………………………….
1 The US and Britain are nuclear hypocrites
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=8474
A Trident submarine. Britain and the US’s nuclear weapons are a
threat to our planet
The US and Britain are threatening Iran, accusing the regime of developing
a nuclear weapons programme. Kate Hudson, the chair of the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), spoke to Socialist Worker, exposing
the Western powers’ hypocrisy
Iran is being accused of breaking the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
(NPT) by the West. The NPT is designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
It was originally signed by the US, the Soviet Union and Britain in 1968,
and since by over 180 states.
All of the states that signed the NPT have a number of obligations. There
are three parts to the treaty.
Firstly, the countries that already had nuclear weaponry when the treaty
was signed, such as Britain and the US, pledged to disarm. Secondly, countries
that signed up to the treaty and did not already have nuclear weapons
pledged not to build them. The stated aim was to end the age of nuclear
weaponry. The third part of the treaty is that states complying can develop
nuclear power, and will be helped by the other states that have the technology
and resources.
Inspection systems, set up by the International Atomic Energy Authority,
are designed to make sure no one cheats. As a signatory of the NPT, Iran
is entitled to develop nuclear power. It has had a nuclear power programme
since the 1970s. It has been helped at times by both the US and Britain.
Iran maintains that it is pursuing a programme of civilian nuclear power,
while the US says it is developing nuclear weapons. There is no evidence
that Iran is doing anything other than pursuing a programme to develop
nuclear power. So why is it being condemned?
Iran has signed up to a part of the NPT which means that it is subjected
to more frequent and more intrusive inspections. This an indignity that
neither the US or Britain put themselves through. These rigorous inspections
have found nothing to suggest that Iran is attempting to build nuclear
weapons.
The one area where Iran can be called into question is that prior to 2003
it did not acknowledge the full scale of its nuclear development. But
that was resolved three years ago. The stories coming out now are pure
spin. There is a very great danger that this spin over Iran’s nuclear
power programme will be used in the same way as the claims about Weapons
of Mass Destruction was used over Iraq in 2003. Governments are playing
on people’s concerns about the regime in Iran.
But the issue is not really about nuclear weapons. It is about who controls
Iran’s oil and gas. The spin is part of the US plan for regional
dominance. I don’t think that the US and Britain are going to invade
Iran. It seems more likely that they will use air strikes. Iran is a much
stronger country than Iraq was three years ago. The external rhetoric
has united groups in the country who might previously been divided, and
Iran has not suffered years of sanctions.
It is also possible that the US will use tactical nuclear weapons or that
Israel – the only nuclear power in the Middle East – will
act.
Israel is supported by the US. Despite many resolutions being passed by
the United Nations calling for an end to nuclear weapons in the region
no action has been taken to force Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons.
Everything about the current situation is hypocritical. Both the US and
Britain have built new nuclear weapons since signing the NPT.
Tony Blair is currently in the process of deciding whether to replace
the Trident nuclear misille system. North Korea is now in a position where
its government feels that nuclear weapons are necessary. We need to pursue
a path internationally that will bring an end to the dependance on nuclear
weapons. The current path that the US and Britain are pursuing could have
disastrous consequences for us all.
……………………………………………..
2 MPs begin Trident probe
Tuesday, 14 Mar 2006 13:40
http://www.politics.co.uk/domestic-policy/mps-begin-trident-probe-$17068271.htm
MPs today began an inquiry into Britain's nuclear deterrent, looking specifically
at whether a new system would be introduced to replace Trident. The government
has insisted that no decision on replacing the ageing nuclear system,
which could cost up to £20 billion, would take place without public
discussion.
However, foreign secretary Jack Straw yesterday refused to either confirm
or deny media reports that work had already secretly begun on building
a new system with the US. He told Today ministers were "giving consideration
to the development of a new system", but said whatever was decided
would be compatible with Britain's obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty.
According to The Sunday Times, the new system has been in development
since May, based on existing components so it does not need to be tested
– allowing Britain to avoid breaching the nuclear test ban.
Speaking yesterday, Mr Straw said: "As a nuclear weapons state we
are entitled to have [a] nuclear weapons system and at the same time what
we have done is reduce the number of weapons systems that we have from
three to one. "Now there is an issue about the future of Trident
but [defence secretary] John Reid has made it perfectly clear that there
will indeed be discussions." Questioned about the issue afterwards,
Tony Blair's official spokesman told journalists that "we are in
the process of starting a process of thinking about it", but said
he did not think the results of this "would be this month, or the
next".
Today's inquiry by the defence committee will see a number of experts,
including some from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND),
give evidence on the context in which the decision about replacing Trident
will be made, and the timeframe involved.
Its investigations, which will extend over several evidence sessions,
will consider the threats to Britain that the nuclear deterrent is designed
to combat, including which other countries might develop nuclear weapons
in the future. The nuclear deterrent is a divisive issue within the Labour
party, which for many years was closely allied to the CND,
and many MPs are concerned they will not have a proper say in the future
of Britain's nuclear arsenal.
Giving evidence to senior MPs last month, Mr Blair said he expected to
have a "clear idea of the timeline" in which decisions must
be taken by the year. He refused to confirm MPs would have a vote on replacing
Trident, but insisted there would be a full parliamentary debate, and
added: "I am not committing myself to it, but I am not ruling it
out either."
……………………………………………..
3 Protesters call for halt to city visit of Bush aide Rice
March 16 2006
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk
ANTI-WAR campaigners last night launched a lobby urging council leaders
to stop Condoleezza Rice visiting Merseyside.
Around 40 people staged a rally outside Liverpool town hall in protest
at the proposed visit by the US Secretary of State later this month, as
councillors arrived for their monthly meeting.
Mark Holt, president of the Merseyside Stop the War coalition, was granted
permission to address the full council chamber. He argued campaigners
did not want the region to entertain a politician prepared to "wage
war in Iraq" and urged the city to withdraw co-operation for Ms Rice's
visit"Condoleezza Rice has blood on her hands. I implore you please
do not facilitate her visit. I implore you to make a statement to the
media either as a council or as individual councillors that she is not
welcome here!
"Think of the hundred thousand Iraqis who have died and of the children.
Think of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition. Think
of our soldiers who have died needlessly in this needless war." But
later council leader Warren Bradley told the Daily Post he would not bow
to the pressure. He said: "Condoleezza Rice's visit to Liverpool
is a great opportunity for this city to show off its fantastic renaissance
and unrivalled cultural offer. "It will focus the world's media attention
on Liverpool and showcase our city. "As Liberal Democrat leader of
Liverpool city council, I will also be using her visit to outline my personal
concerns and those of my party about the war in Iraq."
Ms Rice is being invited by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, but will also
hear presentations about Liverpool's forthcoming Capital of Culture year
and meet city leaders and dignitaries. The Philharmonic Hall is preparing
a gala concert on the "celebrate Liverpool" theme, hosted by
city poet Roger McGough, which will include a performance by the Royal
Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. It is thought the 51-year-old will fly
into Liverpool John Lennon airport on presidential jet Air Force Two and
be entertained in the city as part of a UK tour.
Specific details of the visit have been withheld in order to minimise
the security risk. But some campaigners have already vowed to disrupt
the Bush aide's visit, with a protest outside the Phil. Paul Sillet, of
the Merseyside Stop the War Coalition said campaigners were planning a
large scale peaceful protest for the day of Ms Rice's visit.
But Patricia Peter, manager for the RLPO said: "This is an opportunity
to showcase our talents. "Because of the high profile focus of the
visit the world's media will be looking at Liverpool and we can't miss
out on that. "We absolutely and fully support people's right to protest
and have their voices heard, and we think that they should. "If the
city refused to host Ms Rice's visit then that opportunity to have people's
voices heard directly would be lost." A close confidante of President
George Bush, Ms Rice has risen rapidly through the ranks in the White
House, previously holding the post of US National Security Adviser.
Gerry Poole, co-chairman of Merseyside CND, said: "It
is with the greatest anger, and a sense of dismay that we learn of the
forthcoming visit of Condoleezza Rice, to our fair city. "And that
she should be feted and welcomed by our city fathers, and furthermore
be granted the honour of a gala concert by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic,
is totally beyond belief. "It should be remembered, that this woman
has been involved from the very start with the illegal attack and occupation
in Iraq, the policy of rendition, and the illegal detention of so many
people in Guantanamo Bay.
"Our hearts also go out to the many families in the North West, who
have lost sons and fathers in this disgusting and illegal war, that has
been aided and abetted by this woman. "We would call upon all our
fellow citizens to boycott the gala concert at the Philharmonic, and to
the musicians we would say be true to your noble calling, and refuse to
play for this occasion."
A spokesman for Merseyside Police said: "We are currently talking
to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the plans. No more information
is currently available."
……………………………………………..
4 250 back CND call to scrap nuclear subs
16 March 2006
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=342856
MORE than 250 Carlisle anti-nuclear campaigners have signed a petition
against possible plans to replace Britain’s aging Trident nuclear
submarines. Members of the north Cumbrian branch of the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) collected the names in three hours
in the city centre.
The group is now preparing to stage an eventagainst the moves in the
city’s Old Town Hall, where Pendle MP Gordon Prentice will be among
the speakers. It will be held on Saturday, March 25 from 7pm.
Local pressure comes as ministers in London begin an inquiry into the
UK’s nuclear weapons arsenal. A Commons defence committee is examining
whether the UK should replace its Trident weapons system, which is expected
to be obsolete by 2020. It is taking evidence from a range of experts
about the type of threat the UK might face in 20 years’ time.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has pledged the ‘fullest debate’
before any decision is taken. Critics say there is no threat which justifies
replacing Trident. The cost of replacing Trident could reach £20
billion.
……………………………………………..
5 MPs to probe Trident replacement
March 14, 2006, BBC News
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=27804
The Commons defence committee is to start examining whether the UK should
replace its nuclear weapons system. Critics say there is no threat facing
Britain which justifies replacing the Trident missile system, which will
become obsolete in about 2020.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the UK is "entitled" to have
the weapons. Tony Blair has promised the "fullest possible"
debate on the issue, and said a decision on replacing Trident would be
taken before the next election. The prime minister said last month that
by the end of the year "we should have a clear idea of the timeline"
for a debate on replacing Trident. However, asked if he would promise
a Commons vote on replacing Trident, he said: "I'm not committing
myself to a vote... not ruling it out either."
The MPs on the House of Commons Defence Committee do not have the power
to decide on policy, but the committee is influential. The committee is
holding a series of inquiries over the course of the current Parliament
"with the intention of informing the public debate on the future
of the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent".
On Tuesday it begins its first inquiry, looking at the threats the "strategic
nuclear deterrent is currently intended to combat" and to "consider
what other states or organisations could develop nuclear weapons capabilities
by 2025". It will also consider the timetable in which decisions
on replacing Trident will have to be taken and implemented. The cost of
replacing the UK's four submarines armed with Trident missiles could top
£10bn.
'Work under way'
Witnesses due to give evidence to the committee on Tuesday include experts
from the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Royal United Services
Institute, Foreign Policy Centre, Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy
and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Asked about a report in the Sunday Times that a new UK nuclear weapon
was already being developed, Mr Straw said: "We are giving consideration
to the development of a new system." The paper reported that an anonymous
senior British source had said that work on the weapon had been under
way since Mr Blair was re-elected last May. Mr Straw said the UK was "entitled
to have a nuclear weapons system", and had reduced the numbers of
systems it had from three to one. Asked if a successor to Trident was
already being developed, Mr Straw said: "There is a discussion about
whether we do."
The prime minister's official spokesman later said: "We are in a
process of thinking about thinking about it," but added, "not
this month and not next month".
Last year, a group of writers, led by Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter,
wrote an open letter to MPs saying there was "no legitimate political,
military or moral reason" for replacing Trident
.……………………………………………..
6 U.K. debates nuclear deterrent
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060315-112631-2632r
LONDON, March 15 (UPI) -- As the international community grapples with
Iran over its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, one of the leading members
of the charge against the Islamic Republic is locked in a domestic dispute
over its own nuclear future. Britain is gripped by an intense debate over
whether to replace its ageing nuclear deterrent, the Trident missile system.
But as analysts, campaigners and politicians go head to head over the
merits and drawbacks of such a move, reports have begun to emerge suggesting
the government has already begun developing a replacement in secret.
The Trident weapons system -- a ballistic system of missiles with multiple
warheads housed on four submarines -- is expected to be obsolete by 2020.
With any potential replacement requiring years of development, the government
says a decision must be taken by the end of the current parliament, which
ends in 2010.
The government insists that in an age of continuing security threats,
it is essential for Britain to maintain a nuclear deterrent. But analysts
and parliamentarians are divided on the issue, with many arguing that
such a need evaporated with the end of the Cold War. A replacement for
Trident would also be extremely costly, with some independent estimates
suggesting a figure of $35 billion. Opponents also argue that the move
could violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which nuclear
powers are obliged to take steps aimed at the cessation of the nuclear
arms race and nuclear disarmament.
An influential committee of parliamentarians Tuesday began hearing evidence
from analysts, campaigners and politicians, as it started its probe into
the potential replacement of the Trident system. While the group has no
direct say in government policy, a negative verdict could force the government
to allow a vote in Parliament, a move it has so far refused to commit
to.
Lee Willett, of defense think-tank the Royal United Services Institute,
warned the committee would be dangerous for Britain to give up its nuclear
weapons just as other countries moved to acquire them. As many as 35 nations
might now possess the "know-how" that would enable them to build
a nuclear bomb, he said. "It is just in case for what we just don't
know. We do not know what the future will hold. While others have nuclear
weapons, the only thing that will deter a nuclear weapon is a nuclear
weapon."
Sir Michael Quinlan, a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defense,
raised the possibility of nuclear-armed terrorists, which he described
a "pretty horrific" thought. He went on: "As far as deterring
a state from using nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, there's
clearly an option there." However Quinlan said a replacement could
prove too costly. "The hard question is 'How much is it worth?' I
am not an absolutist on this question at all. I want to know how much
it is going to cost," he said. "My own view is that there will
be some cost that will be simply too much to pay for the insurance of
staying in this business." He warned however that it would be "very
difficult" politically for any government to abandon Britain's nuclear
weapons as long as France had them. "To leave the French as the only
people (in Europe) with this, I think, would twitch a lot of very fundamental
historical nerves," he said.
But many argue that in the current geopolitical framework Britain is so
unlikely to act independently of the United States that it does not need
its own missiles. That is the view of Dan Plesch of the Foreign Policy
Center, who told the committee that the idea Britain had its own independent
nuclear deterrent even now was somewhat of a myth. He said that previously
neglected documents proved Britain relied on the United States for nuclear
warhead material as well as missiles, contrary to the indications of successive
British governments. It was unlikely Britain would be able to use its
nuclear weapons without U.S. agreement, he added.
"The U.S. would have every ability in the short and particularly
in the longer term to prevent the system from being used because of our
relationship," he said. Plesch, who has authored a Foreign Police
Center report recommending Trident be phased out, also warned it was essential
to reverse the current global proliferation of nuclear weapons if a catastrophe
was to be averted.
Anti-nuclear activists agree. Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament, said Britain "should be positioning
itself as a global leader for peace by ending its nuclear weapons program."
She said Britain no longer faced a threat from any nuclear-armed nation,
and noted that Prime Minister Tony Blair had said nuclear weapons were
no use against terrorism.
But ministers insist Britain does face a nuclear threat. Defense Secretary
John Reid has spoken of "the simple proposition that as long as a
potential enemy has a nuclear weapon we should retain one," though
he has not specified just who that potential enemy is.
The government also argues that replacing Trident would not breach the
NPT, which it says does not commit member states to total disarmament
but to negotiations on effective measures. It claims to have fulfilled
that pledge by cutting its weapons capacity by 70 percent since the end
of the Cold War. It no longer possesses bombs carried by aircraft and
has reduced the operational readiness of its four Trident missile submarines,
just one of which is now on patrol at any given time. The submarine's
48 warheads are no longer pre-targeted and it needs several days notice
to fire.
However replacing Trident does leave Britain open to charges of hypocrisy
as it works to prevent Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability. Leading
international figures such as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and International
Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed El Baradei have spoken publicly of
the need for nuclear-armed states to take greater strides towards disarmament,
arguing that it is difficult to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons
while major world powers retain them.
Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in December,
El Baradei said the nuclear-armed states should "lead by example"
and accelerate disarmament efforts, which he described as "very slow."
"This naturally is creating an environment of cynicism among the
non-nuclear weapons states," he said.
But as the arguments for and against Trident's replacement are thrashed
out, there are indications that the government may have secretly embarked
on the development of a potential successor already.
A Ministry of Defense memorandum submitted to the parliamentary defense
committee revealed that 1,000 extra scientists and engineered are to be
hired by Britain's secret Atomic Weapons Establishment, which is also
planning to build a laser to enable a new nuclear weapon to be tested
without breaking the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
A recent test in the U.S. state of Nevada, codenamed Operation Krakatoa,
was part of an effort to develop a new British nuclear weapon, the Times
of London reported Sunday. It claimed both Britain and the United States
were working on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which could be tested
by computer without the need for banned nuclear tests.
The government has refused to confirm or deny the reports, but insists
a decision on Trident's replacement has not yet been taken. It is as yet
unclear what influence Parliament will be able to have on that decision,
with Blair promising a "full debate" on the issue but refusing
to commit to a vote.
Any parliamentary debate is certain to be a vigorous one, with the issue
resurrecting old divisions between the right and the left of the Labor
Party over the need for a nuclear deterrent. It is by no means guaranteed
that, should he allow a vote, Blair would secure sufficient backing from
his own MPs to renew the system. With the alternative - allowing Trident
to expire - a leap into the political unknown, it may well be that the
government decides to leave nothing to chance, and bypass Parliament altogether.
……………………………………………..
7 Whatever happened to ... CND?
Saturday March 18, 2006, The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1733783,00.html
The 1983 Labour manifesto commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament
was dubbed by Gerald Kaufman "the longest suicide note in history".
By 2005, the pledge was rather different: Labour promised to retain a
"minimum nuclear deterrent". This undertaking was back in the
spotlight this week as the Commons defence committee opened its inquiry
into renewing the Trident weapons system - expected to be obsolete by
2020. The prime minister has promised "the fullest debate" before
any decision is taken. Meanwhile, it was reported on Sunday that British
scientists are outstripping their US counterparts in developing new atomic
warheads.
This is particularly unwelcome news to the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (CND), which has experienced plenty of ups and downs
in its history. Founded in 1958, at the height of cold war tension, it
reached its zenith in the Thatcher years, when it was infiltrated by both
MI5 and the East German Stasi. Membership peaked at 100,000. A demonstration
in 1981 drew 250,000 people. Thousands of women camped outside Greenham
Common, an airbase in Berkshire for US cruise missiles.
The end of the cold war took the wind out of CND's sails.
Membership had sunk to 15,000 by the turn of the 20th century. Former
members started recanting publicly. "Sentimentality rather than logic
was the key weapon of our crusade," wrote one. "Looking back,
it is blindingly obvious that we were the dupes of Moscow." In April
2004, a four-day march to the nuclear research facility in Aldermaston,
Berkshire - an annual event that once attracted tens of thousands - could
only garner a couple of hundred. The organisers ran into trouble with
the police - over health and safety.
Somewhat surprisingly, the past couple of years have witnessed a renaissance
for CND. "George Bush's interest in the National
Missile Defence system ['son of Star Wars'] got people interested again,"
says CND chair Kate Hudson.
Opposition to the Iraq war has also helped. . In 2002 CND
made headlines with a failed high court attempt to win a judicial review
against the government. It has also continued to march alongside a Monty
Python-esque smorgasbord of pressure groups - from the Muslim Association
of Britain to Greenpeace - under the aegis of the Stop the War Coalition.
"We're still very much an anti-nuclear campaign," says Hudson.
"But we're also trying to link into other issues. We've always worked
with a range of organisations."
One key challengenow is to reach a generation who know Greenham Common
only as a place to go paintballing among abandoned barracks. CND
certainly has powerful arguments concerning the ineffectiveness of a nuclear
deterrent in an age of terrorism. Missiles that take several days' notice
to fire are little use against suicide bombers. Even former Conservative
defence minister Michael Portillo, who once famously misappropriated the
SAS motto in a party conference speech, has written that the UK should
scrap its remaining nuclear arsenal.
Ironically, then, it appears that CND's support was strongest when its
arguments were weakest, and vice versa. The Doomsday clock - a quirky
measurement of the world's proximity to Armageddon run by a scientific
magazine - currently stands at seven minutes to midnight, the same as
in both 1980 and 1947. "I reckon that's pretty accurate," says
Hudson.
……………………………………………..
8 Thousands march against Iraq war
18 March 2006
http://www.itv.com/news/britain_137580.html
Thousands of anti-war protesters have taken to the streets of London
to mark the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.
The organisers, Stop The War Coalition, CND and the Muslim
Association of Britain, hailed a "wonderful" turnout which they
put at "80,000 to 100,000" people.
Police said the crowd, which, they estimated, numbered around 15,000,
had been peaceful at the rally which began outside Westminster Abbey and
went past the Attorney General's Office along Millbank and to Trafalgar
Square. Demonstrations against the continued presence of US and British
troops had earlier begun in Sydney, Australia with around 500 people marching.
This was followed by events in Tokyo, Basra, Baghdad, Madrid, Rome, Dublin,
the United States and Toronto.
Organisers said it was the first time there would have been co-ordinated
demonstrations in the US, Britain and Iraq. Tourists looked on as the
protesters, some in masks lampooning George Bush and Tony Blair, gathered
in front of Westminster Abbey.
One group of American visitors berated a couple of protestors who were
waving placards declaring their country's president as the "World's
Number One Terrorist".
Other demonstrators called on the US and its allies to avoid conflict
with Iran with many demanding Mr Blair quit as Prime Minister.
In a sign of the times, marchers could text their names to a petition
calling for an international tribunal into the Iraq war to be held - with
the number of signatories constantly updated on an electronic screen.
Protesters stopped to look at 1,000 sheets of paper, each with 100 red
splodges, pinned to the ground in the centre of Parliament Square. The
artist who designed the display, David Gentleman, said that each of the
100,000 spots represented the death of someone in Iraq - a toll estimated
by medical magazine The Lancet earlier this year.
The crowds weaved through to Trafalgar Square where they were addressed
by speakers including Mr Benn, former Roxy Music member and David Bowie
producer Brian Eno, Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and former SAS soldier
Ben Griffin, who served in Iraq but now criticises the war.
……………………………………………..
9 Thousands join anti-war protest
18 March 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4818952.stm
Thousands of anti-war protesters have turned out for a demonstration in
central London calling for UK troops to leave Iraq.
Police put the number attending at 15,000, but organisers said between
80,000 and 100,000 were at the rally. It marks three years since the start
of the conflict and was organised by CND, Stop The War
Coalition, and the Muslim Association of Britain.
Protests are also being held in other cities across the world.
They include Baghdad, Basra, New York, Madrid, Rome, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto
and Dublin.
Organisers said it was the first time there have been co-ordinated demonstrations
in the US, Britain and Iraq. In London, Labour MPs Jeremy Corbyn and John
McDonnell, union leaders Mark Serwotka and Bill Hayes, as well as military
families whose relatives have been killed in Iraq were due to address
the rally.
Lindsey German, Convenor of Stop the War Coalition, said: "We believe
that a peaceful solution to the chaos caused by the illegal war in Iraq
will only be possible when the occupying foreign armies have all been
removed so that the Iraqi people will be free to decide on their own political
future. "Our demonstration is one of over 200 taking place in cities
and towns all over the world, including in Basra and Baghdad in Iraq."
Kate Hudson, chairwoman of CND, said there is also "grave
concern" about the threat of an attack against Iran. "The US
is making charges about a covert nuclear weapons programme in Iran without
presenting any credible evidence," she said. "These charges
are strikingly similar to the false accusations raised to justify the
invasion of Iraq three years ago. "The government must listen to
the voices of the people, which is calling on them to bring the troops
home from Iraq and to solve the Iranian issue peacefully and diplomatically."
……………………………………………..
10 Anti-war protesters join forces across the world
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=429692006
TENS of thousands of anti-war protesters from across the country are expected
to join a demonstration today to call for British troops to be pulled
out of Iraq.
Union leaders, MPs and anti-war activists will address a rally in London's
Trafalgar Square following a march. The protest, to mark the third anniversary
of the start of the conflict, is being organised by the Stop The War Coalition,
CND and the Muslim Association of Britain.
Demonstrations against the continued presence of US and British troops
in Iraq will be held in 200 cities across the world, including Basra,
Baghdad, New York, Madrid, Rome, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto and Dublin.
In Sydney, protesters dressed up as George Bush carrying the Grim Reaper's
scythe and chanting "End the war now!" and "Troops out!".
Lindsey German of the Stop the War Coalition said: "A solution to
the chaos caused by illegal war in Iraq will only be possible when the
occupying foreign armies have all been removed."
……………………………………………..
11 Protests mark three years since Iraq war
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Thousands of anti-war demonstrators have taken to the streets of London
in one of a series of international series of marches to mark the third
anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Demonstrations against the continued
presence of US and British troops in Iraq began in Sydney with around
500 people marching. This was followed by events in Tokyo, Basra, Baghdad,
Madrid, Rome and Dublin. Protests in the United States and Toronto were
also scheduled.
Organisers claimed that "80,000 to 100,000" people had joined
the London march, which began outside Westminster Abbey and went past
the Attorney General's Office along Millbank and to Trafalgar Square.
The Metropolitan Police estimated that the crowd was around 15,000 people.
The event was organised by the Stop The War Coalition, CND
and the Muslim Association of Britain. Organisers said it was the first
time there would have been co-ordinated demonstrations in the US, Britain
and Iraq.
Police said the event had begun peacefully, though one of group of American
visitors berated a couple with banners which declared their country's
president as the "World's Number One Terrorist".
The former Labour MP Tony Benn said that the vast majority of people were
against the war in Iraq which he described as "illegal, immoral and
unwinnable". He said that a fraction of money spent on the war could
have eradicated AIDS in Africa and provided free healthcare in the USA.
Other protesters called on the US and its allies to avoid conflict with
Iran with many demanding that Tony Blair stand down as Prime Minister.
John Reid, the Defence Secretary, today signalled his frustration with
the anti-war protesters, saying he wished they would support the Iraqi
people. "When people go on the streets of London today I do wish
just occasionally they would go out in support of the United Nations,
the Iraqi people and the Iraqi democrats and condemn terrorists,"
he said.
Stop The War Coalition spokesman Andrew Burgin said that Mr Reid's comments
were "disgraceful".
……………………………………………..
Back to Top
| |
