Anti-Drone Protests in Britain:

British Peace Groups mount
protests against new
Drone Warfare RAF Base:

Britain has been controlling its armed drones in the skies over Afghanistan from a US base in Nevada until now; however, from later in 2013 (like much to do with Britain’s drone wars, the exact details are being kept secret) it will begin operating drones directly from the UK at the new British home of drone warfare, RAF Waddington.

On Saturday April 27, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Drone Campaign Network, Stop the War Coalition, and War on Want are organising a march to RAF Waddington near Lincoln to say a loud and clear ‘No to Drones’.  A march will proceed from Lincoln station to the main gate at RAF Waddington – a distance of about 4 miles. At Waddington a rally will be held and key speakers will protest  on the growing use of drones and remote warfare.

This year, the UK will double its number of armed Reaper drones in Afghanistan and these will be run from the Waddington base.Over the past four years the US has launched hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya, with reliable reports showing thousands of people have been killed, including hundreds of children.

In Afghanistan where the US and UK have launched over 1,500 drone strikes, it is simply not known how many people have perished in these strikes. In Gaza too, many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli drone strikes. Drones have become the latest weapon of choice in the so-called war on terror. Drones make it much easier for politicians to launch military intervention and assassinate suspects anywhere in the world. Drones are making the world a much more dangerous place.

See information PDF here:

http://dronewarsuk.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/the-2012-drone-wars-briefing/

How to get there:

Transport for the demonstration at RAF Waddington is being arranged from all over the UK, and already plans are in place for coaches from London, Birmingham and Manchester, and to confirm details of travel from further towns and cities in the coming days, further information is available on the transport page on the Stop the War website here: http://bit.ly/ZufNFB

Londoners can buy their coach tickets online now (cost is £17 return) from the link above, or by calling the Stop the War office. Anyone who can help arrange group transport to Lincoln from their own area can get in touch with the organisers on 020 7561 9311.

Spread the petition: call on the British Government to abandon the use of drones as a weapon of war:
In just a week nearly 2,000 people have signed the petition calling on the Government to cease using drones -- including former UN Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday. Supporters can add their names and help spread the petition here stopwar.org.uk/drones.

US increases reliance on Drones

 

The Pentagon's and the CIA's massively scaled-up use of drone aircraft around the world is highlighted by Medea Benjamin in her book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. In 2000, the Pentagon had less than 50 drones; ten years later, that number is 7,500 - an increase of huge proportions. In 2003, the U.S. Air Force was flying a handful of round-the clock drone patrols every day; by 2010 that number has increased to 40 per day. "By 2011, the Air force was training more remote pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined" explains Benjamin, citing Mark Maybury, Chief Scientist of the Air Force who said in 2011 "Our number one manning problem in the Air force is operating our unmanned platform".

The reasons for the explosion in the use of drones to wage wars around the world are obvious enough. Training drone pilots is faster, less grueling and cheaper compared to traditional pilots. It takes two years to prepare an Air Force recruit for deployment as a pilot, but only nine months to train a drone operator. And, of course, the consequences of drone operator error are no more than the price of the drone itself. As Benjamin writes:

There’s no pilot at risk of being killed or maimed in a crash. No pilot to be taken captive by enemy forces. No pilot to cause a diplomatic crisis if shot down in a “friendly country” while bombing or spying without official permission. If a drone crashes or is shot down, the pilot back home can simply get up and take a coffee break.

But more important is that the use of drones to carry out missions in far-flung countries has enabled the Obama administration to avoid any formal declaration of war while raining down lethal force from the skies–a clear attempt to skirt both U.S. and international law regarding war. As Nick Turse writes in The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases and Cyberwarfare:

"The American war in Pakistan–a poster child for what might now be called the Obama formula, if not doctrine. Beginning as a highly circumscribed drone assassination campaign backed by limited cross-border commando raids under the Bush administration, U.S. operations in Pakistan into something close to a full-scale robotic air war, complemented by cross-border helicopter attacks, CIA-funded “kill teams” of Afghan proxy forces, as well as boots-on-the-ground missions by elite special operations forces".

The U.S. has now deployed drones armed with lethal force in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya. Some 60 bases throughout the world are directly connected to the drone program–from Florida to Nevada in the U.S., from Ethiopia and Djibouti in Africa, to Qatar in the Middle East and the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean.

According to Turse, for the last three years, Xe Services, the company formerly known as Blackwater (infamous for its criminal activities in Iraq), has been in charge of arming the fleet of Predator drones at CIA clandestine sites in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Obama administration’s aggressive use of drone warfare is yet further confirmation that Barack Obama’s policies represent the continuation rather than the repudiation of the U.S. government’s militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years.

The withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq–after failing to renegotiate the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government–occurred on Obama’s watch, but the U.S. still plans to keep thousands of “non-combat” personnel in Iraq. Meanwhile, Obama carried out a troop surge into Afghanistan that doubled the number of U.S. soldiers in that country.

All along the way, the use of drones has accelerated–especially during Obama’s presidency, as this infographic effectively illustrates. They are seen as the ideal solution for a military that is overextended after 10 years of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq–without achieving a decisive victory, but at enormous economic, political and diplomatic cost. Drones, by contrast, have a “lightweight footprint,” allowing them to operate behind a veil of secrecy. They provide intelligence, lethal force and global reach on the cheap, while simultaneously giving U.S. military strategists plausible deniability to avoid accountability for their actions.

So when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) recently blurted out in late February that U.S. drone strikes had killed 4,700 people, the military establishment no doubt shuddered. Graham was speaking to the Rotary Club in Easley, South Carolina, and was the first government official to provide a figure for the number of casualties in the drone wars–his number was around one-and-a-half times greater than unofficial estimates based on press accounts and other eyewitness reports.

Graham wasn’t bemoaning the high death toll–he was enthusiastic about it. Graham went on to say that he approved of the U.S. targeting of American citizens abroad and even the use of drones on the U.S.-Mexico border. Of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. citizen killed in a drone strike in 2011, Graham said, “He’s been actively involved in recruiting and prosecuting the war for al-Qaeda. He was found in Yemen, and we blew him up with a drone. Good.” “I didn’t want him to have a trial,” he continued. “We’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war. I support the president’s ability to make a determination as to who an enemy combatant is.”

Opinion polls show that many Americans aren’t as enthusiastic as Graham about drones. According to an article by Joan Walsh at  Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/targeted_killings_ok_if_obama_does_it/

While 56 percent of respondents support using drones against “high-level terrorist leaders,” only 13 percent think they should be used against “anyone suspected of being associated with a terrorist group.” And only 27 percent supported using drones “if there was a possibility of killing innocent people.” Another 13 percent opposed the drone program entirely.

Given that only a minority of those killed by drones to date are “high-level leaders”–the New American Foundation estimates it’s as low as 2 percent–Americans may be more sceptical of the policy the more they learn about it.

Still, the military establishment has a secret weapon in the public relations battle to preserve support for its favorite secret weapon–Barack Obama himself. Polling done by political scientist Michael Tesler found that significantly more whites “racial liberals” (a pollster category for liberals who are liberal on questions of race) supported the policy of targeted killings once they were told that the Obama administration had carried out this policy. As Walsh writes: Only 27 percent of white “racial liberals” in a control group supported the targeted killing policy, but that jumped to 48 percent among such voters who were told Obama had conducted such targeted killings. White “racial conservatives” were more likely than white racial liberals to support the targeted killing policy overall, and Obama’s support for it didn’t affect their opinion. The Obama administration is thus the perfect mouthpiece for reestablishing the military’s prestige among a war-weary public–and drones are the perfect vehicle.

In this respect, Obama is bringing U.S. military strategy full-circle. In 2001, U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld began his “revolution in military affairs,” steering the Pentagon toward a military-lite model of high-tech, agile forces. The concept came to a grim end in Iraq’s ruined cities. A decade later, the last vestiges of its many failures continue to play out in a stalemated war in Afghanistan…in the years since, two secretaries of defence and a new President have presided over another transformation–this one geared toward avoiding ruinous, large-scale land wars, which the U.S. has consistently proven unable to win.

Drones are really a symptom of the reorientation of U.S. foreign policy away from the cowboy imperialism of the Bush years. The U.S. has by far the most lethal and technologically advanced military force on the planet, but, with its treasury drained and the rapid rise of global competitors, especially China, the "Obama Doctrine" employs different strategies to achieve the same goals: fewer tanks, more spies and special forces; fewer invasions, more secret bases and drones; and whenever possible, offloading direct responsibility for fighting onto proxy forces and friendly (to U.S. interests) well-armed dictators.

In the  world capitalist economic system built around competition and the maximisation of profit and control of resources, this competition compels nation states to arm themselves for military conflict–or be overrun. And it’s the U.S.–which spends as much as the other countries in the top 20 military spenders combined–that does the lion’s share of overrunning.

So, while it’s essential to oppose drones and the various imperial adventures they enable with horrendous human casualties and suffering, the economic system that gives rise to military conflict must also be challenged.

Austerity is not inevitable:

Paul Dillon at the recent launch of Campaign for Labour Policies in Dublin

 

 



 

Austerity is neither

inevitable,  or new:

 

By Paul Dillon:

 

Austerity is neither inevitable, accidental nor natural, or new. It is in fact a return to a very old policy, from before the vote was won, before the trade unions made the giant gains we still enjoy today: austerity is the policy of using the state to protect those at the top, limiting the share of the economy going to workers pay and the public purse. It must be understood that austerity did not fall from the sky 6 years ago when Brain Lenihan, then Fianna Fail finance Minister, introduced the first austerity budget and implied it would be all over before we knew it, and the we were told, laughably now, not to talk down the economy. If austerity is about, and it is about, the transfer of resources upwards, then this trend became well entrenched during the "Celtic Tiger" years.  In 1987, workers share of the national income was 52%, capitals 48%. By 1998, workers share was 42% and Capital's share was 58%.

And the consequence of this was widening inequality. At the height of the boom, Ireland ranked second to bottom in the OECD league table for poverty and inequality. Contrary to all lies, myths, Ireland's spending on social protection was half the EU average at the height of the apparent boom. Alongside this, trade union density and power fell rapidly during the Celtic years, meaning that by the time the crisis arrived, the labour movement was severely weakened. Trade union membership was 55% of the workforce in 1980, 38% by 1988 and 30% by 2010. And all this occurred in an international context where the share of the economy going to employers, over workers or the public purse has increased hugely. The high amounts of debt which so many of us carry, is a consequence of this decline in ordinary peoples share, and of course the debt which so many people have, is a huge contributory factor in holding back resistance to the effects of the crisis.

Alternatives

 There is a vast gap between what austerity provides, and what citizens desire and that is where an enormous space emerges for an alternative policy. By 2015, the unemployment rate in Ireland will stand at 13%, according to the Government's own figures. This is why when you hear them say that they are working to provide jobs, that employment is the way out of the crisis, they are being somewhat economical with the truth, when they know by their own figures, that their policies sustain unemployment. Unemployment keeps wages down, it disciplines the Labour market. The purpose of slashing the public sector pay bill is to allow for similar readjustment in the private sector. Austerity cannot provide jobs, nor is it intended to. Jobs are not created by tax breaks, jobs are created by demand and investment.

A massive job creation programme needs to run in tandem with an attempt provide for the social needs of our people -we need to stop slashing the public sector -we need to take leash off public enterprises -and we need to start talking about co-operatives and worker controlled industry. There are endless bailouts for banks and those who speculated with them, but none for workers or communities. Why couldn’t the state, in the case of Waterford Crystal, have bailed out the workers, buying the patent for Waterford crystal, handing it over to the workers in Waterford who could run the place with blindfolds on, as an alternative? An investment strategy is the alternative to the cuts:24 billion steep since the crisis began. But, we ought to be very clear; when we demand investment and jobs, we must distance ourselves from those employments, in private and public sector, which downgrade terms, conditions, for young workers, and displace long term better paid jobs. The nurses unions boycott of 2,000 nursing positions, on much poorer pay terms and conditions than these workers deserves, has resulted in just a handful of applications. This has been a tremendous show of solidarity, driven from the grassroots up by young nurse, making the scheme unworkable. The Health Minister has said he wants to extend a cut price programme for other health workers, and that is why it is essential that the nurses maintain this boycott and win. They deserve our full support.

 

Privatisation

In the name of austerity, huge chunks of our public services are being outsourced and privatised. Nowhere is this clearer than in the area of healthcare. The programme for Government between Fine Gael and Labour, allows for the full privatisation of care for the elderly. Other areas will be up for grabs, like administration in the HSE. Coupled to this, we are to move to full on private health insurance, where a handful of global multinationals will compete to make profit, subsidised massively by the public purse.The home help workers know what this is about, when they experienced the cut in wages, of 25% when care services were outsourced. The most disadvantaged communities in the state know what this is about, as they await the provision of primary care, while the state enters into partnerships with developers who can no longer profit from housing, but who are now being subsidised to build primary care centres where they can profit most.

This health system -private, for profit, outsourced- will be more expensive. That’s the experience in the United States, where more public money is spent per head than anywhere else in the world, the experience also in this Dutch model Ireland is to follow, where health spending has gone up, when private insurance came to dominate. State subsidies for drugs and private insurers who profit from illness, should be replaced with a system that invests in prevention and treating everybody equally. We may be bottom of the league at so many things, but we are top of the tables when it comes to which state pays out most for drugs and medicines. In almost every other sphere, pubic services invested in by us for decades, are up for grabs. Look at CIE: where, if the Minister for Transport gets his way, private companies are to be offered routes on our public network, and where more public bus routes will be privatised.

The pattern is always the same: starve services of investment, thrash the public sector trough the mass media, weaken the unions internally, privatise the services, followed by huge paycheque for CEOs and investors, and inevitably, as we have seen in Britain with the privatisation of their trains, a poorer service, a more dangerous service. The privatisation of Telecom Éireann reveals what privatisation means. Eircom was worth, in today’s money, €8.4 billion at the time of its privatisation and was debt free. By early 2012, it was on its way into examinership, with net debts of almost €4 billion. It had shed all but 5,500 of its 13,000 jobs, and we have one of the worst  broadband systems in Europe.The alternative voices on this and on other public services have hardly been heard. But austerity inevitably means privatised public services-there is obvious huge public support for decent health and education services, which austerity can no provide, and that’s a further opening for the space for the alternative argument.

Democracy

What austerity does to democracy is that it hollows it out. The list of social rights that have been lost during this austerity period is long: The right to dental care funded by PRSI payments, the right to state funded masters for students on grants, then there are labour rights that have been reduced. In each of the areas where social rights have been lost, citizens are forced to rely on the market, where we become consumers with rights depending only on how much we spend, rather than citizens. This transfer of provision has been accompanied by a transfer of democratic responsibility into group and bodies which we cannot elect and cannot remove. The national roads authority, NAMA, the HSE all operate beyond any accountability, despite the fact that they control vast public resources.

Austerity clashes with these seeking tom advance democratic demands. The demand for more democracy not less as a response to privatisation, mass consumerism will invariable bring clashes with those who seek to restrict democratic rights. As we fight austerity we must nail a few lies and mistruths, which have been peddled constantly as this crisis has developed. Yes, there are the resources in Ireland to introduce a wealth tax. The top 1% of adults own over 125 billion. A French style wealth tax would bring in 500 million a year, according to the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, himself.

Economy

Yes, there are enough resources off our coast to provide an enormous economic dividend; 750 billion worth, according to SIPTU. Is there a better example of the neo-liberal mess we are in than the situation regarding our natural resources? In 1975, licensing terms which allowed for a 50% State holding,royalties and a 50% tax on profits accruing from an oil or gas find and development. In 1987 royalties and state participation were abolished by Fianna Fail and in 1992 the corporate tax rate was reduced from 50% to 25%.

Yes, the debt that we all carry, must be thrown off our backs, and there are mechanisms to do that, which will, of course, clash with the interests of our own banks and wealthy individuals, and the Government's move last week, put belt and braces on their liabilities. Mobilising for these demands for jobs, public services and democratic rights will invariably cause clashes with power and established interests that exist. The previous Government and this Government, including the Labour Party, are committed to austerity. The space for an alternative to the policy of this government and the last is vast, when you consider that the aspirations of people can’t be satisfied by austerity.

But, we ought to be fully honest. The phrase "austerity isn’t working" isn't the whole truth-  it is working for those for whom it is designed to work. Every cent of the bogus bank debt will be repayed. The top 10% of citizens in Ireland have enjoyed an increase in their income during the crisis. The major corporations, aided by our tax haven status boom, like TESCO's, returns profits like never before, while tagging the workers who make this possible.

None of the things which people desire -full employment, decent health and education- can be provided by austerity or those who support austerity. That is where the space lies. But, this will require an upsurge in organisation, politicisation and solidarity. And if the establishment has returned to an old policy of austerity, it is worth saying, maybe we should return to an old policy which could be made very modern again. When Connolly wrote letters overseas to unions seeking support during 1913, the letters were headed with the slogan "each for all, all for each". There cannot be meaningful social action without an increase in solidarity between people, and it is up to us to make Connolly’s message resonate now, as an alternative way of dealing with one another, more strongly than ever.

 

 

 



Anti-Drone protest goes to Court:

ANTI-DRONE PROTEST LEADS
TO FEDERAL COURT CASE
IN CALIFORNIA:

On October 30 last year some 100 people gathered at the US Air Force Base at Beale, California, to protest against the use of Drone aircraft by the US military for bombing by remote control of civilian housing and targetting individuals for assassination in several countries; Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia contrary to international law and the UN conventions on Human Rights.

Rev Sharon Delgado, a United Methodist Minister and a leading peace activist against Drone state terrorism, reports on the demonstration which led to arrests and a Federal Court appearance on Januray 8 last in the California State Capital, Sacramento;

"On October 30 I joined about 100 people for a demonstration at Beale Air Force Base calling for an end to drone warfare.  Beale is home to the Global Hawk Drone, a surveillance drone that is used to determine drone targets.  After stopping traffic onto the base for four hours, nine of us were arrested for trespassing onto federal property.

I took this action because I am convinced that the use of drones for targeted assassinations is immoral and illegal and that their use threatens us all.  Now is the time to stop the new drone arms race in its tracks.  This act of nonviolent direct action at Beale was my way of witnessing to my hope that “another world is possible,” a world based not on domination and violence, but on peace, justice, and environmental healing. My “no” of resistance is based on a “yes” of faith.

The U.S. use of drones for extra-judicial killings is immoral and illegal under international law.  It assumes that the whole world is a battleground and that the United States has the right to inflict capital punishment without trial on whomever it has put on its “kill list.”

Targeted assassinations by drones is not a clean as many people seem to think.  Many innocent people have been killed, including children.  In Pakistan, whole communities are paralyzed with fear because of ongoing drone attacks.  “Secondary kills,” that is, drone strikes on rescue workers, if eyewitness reports are true, would constitute war crimes.

There are other complications to drone warfare.  Drones are sold on the open market.  Weapon manufacturers, whose sole purpose is profit, have no loyalty to any country but only to their bottom line.  Over fifty countries now have drones.  Most are currently used for surveillance, and in fact, many law enforcement departments in U.S. cities are purchasing drones for that purpose.  But drones can be equipped with weapons, and many countries already have weaponized drones.  With the United States setting the standard and leading the way, we are in danger of a drone arms race without an international legal framework for their use.

The public must become aware of the dangers of this deadly program.  We must rise up in resistance and demand that the United States propose, sign, and ratify an international treaty on drones.  Clearly, this is a tall order, especially given that the United States has not even signed the  Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention.  Such an outcome can only take place if there is widespread public awakening to the multiple dangers facing us as a species, and spiritual renewal motivating us to work together for global transformation.  This will entail a rising up of people willing to work for a peoples’ democracy rather than acquiescing to the current system of global corporate rule. Those of us who were arrested at Beale will stand trial, or rather, put drones on trial.  I’m grateful to have this opportunity to witness to my conviction that another world truly is possible".

The courtroom was filled with supporters on January 8 as  the nine people faced arraignment in U.S. District in Sacramento for trespassing onto federal property at Beale Air Force Base last October while protesting U.S. drone warfare; Rev Delgado reported;

"Charges were dropped against four of the defendants: Fr. Louie Vitale, MacGregor Eddy, Barry Binks, and Toby Blome. We don’t know why their charges were dropped, but it could have to do with the fact that they were arrested separately from the other group, at a different gate. The five of us who were arrested at the main gate are David and Jan Hartsough, Shirley Osgood, Janie Kesselman, and me.

The remaining five of us pled “not guilty.” Yes, of course we engaged in civil disobedience. There are videos showing that we blocked traffic, stepped across the line onto federal property, held signs, and refused to leave. We tried to deliver a list of demands to the base commander.

I chose to plead “not guilty” by reason of necessity; that is, I acted in order to prevent a greater harm from taking place. My co-defendants and I will be discussing defense strategy with our team of lawyers, who are working pro bono in order to help bring the issue of drone warfare into the public eye.

Our trial is scheduled for April 15, Tax Day. That is the perfect day for this trial. Beale is the home of Global Hawk Drones, which are used for surveillance and for targeting of weaponized drones. According to the New York Times, the Air Force’s Global Hawk program costs $12 billion; the estimated cost for one of these drones is $218 million. The Navy is on board with its own version of the program, for an estimated $11 billion. That’s where our money goes.

Thanks to everyone who is supporting our efforts to raise awareness about this issue. Please pass on information and action opportunities as they become available so we can turn the tide against global domination through violence and sow the seeds of world peace"

More details available here:

.
http://www.occupybealeafb.org/#

This worthy action by US Peace Activists shows that many decent Americans are opposed to the warmongering activities of their government and the Pentagon and the hi-jacking of US democracy by the military-industrial complex, which makes massive profits from wars and killing throughout the world while ignoring the 77% of the US population which has declared against the wars being pursued by their Government on all continents. We join with them in solidarity as we protest regularly here against the Irish Government's shameful policy of allowing the US Military unrestricted use of Shannon Airport for pursuit of its illegal wars. 

We also condemn unreservedly the recent statement at the Dáil Committee on Transport and Communications by Rose Hynes, newly appointed Chair of the Shannon Airport Authority in answer to a question on the US Military presence there that; "Military
traffic has been in the DNA of Shannon for many years. It’s something that’s important, it’s lucrative and we are certainly going to go after it as much as possible."  

This disgraceful comment, worthy of the worst ratbag mercenaries engaged in combat for profit in many countries, shames the Irish people with their historic traditions of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism and is a scandalous debasement of the role of  a public official paid by the Irish taxpayer. Hynes should be forced to resign forthwith since she is advocating making profits on the illegal activities of the US Military and doing it in the name of the Irish people whose democratic Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, binds Ireland to respect for international law. It is remarkable, as a lawyer herself, that Hynes fails to understand this. However, an international passenger boycott of Shannon Airport which could feasibly be organised by the Irish Peace Movement and its allies through social media might make Ms Hynes think twice about her disgraceful mercenary outlook!

Aide Memoire  to Ms Hynes:

Bunreacht na hÉireann,
Article 29:

1.    Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.

2.    Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

3.    Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

 

FearFeasaMacLéinn

 Áth Cliath/Dublin

Eanáir/January 29 2013