The fight for the Security Council

Perhaps as the Iraqis concentrate their efforts in getting rid of Saddam Hussein and build their democratic institutions and structures from within their nation in a manner that is appropriate to their cultural, political, economic, social, technological and religious topography, we should be concentrating our efforts in rebuilding democracy in the UK from the grassroots upwards.

Several declarations uttered by the Prime Minister, his spoke persons, and other ministers, reveal the complete disregard and contempt that he and the hierarchy of the New Labour government have for the opinions of others, undermining the democratic institutions and generating a feeling of despondency. Two of the three Hull MPs seem to be totally deaf. On several occasions I have been told that: "Yes, I agree with you, but what's the point? They don't listen", or words to that effect.

Yet, when an opportunity is presented, that despondency disappears, and people do walk those extra miles to try to make an impact, to have their voices heard. One of such occasions was the London march in February 15, 2003. Another was the People's Assembly for Peace, called by the Stop the war Coalition in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 12 of March, where over a 1000 delegates from all over the UK and walks of life attended. A third opportunity may well be to put forward antiwar candidates for the May local elections.

Still, are they listening? If we are really considering revitalizing our democratic institutions, then serious consideration must be given to the eradication from power of the deaf politicians, and a deaf political culture.

While removing Tony Blair is a desirable and necessary step towards achieving such an objective, it must be made clear that it is only a step, not a goal by itself.

However, such a removal should not only be confined to Blair, but should also be extended to the hardcore of the New Labour ministers and their gangs: Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, John Reid, John Prescott and Tessa Jowell are some names that come immediately to mind. To jog your memories, Jowell was the politician who initially refused the use of Hyde Park for the February 15 march, ie, trying to stop a form of expression of popular opinion which has been denied other outlets. The rot within the New Labour party is far too advanced for any other measure to be taken.

The Blair government dubiously claims authority from the fact that it has a mandate from Parliament to wage war on Iraq: It is clear now that Parliament does no longer reflect the opinions and wishes of the majority of citizens of Great Britain, especially in this particular issue. Even 121 rebel Labour MPs are not representative of the mass of people disaffected and disfranchised with Blair's warmongering, there is no doubt that there should have been many more of them rebelling to reflect public opinion (Mr Prescott and Mr Johnson: take notice). There are also doubts about what is this so-called mandate for? Certainly it is not a carte-blanche for Blair, although his and Ian Duncan Smith's gangs would assume that this is the case.

Tony Blair also claims that history will vindicate him, as it has done in Kosovo and Afghanistan: history is not a commodity that can be called at will to justify our actions, and even if this were the case, it does not give its verdict in such a short period of time. A glance of the situation of both countries clearly indicates that the signs are not good for the Prime Minister on this respect: An Afghan leader, Karzai, who cannot venture outside his compound without the support of his all American bodyguards, is hardly a positive indication of political stability or of an inclusive government that holds popular support. The current situation in Kosovo, where the existence of a political culture that allows the show to be run by criminal gangs masquerading as politicians and freedom fighters, and oppressing their Serbian and Roma minorities, can hardly be claimed as a success.

When Blair claims the vindication of history for his actions, he is showing his total arrogance and self-delusion not only as a politician, but also as a man. Harry Gurevitch commented in an article published in the last Hull Stop the War Campaign Newsletter (February 2003) that: "But God forbid, maybe he does really believe this stuff… Maybe he does have the voices in his head". I just can say that Blair does not have my voice in his head, and I doubt very much that there are the voices of anybody but those of a minority of pseudo-Christian extreme right wing fundamentalists in between those.

Certainly he does not speak with the voice of a sizeable part of the British population in spite of his pathetic claims: that of the Islamic and Asian communities. On this respect, Blair is one of the most unrepresentative Prime Ministers of recent times.

The current fight for the votes of the member states of the Security Council of the United Nations reveals, more sharply than ever, that there is a strong and urgent need for a review and reconstruction of its democratic processes and structures. As it stands at the present time, its members are prey of the rapacious hunger for naked power of the only superpower remaining in our planet, the United States: a nation that believes rubberstamping its decisions is the only role that the United Nations has. Jack Straw made that point quite brutally last week, openly indicating the surrender of the British Government to its American masters. And yet, these people get upset when they are called Bush's poodles! In fact, to call them thus is an insult… to the poodles.

The Security Council is already a discredited institution, it will become even more so if it supports a second resolution authorizing the invasion of one of its member states, Iraq, by two others, USA and Great Britain; and the unleashing of unrestrained military power upon its population. The only path that the United Nations can take now to regain any credibility is for its Security Council to resist the pressure, threats, bullying, moral and not so-moral blackmail, and the offer of mega-dollars, exerted by the American and British governments, and vote against a second resolution, The current British proposal of subjecting Iraq to six tests is not a credible proposal, and certainly it is not a compromise, although it has been disguised to look to be so: it still does not address the basic issue that Iraq does not pose a threat to the UK, USA, Europe, Latin America, Africa, or even to its immediate neighbours any longer. Certainly Cristián Maquieira, the Chilean ambassador to the UN, saw right through the hollowness of this proposal.

It is more likely that terrorists may obtain radioactive materials or other substances more easily from places such as Sellafield rather than Iraq or North Korea, considering the incredibly lax and incompetent security of the plant. A placard I saw at the February 15 march put this issue quite succinctly: "The best way to stop terrorism is to stop fucking around with other peoples countries".

If the Security Council does vote for a second resolution, it will show that it has no will of its own at all, that it has become no more than a section of the Department of State of the United States, and it will become the laughing stock for the rest of the world, with the exception of the readers of The Sun, the News of the World, the Daily Mail, and that trio formed by Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar, and their gangs.

Unilateral military action without a United Nations mandate would be in violation of its charter and, therefore, be illegal; we have been warned by its Secretary General, Kofi Annan. If Britain joins in such a military action initiated by the United States, then Tony Blair lays himself open to be the subject of a citizen arrest on charges of crimes against humanity.