Speakers available - Overseas Investment Bill

From the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa:

To our members and supporters,

The Overseas Investment Bill has been introduced into Parliament. It is important to note that this is not an amendment, it is a new Bill which will supersede all previous legislation on the subject.

If you are planning a public or private meeting about it, or would like someone to talk about it at one of your regular meetings, CAFCA may be able to supply a speaker.

We would require reasonable notice. If it's a meeting outside Christchurch, a contribution to travel costs would be appreciated. A place to stay (if an overnight stay is required), and local transport, would be the only other requirements.

We don't as yet know when this Bill will have its First Reading, to which Select Committee it will be referred, nor the deadline for submissions. But the process to make it law is well underway, so CAFCA wants as many people as possible to be made aware of it and mobilised against it.

If you're interested in a CAFCA speaker, contact us.

Murray Horton
Secretary/Organiser

CAFCA
Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa
Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand
cafca@chch.planet.org.nz
www.cafca.org.nz

Latest Philippines Solidarity Newsletter Online

Via Philippine Solidarity Network of Aotearoa:

In October we toured Philippine human rights leader, Marie Hilao-Enriquez, through New Zealand. Her speech is available at:

http://www.converge.org.nz/psna/MESpeech.htm

Her CV and fascinating life story is at:

http://www.converge.org.nz/psna/KapNo24/kap24art/art107.htm

Plus there is a Link to the article about her in the September New Internationalist.

Also, we have (finally) got the latest issue of our newsletter, Kapatiran (Solidarity), online. It is the August issue. Apologies for the delay, but we were rather busy with Marie's tour.

The contents are:


Issue No. 24, August 2004

* Same Old Same Old (Philippines 2004 Election)
* Nearly 50 Bayan Muna Members Murdered
* Marie Hilao-Enriquez: A Life Of Struggle
* Peace Talks
* Reagan And Marcos
* The Attack On My Human Rights - Jose Ma. Sison
* Book Review: "US Terrorism"
* Nestle Strike Update
* A Philippine Visit - David Tutty
* Obituary: Yann Fleming
* Obituary: Ngaire Duggan

If you're interested in the Philippine struggle, then join us. Annual membership costs $!5. Send cheques to PSNA, Box 2450, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Happy reading!

Murray Horton
Secretary


PSNA
Philippines Solidarity Network of Aotearoa
Box 2450, Christchurch, New Zealand
cafca@chch.planet.org.nz
www.converge.org.nz/psna

Government to Transnationals: Come On In

Via the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa:

THE FIGHT IS ON

GOVT. INTRODUCES NEW OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BILL, THROWS THE DOOR WIDE OPEN

REMOVAL OF SCRUTINY OF NEARLY ALL FOREIGN COMPANY PURCHASES

The Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) sees considerably more minuses than pluses in the new Overseas Investment Bill introduced into Parliament on November 10 by Dr Cullen, the Minister of Finance. His press release was headed "Toward a more effective overseas investment regime" and it definitely will be - for the transnational corporations whose ceaseless takeover of New Zealand will be made that much easier by this most obliging of governments.

Don't get us wrong, we congratulate the Government in making it harder for foreigners to buy land of "special heritage or environmental value" (note: not actually stop them buying, just to make it harder). That arises directly from sustained public campaigning about issues such as the sale of Young Nick's Head, other coastal property and South Island high country stations.

But such land is a small part of the overall picture of rural land sales to foreigners (the vast bulk of which is forestry and farm land) and a very, very small part of the economy. The fact is that company takeovers by transnational corporations, in all the sectors that constitute the guts of the New Zealand economy, total billions of dollars per year (not the tens of millions of "special" land sales) and the Government plans to make it even easier for those transnational corporate takeovers to proceed. That more than wipes out any gains made in the area of tightening up "special" land sales. Indeed, the latter is a mere sop.

It hasn't yet been announced when the Bill will have its First Reading in Parliament, nor to which Select Committee it will be referred. The official papers preceding the Bill stated the target for it becoming law is July 1, 2005. There will be the opportunity for public submissions during the Select Committee phase.

What is in the Bill?

* It will abolish the Overseas Investment Commission, whcih is the current rubber stamp body administering the overeas investment regime and will transfer its functions to a specialist unit within Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

* The threshold for official approval for transnational corporations to buy NZ companies will be increased from the current $50 million up to $100m. Interestingly, Treasury had recommended that the threshold be increased to $250m and that is the figure cited all through the Cabinet papers, Cullen's recommendations, etc. Apprehension about public outcry caused Cabinet to back away from the higher figure. We must be grateful for small mercies (it is worth noting that Treasury's original recommendation was that there be absolutely no overseas investment oversight regime but concluded that it was not politically possible, in light of public opinion).

* To remove the current need for approval of foreign land purchases of less than five hectares in area and/or more than $10m in value.

* The official recommendations preceding the Bill cite NZ's obligations under the General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS) and the free trade agreement with Singapore as inhibiting NZ's ability to set restrictions on foreign investment. Indeed the official papers say that the proposed new threshold for company takeovers by transnationals will become the benchmark for all future free trade agreements and the officials were anticipating that threshold would be $250m.

* To add insult to injury, the Government plans - "to keep costs to the taxpayer down" - to let the foreign investors be responsible for post-consent compliance and monitoring. New Zealanders have had 20 years of experience of "self-regulation" to not need to be told how just how lousy a system that is. They will only to have a file a report "regularly" on how they are complying witrh the terms of their consent and outline any reasons for non-compliance. Guess how many will say "No, we're not complying".

The removal of the Overseas Investment Commission is no great tragedy in itself. CAFCA has always said that its job could be done by a monkey with a rubber stamp. But its replacement agency will see a significant weakening of any oversight. By definition, Land Information NZ is experienced with land. But land sales are very much the smaller part of the much bigger picture, maybe totalling in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Company takeovers are where the foreign investment action is, totalling in the billions per year. There is no proposal for any new agency with any expertise in that field to be involved.

Cullen points out the last time a non-land transaction was refused permission was in 1984, and therefore we might as well virtually give up monitoring company takeovers. On the contrary - that is an indictment of 20 years of rubberstamping neglect by the OIC and Government; and a clarion call for the transnational corporate oversight regime to be significantly toughened up, not weakened.

Raising that threshold for company takeovers will remove all but the biggest of them from any scrutiny. Huge chunks of the NZ economy will be bought and sold without any official oversight at all. And remember - until just days before the 1999 election, the threshold for company takeovers was just $10m. We urged the incoming Labour-led government to roll it back to that level. They have refused to do so and are now going to raise it to $100m (an increase of 1000% in less than five years).

The removal of the need for approval for foreign land purchases of less than five hectares in area and/or more than $10m in value removes the need for any scrutiny of central business district projects that involve land.

What we've been saying all along about the dangers of NZ getting entangled in free trade agreements (whether multilateral, like GATS or bilateral, such as with Singpore) is made glaringly obvious. We lose the right to control foreign investment.

We welcome the tightening of restrictions on the sale of "special" land. This concession has been brought about by public opposition to the sale of the likes of Young Nick's Head and the sale of coastal land (primarily in the North Island) and South Island high country stations. However, this "tightening" wouldn't have stopped any of those purchases, not Young Nick's Head, nor the recent purchase of two Otago high country stations by Shania Twain. The Bill increases penalties for breaches. Sounds good but the proof of the pudding is in the prosecuting. It would be very interesting to know how many foreign investors have been taken to court. In the words of Scribe: "Not many, if any".

The OIC's brief has been to facilitate, not "hinder" foreign investment and this new Bill facilitates the OIC out of existence, and delivers a very "effective overseas investment regime" - an effective surrender of economic sovereignty. The minor concessions on some land sales are simply a smokescreen to conceal that central fact. The Government is saying to transnationals: "Come on in and help yourselves. Make yourselves at home".

What You Can Do

* Contact your MP urgently and register your opposition to the weakening of the current overseas investment law and regulations. Tell him or her that you consider this an election issue, and that it will influence your vote in 2005.

* Write to your local paper. Call talkback.

* Argue for strengthening the controls over foreign investment, the conditions that are placed on it, and the monitoring that should follow.

* Advocate strongly for tighter control on overseas ownership of land and fisheries.

* Become informed. Join CAFCA and gain access to a wealth of information and analysis that you will not find in your local newspaper. Membership is $20 per year (or $15 unwaged). Payments to CAFCA, Box 2258, Christchurch.

* Submissions will be called soon, and the aim is to have the Bill into law by mid 2005, so it is critical to act now. Make a submission opposing this Bill.

CAFCA has produced a leaflet on the subject, giving considerably more detail.

The leaflet can be read at CAFCA's Website. It is a PDF. You can access it at

http://canterbury.cyberplace.co.nz/community/CAFCA/OICReview4.pdf

Check our site regularly, as the leaflet keeps being updated.

You can download the leaflet yourself from there or you can order hard copies from us. If you order several hundred, we'd appreciate a koha for the cost of copying and postage.

There are background articles on the subject. You can access them at:

http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/06/01.htm

http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/04/01.htm and http://www.converge.org.nz/watchdog/05/01.htm

If these Links don't work, for any reason, then go to www.cafca.org.nz , and click on the Foreign Investment In New Zealand page. For the Foreign Control Watchdog articles, go to www.converge.org.nz/watchdog Numbers 104, December 2003, 105, April 2004, & 106, August 2004.

CAFCA needs all the help that we can get in our campaign against this Bill.

Let's all get stuck in!

Murray Horton

Secretary/Organiser

CAFCA
Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa
Box 2258, Christchurch, New Zealand
cafca@chch.planet.org.nz
www.cafca.org.nz

UK government in denial

Via Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq:

THE LANCET IRAQ MORTALITY SURVEY: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IS
INACCURATE AND MISLEADING

On Friday 29th October 2004, the Lancet medical journal published a study
of post-war mortality in Iraq which estimated that at least 100,000 excess
civilian deaths had occurred since the 2003 invasion; that most were caused
by violence; and that most of those violent deaths were caused by coalition
air strikes.

In his daily press briefing that morning, the Prime Minister's Official
Spokesperson (PMOS) dismissed the study since its methodology was, he
claimed, inappropriate:

“Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about a survey published today
suggesting that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the war in
Iraq, the PMOS said that it was important to treat the figures with caution
because there were a number of concerns and doubts about the methodology
that had been used. Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an
extrapolation technique rather than a detailed body count. Our worries
centred on the fact that the technique in question appeared to treat Iraq
as if every area was one and the same. In terms of the level of conflict,
that was definitely not the case. Secondly, the survey appeared to assume
that bombing had taken place throughout Iraq. Again, that was not true. It
had been focussed primarily on areas such as Fallujah. Consequently, we did
not believe that extrapolation was an appropriate technique to use.”
(http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page6535.asp)

These criticisms of the Lancet mortality survey were repeated again on 1st
November. They are misleading, and almost entirely unfounded. This briefing
note examines the claims of the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson.

1) "Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique
rather than a detailed body count."

The fact that the survey uses an extrapolation technique does not
automatically mean that it is less likely to be accurate than a body count.
In fact, it is more likely to be accurate than existing attempts at body
counts of Iraqi civilians. This is because in Iraq, where there are so many
no-go areas, it would be impossible to count every casualty.

This is also the problem with Iraqi Ministry of Health figures obtained by
counting bodies arriving at hospitals, cited by the PMOS in response to the
Lancet report on 1st November
(http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page6552.asp ): many of those who have
died or been killed will never arrive at hospital in conditions of war,
when access to roads and health facilities are severely disrupted, and when
it might seem pointless to risk the journey for the sake of someone who is
already dead.

Finally, attempts to do body counts through deaths reported in the press,
like Iraq Body Count, are also necessarily underestimates, since press
reports of casualties will be incomplete, not least because the areas where
people are being killed are the same areas into which journalists don't
dare go. As Iraq Body Count states on its website:

"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a
sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been
reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go
unreported by the media." ( http://iraqbodycount.net/#position
)

In these circumstances, population-based research like the Lancet study is
thus arguably a much better source.

A detailed, comprehensive body count on the ground by military and medical
personnel would perhaps be more accurate, but it is a task which the US and
UK forces in Iraq refuse to carry out. For Downing Street to question the
best available study on the grounds of preferring a methodology which they
themselves refuse to operate is surprising, to say the least.

2) "Our worries centred on the fact that the technique in question appeared
to treat Iraq as if every area was one and the same."

The technique does not treat Iraq as if every area was the same. The survey
takes a sample in each of 33 areas throughout Iraq’s 18 governorates,
precisely so that regional variation is taken into account as much as
possible. All regions of the country were sampled.

The PMOS might be referring to the fact that due to the deteriorating
security situation in Iraq, the survey 'paired' 12 of the 18 governorates,
and took samples from only 1 of the pair in order to reduce danger to the
investigators by reducing the necessary travel. In these cases, however,
the process of assigning samples to one of the two governorates was
randomised, and weighted according to the population of the governorates,
thus 'still sampling from all regions of the country' and ensuring that
'the sample remained a random national sample' (Roberts et al p.2)

3) "Secondly, the survey appeared to assume that bombing had taken place
throughout Iraq. Again, that was not true. It had been focussed primarily
on areas such as Fallujah."

This is also untrue - see above. The survey was designed precisely to take
variations throughout Iraq into account. Moreover, since the mortality rate
due to violent deaths in the sample collected in Fallujah was so abnormally
high, the Fallujah sample was excluded from the study’s final estimate.
Thus far from overestimating the deaths caused elsewhere by extrapolating
them from those clustered in Fallujah, as the PMOS suggests, in fact the
figure of 100,000 deaths does not take into account the exceptionally high
mortality probably caused in the area of the most intensive bombing, namely
Fallujah. Had the Fallujah sample been included, the survey's estimate
would have been of an excess of about 298,000 deaths, with 200,000
concentrated in the 3% of Iraq around Fallujah (Roberts et al p.5).

In addition, contrary to the PMOS’s claims about the tight focus of
bombing, the Lancet study in fact found that in areas well away from
Fallujah the most significant cause of the deaths it recorded was still
violence, most attributed to coalition bombing (Roberts et al p.4).

4) "Consequently, we did not believe that extrapolation was an appropriate
technique to use."

Almost all surveys except censuses involve 'extrapolation techniques'
(using a sample rather than the entire population), since it is simply
impossible to survey every member of a country's population. Extrapolation
is a universally recognised method that governments and academics use to
obtain data, and it is remarkable to see a government spokesperson
rejecting it outright.

In addition, the specific sampling technique used in the Iraq mortality
survey, a clustered sample survey, is widely used by government and other
surveys to gather data from geographical clusters of households. See, for
example, the recent report from the Home Office Research, Development and
Statistics Directorate, 'Asylum seekers' experiences of the voucher scheme
in the UK, March 2002', which used cluster samples in order to reduce the
cost of the survey ( http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/asylumexp.pdf
-
see pp.2-3 of this report).

***

Perhaps more serious than these misrepresentations of the mortality study
by the Prime Minister's Office is the UK Government's apparent disregard
for efforts to ascertain the numbers of civilian deaths its actions have
caused. Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons promised the House of Lords
that:

“we have done our best to count them [civilian casualties] but I am bound
to say to the noble Baroness that the practicalities involved are very
difficult indeed. Certainly during the early part of the engagement, it has
not always been possible to know what civilian casualties there were on the
ground….We do our best to count civilian casualties now."

(Lords Hansard 27 Apr 2004: Column 686)

Yet neither the US nor the UK governments have made public any aggregate
data on civilian deaths in Iraq – a failure which an MOD spokesperson
defended by arguing that

“there is no reliable way of estimating the number of civilian casualties
caused during major combat operations.”

(BBC Online 22 September 2004)

The Lancet mortality survey argues that this is not the case:

“This survey shows that with modest funds, 4 weeks, and seven Iraqi team
members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths
could be obtained. There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to
not be able to provide more precise tallies.”

(Roberts et al p.7)


In the last few days the Government have attempted to disparage the Lancet
report on a different tack, by going back on its previous rejections of
casualty estimates and instead positively citing the much lower estimate of
the Iraq Body Count project, as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw did when
interviewed on the Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme on 29th October. Mr Straw
ignores the fact that Iraq Body Count itself makes clear that its figures
cannot be considered a comprehensive estimate of civilian casualties, since
‘it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported
by the media.’ (see above). The Government’s new attention to the figures
provided by this media-report-based casualty estimate is also surprising
given the previous statement by an MOD spokesperson about Iraq Body Count
that

“ We would caution against taking the numbers quoted in media reports and
else where at face value. No source or combination of sources can produce a
reliable figure."

(BBC Online 22 September 2004)

and given Defence Minister Adam Ingram’s dismissive answer to a
parliamentary question in June 2003 asking “what information he has (a)
given to and (b) received from the organisation called Iraq Body Count”, Mr
Ingram replying simply that “Defence Ministers have had no contact with an
organisation called Iraq Body Count.” (Commons Written Answers, 3 Jun 2003
Col. 37W, question 114211)

The Government must accept that despite shortcomings due to the
difficulties faced by a small team of volunteer doctors collecting data in
a war zone, the Lancet report is the most comprehensive study of Iraqi
civilian deaths since 2003 currently available. If it is to rebuff its
findings, the Government must honour its own obligations by undertaking a
large-scale survey of civilian casualties. As the Lancet report states:

“ US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying “we don’t do body
counts”. The Geneva Conventions have clear guidance about the
responsibilities of occupying armies to the civilian population they
control. The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly caused by the
occupying forces were women and children is cause for concern. In
particular, Convention IV, Article 27 states that protected persons “. . .
shall be at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected especially
against acts of violence . . .”. It seems difficult to understand how a
military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected
against violence without systematically doing body counts or at least
looking at the kinds of casualties they induce. In view of the political
importance of this conflict, these results should be confirmed by an
independent body such as the ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO.”

(Roberts et al p.7)


FURTHER INFORMATION: 1) L. Roberts, G. Burnham, R. Lafta, J. Khudhairi, R.
Garfield, ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster
sample survey’, http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf


2) Iraq Body Count, the most comprehensive indirect casualty count:
http://iraqbodycount.net/
. This site includes a summary of another
casualty count project, and an explanation of IBC methodology.

Michael Lewis
Christ's College
Cambridge CB2 3BU
United Kingdom

Activism this week: November 14th - 20th

Go see "The Corporation" at the Regent on Worcester. It's on for the next few weeks.

Friday 19th November

Militant Labour Forum: Free Ahmed Zaoui

Denial of Water to Iraqi Cities

Via Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq

INTRODUCTION

Water supplies to Tall Afar, Samarra and Fallujah have been cut off
during US attacks in the past two months, affecting up to 750,000
civilians. This appears to form part of a deliberate US policy of
denying water to the residents of cities under attack. If so, it has
been adopted without a public debate, and without consulting Coalition
partners. It is a serious breach of international humanitarian law, and
is deepening Iraqi opposition to the United States, other Coalition
members, and the Iraqi interim government.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DENIAL OF WATER

Tall Afar

On 19 September 2004, the Washington Post reported that US forces 'had
turned off' water supplies to Tall Afar 'for at least three days' (1).
Turkish television reported a statement from the Iraqi Turkoman Front
that 'Tall Afar is completely surrounded. Entries and exits are banned.
The water shortage is very serious' (2). Al-Manar television in Lebanon
interviewed an aid worker who stated that 'the main problem facing the
people of Tall Afar and adjacent areas is shortage of water' (3). Relief
workers reported a shortage of clean water (4). Moreover, the Washington
Post reports that the US army failed to offer water to those fleeing
Tall Afar, including children and pregnant women (5).

Samarra

'Water and electricity [were] cut off' during the assault on Samarra on
Friday 1 October 2004, according to Knight Ridder Newspapers (6) and the
Independent (7). The Washington Post explicitly blames 'U.S. forces' for
this (8). Iraqi TV station Al-Sharqiyah reported that technical teams
were working to 'restore the power and water supply and repair the
sewage networks in Samarra' (9). Al Jazeera interviewed an aid worker
who confirmed that 'the city is experiencing a crisis in which power and
water are cut off' (10), as well as the commander of the Samarra Police,
who reported that 'there is no electricity and no water' (11).

Fallujah

On 16 October the Washington Post reported that:
'Electricity and water were cut off to the city [Fallujah] just as a
fresh wave of strikes began Thursday night, an action that U.S. forces
also took at the start of assaults on Najaf and Samarra.' (12)

Residents of Fallujah have told the UN's Integrated Regional Information
Networks that 'they had no food or clean water and did not have time to
store enough to hold out through the impending battle' (13). The water
shortage has been confirmed by other civilians fleeing Fallujah(14),
Fadhil Badrani, a BBC journalist in Falluja, confirmed on 8 November
that 'the water supply has been cut off'.

In light of the shortage of water and other supplies, the Red Cross has
attempted to deliver water to Fallujah. However the US has refused to
allow shipments of water into Fallujah until it has taken control of the
city (15).

Other cases

There have been allegations that the water supply was cut off during the
assault on Najaf in August 2004, and during the invasion of Basra in
2003. We have not investigated these claims.

JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE DENIAL OF WATER

Some military analysts have attempted to justify the denial of water on
tactical or humanitarian grounds. Ian Kemp, editor of military journal
'Jane's Defense Weekly', argues that:
'The longer the city [Fallujah] is sealed off with the insurgents
inside, the more difficult it is going to be for them. Eventually, their
supplies of food and water are going to dwindle' (16).

Barak Salmoni, assistant professor in National Security Affairs at the
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, told the San Francisco
Chronicle that civilians would probably be encouraged to leave Fallujah
'by cutting off water and other supplies' (17).

These arguments are deeply flawed on legal, humanitarian and political
grounds. The majority of the population of Fallujah fled before the
American attack. Those who have not already fled Fallujah are forced to
remain, since roads out of the city have been blocked (18), including by
British troops (19). Not only are those remaining unable to leave, but
they are likely to consist largely of those too old, weak, or ill to
flee - precisely the groups which will be most severely affected by a
shortage of water.

REACTION IN IRAQ

The information reported above is more widely known in Iraq than in the
US and UK, and has had become a significant political issue. Belief that
US tactics involve denial of water is widespread. According to the LA
Times:
'As soon as the women of Fallouja learned that four Americans had been
killed, their bodies mutilated, burned and strung up from a bridge, they
knew a terrible battle was coming. They filled their bathtubs and
buckets with water...' (20)

Condemnations of the tactic have been issued by several major Iraqi
political groups. On 1 October the Iraqi Islamic Party issued a
statement criticising the US attack on Fallujah which 'cut off water,
electricity, and medical supplies', and arguing that such an approach
'will further aggravate and complicate the security situation'. It also
called for compensation for the victims (21).

Three days later Muqtada al-Sadr criticized both the denial of water to
Samarra, and the lack of international outrage at it:
'They say that this city is experiencing the worst humanitarian
situations, without water and electricity, but no-one speaks about this.
If the wronged party were America, wouldn't the whole world come to its
rescue and wouldn't it denounce this?' (22)

Denial of water is one of the misguided tactics which increases distrust
of the Coalition forces. Asked in June how much confidence they had in
US and UK forces, 50.8% of participating Iraqis responded 'none at all',
with a further 29.5% saying 'not very much' (23).

This in turn fuels anti-American violence. A spokesman for the
Association of Muslim Scholars, one of the most significant Sunni
political groupings in Iraq, reported that the party's representative in
Samarra had told him that 'there was no water'. He argued that partly as
a result of this:
'The Iraqis no longer trust the Americans. It is not a question of
military manifestations. It is now a question of popular rejection for
the Americans, not for the military manifestations.' (24)

His analysis is confirmed by the Oxford Research International poll,
according to which one third of Iraqis regard attacks against Coalition
forces as 'acceptable' (25).

REACTION IN THE UK

Awareness of this issue remains extremely limited among the British
public. The British government denies involvement. Despite inquiries
from CASI and others, they appear not to have raised the issue with
their American counterparts. UK Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has
denied knowledge of US action to cut off water supplies in Tall Afar
(26), despite coverage in the Washington Post. Similarly Hilary Benn,
the UK Secretary of State for International Development, says he has not
discussed the issue with his American counterparts (27). This lack of
communication with the American side suggests a lack of concern for the
humanitarian implications of the conflict in Iraq, and an unwillingness
to comment on American activities. Concerning British forces, Mr. Ingram
has claimed that:
'With regard to the action of our own Forces, I can also confirm that we
have not cut off water supplies to civilians. It is possible that local
temporary disruptions may have occurred at some time due to damage from
combat with anti-Iraqi Forces but we are not aware of any actual cases
where this has happened' (28).

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The denial of water to civilians is illegal both under Iraqi and
international law. Article 12 of the Transitional Administrative Law,
which serves as a constitution during the interim period, states that:

'Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of his
person' (29)

International law specifically forbids the denial of water to civilians
during conflict. Under Article 14 of the second protocol of the Geneva
Conventions,

'Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is
therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for
that purpose, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian
population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of
food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies
and irrigation works.' (30)

RECOMMENDATIONS

CASI calls on Members of Parliament to raise this issue with ministers
as a matter of urgency. The UK government must use its influence with
our US ally to ensure that all military operations are conducted within
the bounds of international law. In addition to the suffering caused to
the civilian population, use of these tactics by US forces puts our own
troops at risk from rising insurgency.

We hope that the issue will be taken up by international NGOs such as
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Deliberate disruption of
civilian water supplies should be a matter of concern for all who are
promoting human rights in Iraq.

CASI urges journalists on the ground in Iraq to investigate the above
reports further, in order to build up a clearer picture of use of this
tactic. The UK media must give greater weight to the plight of civilian
populations in their coverage of conflicts such as Fallujah. The UK
public needs to know that our Coalition partner is using this illegal
tactic.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This briefing was prepared for CASI by Daniel O'Huiginn and Alison
Klevnas. Thanks to Felicity Arbuthnot, Anne Campbell, Helena Cobban,
Mike Lewis, Rory McCarthy, Glen Rangwala, Colin Rowat, Shirin, Jonathan
Stevenson, Per Klevnas and the members of the CASI Analysis list for
their help and advice. Except where otherwise noted, extracts from the
Iraqi press and broadcast media are taken from the BBC news monitoring
service.

For more information on this issue, please contact:

Daniel O'Huiginn,
Tel: 01223 328040
Mobile: 07745 192426
Email: dan.ohuiginn@casi.org.uk

(1) 'After Recapturing N. Iraqi City, Rebuilding Starts from Scratch',
by Steve Fainaru. 19 September 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31377-2004Sep18?language=printer
(2) Comments by Faruq Abd-al-Rahman, leader of the Iraqi Turkoman
Front, on TRT 2 Television, Ankara, 1600 gmt 12 September 2004
(3) Al-Manar Television, Beirut, 0440 gmt 14 September 2004
(4) Al-Sharqiyah, Baghdad, 1200 gmt 15 September 2004
(5) 'After Recapturing N. Iraqi City, Rebuilding Starts from Scratch',
by Steve Fainaru. 19 September 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31377-2004Sep18?language=printer
(6) 'US, Iraqi forces take control of Samarra'. By Nancy A. Youssef and
Patrick Kerkstra, 1 October 2004,
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/9813499.htm
(7) 'Onslaught in Samarra escalates in 'dress rehearsal' for major US
assault on rebels'. Ken Sengupta, Independent, 3 October.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=56835
(8) Washington Post, 16 October 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34612-2004Oct15?language=printer
(9) Al-Sharqiyah, Baghdad, 1300GMT 8 October 2004
(10) Al-Jazeera TV, 1505 gmt 1 October 2004
(11) Al Jazeera TV, 1810 gmt 2 October 2004
(12) Washington Post, 16 October 2004.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34612-2004Oct15?language=printer
(13) 'Iraq: thousands of residents have fled Fallujah'. IRIN, 8
November.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/c8e6aade2a3db177c1256f460051db3b?OpenDocument
(14) Comment by Shirin,
http://justworldnews.org/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=966
(15) 'Iraq: thousands of residents have fled Fallujah'. IRIN, 8
November.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/c8e6aade2a3db177c1256f460051db3b?OpenDocument
(16) 'Iraq: US troops surround al-Fallujah as offensive preparations
continue'. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty feature, 8 November 2004.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/11/f29d2002-7151-4453-9e91-97c77a17d3f2.html
(17) San Francisco Chronicle, 6th November 2004.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/11/06/MNGHL9NBU11.DTL
(18)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=580548
(19) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3989815.stm
(20) LA Times, 24 October,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-fallouja24oct24,1,6787318.story?coll=la-headlines-world
(21) Statement issued by the Political Bureau of the Iraqi Islamic
Party, on 19 Sha'ban 1425 AH, corresponding to 3 Oct 2004. Reported on
Dar al-Salam radio, Baghdad in Arabic 1600 gmt 4 Oct 04
(22) Statement by Muqtada al-Sadr on Al-Manar Television, Beirut, in
Arabic 1800 gmt 4 October 2004
(23) Survey conducted in June 2004 by Oxford Research International,
http://www.oxfordresearch.com/Iraq%20June%202004%20Frequency%20Tables.PD
(24) Al-Jazeera TV, 1615 GMT 2 October 2004
(25) Survey conducted in June 2004 by Oxford Research International,
http://www.oxfordresearch.com/Iraq%20June%202004%20Frequency%20Tables.PD
(26) Response of Adam Ingram on 25 October 2004 to questions 191479
(tabled by Llwyd, and 192090, 192089, and 192087 tabled by Adam Price.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm041025/text/41025w03.htm#41025w03.html_spnew9
(27) Response to question by Adam Price MP:
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development
what discussions he has had with counterparts in the US Administration
on cutting off water supplies in Iraq. [192088]
Hilary Benn: I have had no such discussions
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm041103/text/41103w03.htm#41103w03.html_spnew4
(28) Letter from Adam Ingram to Anne Campbell MP, dated 21 October
2004, ref D/Min(AF)/AI 4770/04/C
(29) Law of administration for the state of Iraq for the transitional
period, http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html
(30)
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/d67c3971bcff1c10c125641e0052b545

_______________________________________________
Sent via the announcements list of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-announce

To contact the list manager, email casi-announce-admin@lists.casi.org.uk

CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk

November 19th - Militant Labour Forum

Free Ahmed Zaoui ! Using laws enacted as part of the so-called war on terror, the
New Zealand government has imprisoned Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui for nearly two
years without trial. This week's Militant Labour Forum will discuss what is at stake
in this fight, and why working people should join the campaign for Zaoui's release.
7pm, Friday, November 19, Suggested donation $3 No one turned away for lack of
funds. Militant Labour Forum & Pathfinder Books, at 'The Gloucester' Arcade, (near
the Theatre Royal), 129 - 131 Gloucester St, Christchurch. For more details ph(03)
365 6055 or e-mail: mlf-chch@paradise.net.nz