[JNV] Maya Wins Award / Basra Poll Condemns British Troops / US Intelligence Report on Iran

[Justice Not Vengeance]

Justice Not Vengeance Email Briefing
17 December 2007


1) Maya Book Offer
2) Basra Handover - Locals condemn British troops in new poll
3) The US National Intelligence Estimate and Iran - Opportunities for activ=
ists
4) Maya's Acceptance Speech


*****


1) MAYA WINS

Dear friends

Please find below some interesting information which we hope you will
find useful in any pre- or post-Christmas campaigning you find the
time to engage in.

We are also very proud to announce that JNV co-ordinator Maya Anne
Evans has won the Peter Duffy Young Campaigner of the Year Award,
given by Liberty the human rights group. The text of Maya's acceptance
speech is at the end of this email.

To mark the occasion, we are offering Maya's book Naming the Dead as a
last-minute Christmas present at =A35 post-free first class. Please just
email us the address you would like a copy to be sent to, and we will
send it off before Thursday (and post a cheque made out to 'JNV' to 29
Gensing Road, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex!).

Best wishes for the holiday season

Emily Johns
Milan Rai


***


2) BASRA HANDOVER - LOCALS CONDEMN BRITISH TROOPS

On Thursday 13 December, the ORB agency published a poll conducted in
Basra in the run-up to the British handover of responsibility to local
forces. Part of the poll was conducted for Newsnight, the other part
for the Sunday Times. (The poll was first spotted by Voices in the
Wilderness UK.)

The full results of the polls can be found here:
http://www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom.aspx

For the BBC programme Newsnight, ORB asked: 'Do you feel that once the
British troops have handed over the security files to the local
security forces in Basrah, the security situation in the immediate
weeks following troop withdrawal will improve, deteriorate or perhaps
you think it will stay the same?'

5% think the situation will deteriorate.
12% think it will stay the same.
66% think the situation will now improve.
(16% don't know or refused to answer.)

The same question was asked about the long-term.

5% think the situation will deteriorate.
6% think it will stay the same.
72% think the situation will improve in the long term now that British
troops have withdrawn.
(17% don't know or refused to answer.)

ORB/Newsnight then asked: 'What effect has the presence of British
troops had on the level of militia violence in Basrah?'

3% think it has reduced the overall level of militia violence.
14% think it has made no difference.
56% think the presence of British troops 'has increased the overall
level of militia violence.'
(27% don't know or refused to answer.)

'Which of the following would you like to see happen to the British troops?=
'

0% want them to have a presence on the streets of Basra.
9% want them 'to remain in the province but based in a camp on the
outskirts where they could be called upon in a time of crisis'.
19% want them 'to leave Iraq but to be present in a nearby country
where they could be called upon in a time of crisis'.
63% want them to 'leave the Middle East altogether and return to Britain'.
(9% don't know or refused to answer.)

86% of respondents believe the British troops have, overall, had a
negative effect on the Basra province since March 2003.

The Sunday Times ORB poll found that 70% of respondents expected to
feel a lot safer (27%) or somewhat safer (43%) after the British
troops withdrew from the city.

71% of respondents were somewhat unfavourably inclined towards the
British government (29%) or very unfavourably inclined towards the
British government (42%). (68% felt unfavourably towards the British
people.)

The biggest threat to the security situation in Basra was seen to be
'the presence of British troops' (32%).

The next most serious perceived threats were Iran (21%) and
unemployment (16%). 'Armed militias', the armed Bader Organisation,
Moqtada al-Sadr's Al Mahdi Army, and other politico-military groups
between them accumulated only 2% of 'votes'.


******


3) US INTELLIGENCE, THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE (NIE) AND THE IRAN C=
RISIS

The latest report from US intelligence on Iran's nuclear programme
gives concerned citizens the opportunity to focus the public's
attention on the possibility of a negotiated solution to the Iran
crisis; and to emphasize the importance of uranium ore contamination
as an obstacle to any effort to develop an Iranian nuclear weapon.


A) TOWARDS A SOLUTION

One crucial sentence in the US National Intelligence Estimate
(published on 3 December) points to the possibility of a negotiated
solution.

Iran's leaders might be persuaded to give up any ambition to develop
nuclear weapons, says the NIE, if there were (a) 'threats of
intensified international scrutiny and pressures', along with (b)
'opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals
for regional influence' by non-nuclear means.

This is followed by the Big Lie of the NIE: 'It is difficult to
specify what such a combination might be.'

In fact, we do have a very good idea what carrots Iran might respond
to, because they were set out in considerable detail by Iran in 2003.

In that year, Iran sent a secret negotiating proposal to the State
Department (via the Swiss government), laying out a broad array of
concessions it was willing to make to Washington, including an end to
military support for the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, tighter
controls on its nuclear programme and Iranian support for a two-state
solution to the Israel-Palestine question (recognizing Israel for the
first time).

In return, Iran sought an end to US financial and economic sanctions,
full access to peaceful nuclear technology and a recognition of Iran's
'legitimate security interests', among other goals
<http://tinyurl.com/gvdsu>.

Flynt Leverett, then a senior director on the US National Security
Council staff,  saw the Iranian proposal. He described it as "a
serious effort, a respectable effort to lay out a comprehensive agenda
for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement" <http://tinyurl.com/kqccb>.

Leverett added: 'The message had been approved by all the highest
levels of authority. They wanted us to deal with sanctions, security
guarantees, normalization of relations, and support for integration of
Iran into the World Trade Organization' <http://tinyurl.com/pbncc>.

Crucially, Iran sought a security guarantee from the United States, a
cast-iron commitment not to try to overthrow the Iranian government,
in particular a promise not to invade or attack Iran.

This was the central element of the 'grand bargain' offered by Iran,
as this line from the proposed 2003 'roadmap' indicates: 'US refrains
from supporting change of the political system by direct interference
from outside'. (A pdf of the 2003 fax is available at
<http://tinyurl.com/2kk6l8>.)

PRESSURE POINTS:

> Journalists and politicians should be reminded of the 2003 offer from Ira=
n.

> Particularly because the 3 December US National Intelligence Estimate say=
s that Tehran might be persuaded to forego nuclear weapons if offered 'oppo=
rtunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regiona=
l influence' by non-nuclear means.

> Iran explained to Washington what it wanted in terms of 'security, presti=
ge and goals for regional influence' in 2003.

> Therefore, to strengthen regional security, and the global nonproliferati=
on system, and to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the agenda s=
et out in the 2003 negotiating offer should be pursued rather than dismisse=
d out of hand.


B) THE DIFFICULTY/IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN IRANIAN BOMB

Hawks on both sides of the Atlantic have pointed to the increasing
number of centrifuges being operated by Iran as a sign of its
increasing uranium enrichment capability, allegedly creating a
springboard to the early development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

The latest US National Intelligence Estimate indicates that there are
significant technical problems for any Iranian bomb programme
dependent on gas centrifuge enrichment, which will not be overcome for
many years.

It is possible that these problems include the difficulties created by
contamination of Iranian uranium ore by molybdenum and other heavy
metals.

Former nuclear weapons scientist Frank Barnaby states that:

'These impurities could condense and block pipes and valves in the gas
centrifuges. In spite of this problem, the Iranians should be able to
enrich uranium to the low enrichment needed for civil nuclear-power
reactor fuel. But they would not be able to enrich above about 20% in
uranium-235. Therefore, Iran would not be able to produce uranium
enriched enough for use in nuclear weapons unless most of the
molybdenum was removed.' (Would Airstrikes Work?
<http://tinyurl.com/2vsjzb>)

The NIE suggests that Iran is unlikely to be technically capable of
producing weapons-grade uranium before 2010, and may not be able to
produce it even after 2015:

'We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first
produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do
so.... Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges
at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces
significant technical problems operating them. We judge with moderate
confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically
capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that
this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably
would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon
sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR [State Deparment Bureau
of Intelligence and Research] judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this
capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and
programmatic problems.)'

PRESSURE POINTS:

> Journalists and politicians should be reminded that, according to the NIE=
, Iran is 'very unlikely' to be 'technically capable' of producing weapons-=
grade uranium before 2010, and may well not be able to do so even after 201=
5.

> They should also be forcefully reminded that so long as Iran is inspected=
 by the IAEA, especially if Tehran agrees to a rigorous Additional Protocol=
 monitoring system, the civilian uranium enrichment facilities cannot be us=
ed to generate material for weapons.

> They should be asked if there is any information indicating that Iran has=
 overcome its heavy metal contamination in its uranium ore.

> If not, they should be informed of the publicly-available evidence which =
suggests that Iran is physically incapable of producing weapons-grade urani=
um, quite apart from the technical and logistical challenges of operating l=
arge numbers of centrifuges successfully.


*****


A more detailed version of these briefing points, with references,
will be on the JNV website by the weekend. Unfortunately we continue
to have problems with our website. Please bear with us.


*****


4) MAYA'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH

I would like to thank JUSTICE, Liberty and the Law Society for
organising these awards which recognise and celebrate the efforts and
achievements of individuals working together in a movement to make a
difference.

I feel very happy to accept this award not just on my own behalf but
for the countless number of people in the movement.

This award doesn't just represent my efforts, it represents everyone
who campaigns in one form or another. Those who go on marches, write
letters to MP's, those who question government policy.

In October 2005 my colleague Milan Rai and myself were arrested while
conducting a peaceful anti war demonstrating opposite the Cenotaph in
Whitehall.

We were in breach of s132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police
Act 2005 which prohibits peaceful protest around parliament without
authorisation.

While at the police station Mil got chatting to his arresting officer
(he's more of the chatty type when he gets arrested) who was very
critical of this time-consuming/unworkable piece of legislation. He
commented "these MP's are half asleep when they pass these laws,
they've got no idea what they're passing".

And indeed a couple of weeks ago a story appeared in the newspapers of
an MP Daniel Kawczynski who was arrested at the gates of Downing
Street with a placard protesting the closure of his local ambulance
call centre. After his arrest he complained that it was unfair that an
MP couldn't make their views known outside Downing Street. Maybe 2
years too late but there you go.

And these are the people who make decisions shaping our country.

Legislation does need to be monitored. It can't be left to a small
bunch of people in a large building making decisions affecting
millions of people. It's everyone's responsibility to be concerned
about laws and decisions made on our behalf. The Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act, the wars with Afghanistan (responsible for the
death of thousands of Afghans) Iraq (1.2m), the detention of terror
suspects without evidence, Guantanamo Bay, the list goes on=85.

Governments can not be trusted to create laws and make decisions. We
need to keep challenging and monitoring the government especially in
the area of human rights, the foundation of a healthy and fair
society.

This award is a great honour for me. I hope that it will help to
publicise some of the reasons which moved me to become involved in the
movement. The issues of Liberty, Justice, Non Violence and Equality.

I hope this award will encourage others to become involved in politics
and pro-active about decisions which shape the world we live in.

This award represents the work of everyone in the movement and it is
on their behalf I gratefully collect it. Let's continue working
together and supporting one another and we will achieve justice not
vengeance.

Maya Anne Evans


*****