Monthly Archives: Dec 2015

‘Soldiers have spoken out, protested, and revolted in almost every war in history. We need this resistance… one of the single strongest factors in bringing wars to an end.’

This article written by Vron Ware first appeared on Open Democracy.

2015 has been a year of extraordinary activism for the UK anti-war movement. A wide array of groups has been busy forging creative campaigns to educate new generations against war in general, to disrupt the trade in lethal weapons and to oppose military intervention in particular places. Very little of this political work gets reported, unless it can be used to attack Jeremy Corbyn.

But one set of protests was so spectacular, so radical and so eloquent that the corporate media was obliged to sit up and take notice. In July and again inDecember, members of Veterans for Peace UK staged demonstrations that challenged the deep-seated belief that military service was an honourable profession that had turned them all into heroes.

On Friday 10 July, three former soldiers, all members of VfPUK, walked from Trafalgar Square to Downing Street where they lined up, faced the police barricades and declared:

‘We are members of Veterans For Peace UK, an ex-services organisation of men and women who have served this country in every conflict since the Second World War. We exist in the hope of convincing you that war is not the solution to the problems of the 21st century. We have come here today to hand back things, given to us as soldiers, that we no longer require or want.’

The men took turns to make brief statements before dropping their ‘things’ on the ground. They did this three times: first with their Oaths of Allegiance, then their army hats and finally their medals. It was this last gesture that was so powerful.

John Boulton said:

‘These are the medals given to me for the sick dichotomy of keeping the peace and waging war. They are trinkets, pseudo payments. But really all they represent is the self interest of those in there, who hold power.’

Kieran Devlin said:

‘These are my medals, these were given to me were given to me as a reward for invading other peoples’ countries and murdering their civilians. I’m now handing them back’.

Ben Griffin, founder of VfPUK and a former paratrooper and member of the SAS, said:

‘I was given these medals for service on operations with the British Army. This particular medal here, was given to me for my part in the occupation of Iraq. Whilst I was over there, I attacked civilians in their homes and took away their men, off to be tortured in prison. I no longer want these despicable things.’

After the vote in the House of Commons to sanction RAF air strikes in Syria, three more members, Daniel Lenham, Kirk Sollitt and Phil Mace with Ben Griffin, this time representing Dave Smith, returned to Downing Street on December 9. As a group they explained:

‘We are here today in protest at the decision to bomb in Syria and to return medals given to us for our participation in previous attacks on the Middle East.’

We are Veterans For Peace, our members have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We bring you the simple message that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st Century.”

Each one made a similarly powerful declaration of their commitment to turn their experience of military service into a vehicle for campaigning against war. These can be read on the organisation’s website and the group’s Facebook page has a video of the demonstration as well. Phil Mace explained in a particularly heartfelt way what it meant for him to reject the use of violence as a means to solve political problems:

 ‘I don’t understand what these medals are for or what they are supposed to mean. I joined the army as a teenager hoping to better myself and I believe I did that whilst on operations in Afghanistan. One day whilst out on patrol I was asked to blow a hole in a building, not knowing what was on the other side. I thought to myself What if? What if it is a baby? What if it’s with its mother? What if it’s there with the whole family? I would much rather live my life not having to deal with the consequences of What If. That is why I throw these medals back. What if every soldier past and present did this?’

It must be said that these actions represent a fraction of VfPUK’s work against militarism and war – something that will be clear from scrolling through their Facebook page. Two more examples of their contribution to peace education stand out in particular. One is Ben Griffin’s incredible lecture on ‘The Making of a British Soldier’ delivered to the Kingston Peace Council in October 2015. This can be watched in full here.

The other example is the series of talks from women members of the organization, given in November as the group gathered from all over the country to make their statement at the Cenotaph. The inclusion of female veterans’ voices, American as well as British, provides an essential dimension to the collective project to explain and dismantle militarism.

And finally – there’s the anti-war Christmas single which features a video of VfPUK members walking to the cenotaph behind their banner which declares, ‘NEVER AGAIN’. Produced by Tom Morello’s (erstwhile leader of Rage Against the Machine) Firebrand Records, and written by co-founder, folk singer, and longtime anti-war activist Ryan Harvey, ‘ Christmas Truce’ is performed by the Belgian-born, London-based singer Fenya who is an active member of London’s Food Not Bombs.

Ben Griffin explains the premise of the song:

‘The Christmas Truce lives in the hearts of millions of people. However we need to move on from the idea of a truce being something that is only carried out at Christmas. Throughout history soldiers have formed truces with their supposed enemies; in fact soldiers often find that they have a lot more in common with the enemy than with their own governments.’

‘I wrote this song to tell a simple story that reflects a much larger reality,’ Harvey says. ‘Soldiers have spoken out, protested, and revolted in almost every war in history. We encourage and need this resistance, because historically, it is one of the single strongest factors in bringing wars to an end. At a time when a civil and proxy-war is ripping Syria apart and the world seems to be lingering on the brink of yet another global catastrophic conflict, this ever-relevant song references history to describe the present.’

Ahead of the House of Commons debate on the Armed Forces Bill on Wednesday 16 December, ForcesWatch has published a new report calling for a change in the law ending military recruitment under 18 years of age.

This report, highlights seven recommendations from the Defence Committee’s report Duty of Care: Third Report of Session 2004-05 which, ten years on, have not been partially or fully implemented, and around which substantial concerns about the welfare of young recruits remain.

An amendment to ensure that only those above 18 years of age are able to enlist in the armed forces will be debated in the House.

Britain is the only country in Europe and sole permanent member of the UN Security Council which enlists 16 and 17 years old into its armed forces.

This policy has been called into question by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and many other respected bodies, including Children’s Commissioners. A number of other bodies, including the Defence Committee have called for the policy to be reviewed.

The welfare of young recruits became a significant matter of concern for MPs after the deaths of four young soldiers at the military training barracks at Deepcut in Surrey. The Defence Committee’s Duty of Care report recommended many changes to the way that the armed forces approach its duty of care responsibilities. A number of important recommendations, with particular relevance to the youngest recruits who are under the age of 18 have not been partially or fully implemented. These include:

• The Ministry of Defence should examine the potential impact of raising recruitment age for all three services to 18.
• Information available to potential recruits, and their parents, must make clear the rights, responsibilities and the nature of the commitment, and be written in language that potential recruits will understand
• Recruitment standards should not be diluted.
• The MoD must ensure that under-18 year olds do not undertake armed guard duty.

ForcesWatch coordinator, Emma Sangster, said:

“A thorough and independent review of the age of recruitment has not been done by the Ministry of Defence. We urge the Prime Minister to – as he often puts it – ‘do the right thing’ and heed calls from the United Nations to raise the age of recruitment without delay.

“All four deaths at Deepcut involved a young recruit on guard duty, and two were just 17, yet the practice of under-18s taking part in armed guard duty continues to this day and does so despite the Duty of Care report from MPs.

“In essence the MoD are prioritising operational effectiveness over the rights and welfare of young people in its care. We think MPs on all sides would wish to rectify this situation and bring Britain fully into line with international standards on the age of military recruitment.”

Notes

Read the report: ‘Commonsense and Understanding’: Recommendations from the Defence Committee’s Duty of Care report page 1that are still outstanding 10 years on

An amendment to the Armed Forces Bill will be debated during the House of Commons Third Reading on Wednesday 16 December. This amendment ensures that only those above 18 years of age are able to enlist in the Armed Forces.

During the Christmas of 1914, soldiers on multiple fronts of the First World War put their weapons down and made an unofficial and illegal truce. When the celebrations ended, many would not go back to war with each other. The popular story has been re-told many times as a Christmas miracle.

This December 18th, an organisation of veterans of the British military and Tom Morello’s new Firebrand Records release “Christmas Truce” a holiday single and video to promote the ideals behind that truce – soldier-led resistance against war and militarism.

Written by Firebrand Records co-founder, folk singer, and longtime anti-war activist Ryan Harvey, “Christmas Truce” is performed by Belgian-born, London-based singer Fenya, an active member of London’s Food Not Bombs. Accompanying the song is a video shot with members of Veterans For Peace UK, featuring former soldiers of conflicts stretching from the Second World War to the present interventions and occupations in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.

“The Christmas Truce lives in the hearts of millions of people,” says Veterans For Peace UK coordinator Ben Griffin, who served in Northern Ireland, the former-Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan with the Parachute Regiment and the Special Air Service. “However we need to move on from the idea of a truce being something that is only carried out at Christmas. Throughout history soldiers have formed truces with their supposed enemies; in fact soldiers often find that they have a lot more in common with the enemy than with their own governments.”

“I wrote this song to tell a simple story that reflects a much larger reality,” Harvey says. “Soldiers have spoken out, protested, and revolted in almost every war in history. We encourage and need this resistance, because historically, it is one of the single strongest factors in bringing wars to an end. At a time when a civil and proxy-war is ripping Syria apart and the world seems to be lingering on the brink of yet another global catastrophic conflict, this ever-relevant song references history to describe the present.”

“We hope to convince people that war is not the solution to the problems of the 21st century,” Griffin concludes.

 

Notes

Veterans For Peace UK is a voluntary ex-services organisation of over 300 men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2.

Firebrand Records was launched in June, 2015 by Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine) and Ryan Harvey (Riot-Folk Collective) to give a voice to socially-active, politically-conscious musicians globally.
Ben Griffin
+44 7866 559 312
coord@vfpuk.org

Ryan Harvey
ryan@firebrandrecords.com

Whilst there are different strands of pacifism (e’g’ religious and ethical), Pacifists in general and certainly all those that I have known, are people who hold the conviction that all violence is wrong, that killing other human beings can never be justified, and therefore that one should not participate in war under any circumstances!

Anti war campaigners like me and most of my comrades in ‘Veterans For Peace’, are people who share very similar views, often acquired through traumatic personal experience, that violence, killing and wars, are inhuman, brutal, degrading and usually ineffective ways of resolving disputes, that we should make every effort to avoid. The difference is that we do not say “under any circumstances”. That is because we can envisage or, as in my case, have experienced, situations and circumstances, such as World War Two, in which we believe that violent resistance can be justified, when it is clearly necessary to prevent greater violence, injustice and oppression.

If you were watching Channel Four News last night, You might have seen me accompanying a group of Veterans for Peace, down Whitehall to Downing Street, where  several of them ceremoniously discarded their medals, to express their anger at the British Governments total inability to learn from experience, as demonstrated by the decision to commence bombing yet another Middle Eastern country. The equivalent in our view of poring petrol on a fire which you have previously lit. These younger veterans had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, in wars of aggression that they  had come to see were  unjustified and which were contributing to the spread of violence and extremism. I supported their decision but I did not discard my medals because I believe that the war I fought in was necessary and justified to defeat a monstrous tyranny.

The last week has seen a signiificant increase in the number of veterans applying to join VfP.  It is encouraging to see that young men who have been have sent out to kill and to be killed, in our name, are learning and drawing the right conclusions from their experience. But how depressing to note that the politicians who send them out, appear to learn nothing from theirs!

Jim Radford served on a Tugboat during the D-Day landings and subsequently in the Royal Navy. He is a long time anti-war activist and a member of Veterans For Peace UK.

In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street tomorrow.

One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.” He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”

David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.” 

Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria innocent, vulnerable sentient beings are being killed, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”

Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. We exist to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century.

Date – Tuesday 8 December

Time – 1pm

Location – Meet at Nelsons Column before heading to Downing Street, London

Dress – VFP Members to wear VFP Hoodies

Supporters welcome.

Contact

Ben Griffin, Coordinator VFP UK
07866 559 312
coord@vfpuk.org

By Charlie Bird of Veterans For Peace UK

There are a number of false assumptions that have sprung up in the debate over whether the UK should join in the bombing campaign against ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh in Syria. I suspect that that they have been encouraged by politicians who hope that the issue will cause some domestic party political collateral damage, particularly to the Labour Party leadership. But bombing Syria is not a party political issue; it is a moral one quite separate from politics. And a refusal to support the bombing campaign is not a lack of support for the French and all others who have suffered at the hands of ISIS, nor is it a sign of being weak or half-hearted when faced with the appalling atrocities and perversion of Islam perpetrated by ISIS. We are being led to believe that the decisions are binary ones: bomb Syria or we fail to support our allies, bomb Syria or we are not serious in the fight against ISIS. This is convenient shorthand to shame us into supporting a decision to join the bombing campaign.

In the aftermath of the atrocities in Paris (which Iraqis and Syrians living in areas under ISIS control will recognise from their own experience) there is tremendous pressure on Governments to “do something” and to be seen to be doing it. The action becomes almost more important than the objective we are trying to achieve. Most of us can agree that ISIS needs to be eradicated both in terms of its presence on the ground and in terms of its ideology. If that is the case, then we should be able to work backwards to find the actions or combination of actions that will achieve those objectives, rather than hoping that our added presence in the already overcrowded skies above Syria will miraculously lead to the collapse of ISIS.

There is general agreement that the UK’s participation in the bombing campaign will be of greater symbolic rather than military significance. But we are told that it will help make the UK a safer place. That is what we were told about the UK’s involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former Director General of MI5 told the Iraq Inquiry that the invasion of Iraq actually increased the terrorist threat to the UK. Dropping bombs on Syria is likely to encourage nascent “home grown” terrorists in the UK who may not be members, in the conventional sense, of ISIS but who are sympathetic to and inspired by them. There are many ways other than bombing Syria in which we can demonstrate real and practical support both for France and for the military and ideological struggle against ISIS. Provision of intelligence, resources and logistical support, tactical and strategic advice as well as a leading role in the search for a political settlement in Syria may be less visible and dramatic than news footage of RAF aircraft dropping bombs, but arguably may be more effective.

But for me, the final argument against the UK’s participation in the bombing campaign is that however smart our bombs may be, we will kill innocent civilians. There hasn’t been a recent bombing campaign without civilian casualties. And even if, by some miracle, RAF bombs don’t kill the innocents whom ISIS use as human shields, some of our “allies” in the campaign certainly will. They have already done so, and we will be associated with those killings. No doubt we will express our profound regret……ISIS have are responsible for the most disgusting offences against the people under their occupation, including crucifixion. The shrapnel from our bombs will tear through the flesh of the innocent like nails. Make no mistake; it will be done in our name.