Update on Corporate Pirates Trial

Wednesday September 14th saw the first and only day of the trial of two
anti-war activists charged with ‘failing to leave the land’ under the
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 – Aggravated Trespass. The
defendants claimed they were using reasonable force to prevent war
crimes – the aiding and abetting of the appropriation of property not
justified by military necessity and pillage – by Iraq privatisation
event organisers Windrush Communications.

Both defendants faced almost definite conviction with court costs of up
to £5000 (which the defendants would not have paid and would not have
expected anti-war groups to raise money for), plus fines and possible
Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)*. The trial would have been worth
any conviction, ASBO or prison time had there been sufficient media
attention and anti-war movement support and involvement which could
illuminate the issues of economic occupation, Bremer’s Orders, Bush’s
Middle East Free Trade Agreement and illegal privatisation in Iraq etc
But this unfortunately was virtually nonexistent.

Due to Steve Barnes pressing ahead with standing trial after two
defendants accepted BindOvers (the third had emigrated suddenly to
Australia), we were able to apply for disclosure of all advices given to
the government by the Attorney General. This was summarily turned down
by the Magistrate who was incredibly hostile towards our lawyer and had
at a previous hearing actually said that she did not want us protesting
at the offices of Windrush. She even at one point described us to our
lawyer us as ‘your protesters’.

She did accept that there had been a wholesale privatisation of the
Iraqi economy. She accepted that this was not justified by military
necessity. She also stated unequivocally that a war crime could not be
validated after it had been committed. This undermined the argument that
because successive Governing Councils – recognised as legal authorities
in Iraq under UN Resolution 1546 had validated Occupation policies
because they had not reversed them – that they were still valid. Our
lawyer Martin Rackstraw from Bindman and Partners argued that the
economic war crimes against the people of Iraq were ongoing and could
not be validated. We put it to her that Order 39 on Foreign Investment
passed by the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer in
September 2004 permitted the war crime of appropriation of property
(state, public property and industry in Iraq) by the occupation through
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and that military occupation
forces had not asked for such Orders to be passed. They did not relate
to Military Necessity as defined in the Geneva Conventions. The
magistrate had to be told what the CPA was. She found it hard to believe
but did not deny that a company based in Old Street organising
conferences relating to the privatisation of Iraq’s assets and services
could be committing war crimes.

The case was discontinued after three of the four original defendants
finally accepted Bind-overs. Defendant number four had charges against
him dropped. The Bind Overs accecpted will last for two years and if
breached i.e if an offence is committed resulting in conviction, the
individual in question will be liable to paying a fine of £500.

IMPORTANT
Agreeing to be bound over is *not* an admission of guilt and it is *not*
a conviction either. Strategically, it was the best decision as it has
freed us up to fight another day, and to still use the research and case
that we have built up relating to economic war crimes committed against
the people of Iraq.

Plans for further action in exposing this ongoing crime and agenda is
expected.


*The prosecution had made their intention to push for these:

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) - An ASBO is a civil court order.
They were first introduced in April 1999 and are granted on the basis of
providing the court with sufficient evidence that an individual has been
acting in an anti-social way.

If an ASBO is made on an individual, he or she is then prohibited from
doing anything it specifies, such as visiting certain places, leaving
their home after a certain time, or acting in a certain fashion. The
terms of each ASBO will vary according to individual circumstances.
Although being the subject of an ASBO will not give the individual a
criminal record, if they are convicted of breaching its terms, they
could be given a prison sentence of up to five years.
ASBOs can only be applied for by the Police, British Transport Police,
local authorities and registered social landlords. Information and
evidence gathered from the local community is invaluable in supporting
the applications.

Please fwd:

Iraq’s other occupation
- Ewa Jasiewicz

Much has been said and done within the UK anti-war movement on the
legality of the Iraq war. From breaking into military bases to disrupt
warplanes taking off, to smashing support vehicles for B52 bombers, the
approach of the direct action wing of the movement has been two-fold: to
try to physically prevent perceived war crimes from actually taking
place at their point of execution; and when charged, to use the legal
system to defend the direct action, raise more awareness of the issue
and effectively put British foreign policy on trial.

However, despite activists having (unsuccessfully) challenged the
legality of the war in domestic courts using the International Criminal
Court Act – which allows British courts to examine allegations of
conduct said to amount to war crimes – no legal challenge has ever been
brought against the imposition of economic reforms in Iraq by the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

This week myself and Steve Barnes were to stand trial for ‘aggravated
trespass’ allegedly committed at the offices of Iraq Procurement event
organisers Windrush Communications in London. A key plank of our
defence? That we were attempting to prevent the war crime of aiding and
abetting pillage and appropriation of assets in Iraq. It would have been
the first time that CPA Orders – namely Bremer’s notorious Order 39,
upon the authority of which such conferences are organised - would be
challenged in court.

The CPA was the first occupation authority structure which paved the way
for ensuring the conditions for privatisation of Iraq’s key assets,
services and ultimately, as the draft Petroleum Law is indicating,
Iraq’s undeveloped oil wealth.

Order 39, passed on September 20 2003, abolished Iraq's ban on foreign
investment, allowing for 100% foreign ownership of all sectors except
natural resources. Over 200 state-owned companies, including
electricity, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals were marked for
privatisation and Iraq's corporate tax rate was slashed from 45% to a
flat rate of 15%. Further Orders on Taxation Strategy, Trade
Liberalisation, Financial Management, Public Debt and Order 40’s ‘Bank
Law’ (which saw foreign ownership of the banking system of the second
richest oil country in the Middle East for the first time in over 50
years) were also ratified from June 2003 until June 2004.

Order 100 on Transition of Laws, Regulations, Orders, and Directives
seals Iraq’s fate and free-market-ready structure by re-enforcing
Orders, Regulations, Directives and Memoranda under the Law of
Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period
(“TAL”).

The CPA was officially dismantled but the proto-legal framework,
organizational structures and institutions designed to secure a
free-market economy based on aggressive wholesale privatization in sync
with Bush’s Middle East Free Trade Zone agenda, were left behind. These
were consolidated by a succession of Washington line-towing Governing
Councils, grown from the seeds of the initial IGC created in June 2003.
Dissenting voices were weeded out and those approved by the US,
re-planted.

Dressed up in the language of clear-cut business interest or neutral
reconstruction – whether ‘Iraq Procurement’ or now ‘The Iraq Development
Program’ – it can be argued that these events, despite their luxury
hotel locations and eloquent presentations, are incredibly violent. The
process which has created the conditions for such events, which has
advanced the doctrine and structures of a neo-liberal economy in Iraq,
was war. A military invasion and occupation which to date has cost the
lives of an estimated 100,000 and rising.

Those in Iraq who will be most affected by these changes – working
people in the state sector - have been overwhelmingly opposed to
privatisation. The General Union of Oil Employees in Basra, representing
23,000 oil workers across three governorates in the South regards the
Public sector as ‘the common wealth of all Iraqis’ and as such its
privatisation without consultation and a mandate from the people as
‘impermissible’. In a recent communiqué, the executive committee stated:
‘The privatisation of the oil and industrial sectors is the objective of
all in the Iraqi State/Government…we will stand firm against this
imperialist plan that would hand over Iraq's wealth to international
capitalism such that the deprived Iraqi people would not benefit from
it. We reaffirm our unshakeable position on this basic issue for the
future of the new Iraq, for we cannot build our country unless its
wealth is in its own possession’.

The Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions exist not simply to protect
civilian populations in times of conflict but also the national
resources of a land in order to safeguard a population’s future and
right to decide its’ economic destiny. We believe these legal and moral
rights have been violated. We believe the doubts expressed by Lord Peter
Goldsmiths in his leaked April 2003 memo to the Prime Minister that
‘“major structural economic reform” proposed for Iraq may “not be
authorized under international law” reveal the legal weaknesses of
British Foreign Policy.

The action and trial were embarked upon in solidarity with the people of
Iraq resisting occupation - military and economic. It was our
contribution to the ongoing anti-war effort and enduring anti capitalist
movement.

The trial was to be a strike against the logic of a form of
government-sponsored free market fundamentalism which does not recognise
international law, economic sovereignty, and the human rights of future
generations in Iraq.

Whether the economic occupation of Iraq will succeed depends not just on
whether the military occupation will be defeated but also whether the
global anti-war movement can understand this parallel, simultaneous
occupation and support those within Iraqi industry resisting it.