The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] WSWS is getting the drift ....

WSWS is getting the drift ....

Bush's visit to London: Is a state provocation being prepared?
By Julie Hyland
18 November 2003

Unprecedented security measures are being put in place for President George
W. Bush's visit to London this week.
Between November 18 and November 19, Bush will stay at Buckingham Palace as
the guest of Queen Elizabeth. His itinerary includes a meeting with Prime
Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street on November 18, when mass protests
against the war on Iraq and the ongoing occupation are expected. The
president will make just one visit outside of London-a stage-managed visit
to Blair's Sedgfield parliamentary constituency.

The state visit was first planned in September last year, but recent events
have amplified its political importance for both leaders. Mounting
resistance by the Iraqi people and the rising number of casualties have
fuelled domestic opposition to the colonial takeover of Iraq, causing Bush's
itinerary to be heavily curtailed.

The visit has reignited popular anger towards the war in Britain, which saw
two million people gather in London as part of the international protests
held last February 15. Relatives of British troops killed in Iraq have
condemned Bush's visit and tens of thousands are expected to join protests
against the two leaders.

The response of the US and British governments has sinister overtones. Media
reports are filled with warnings of the possibility of terrorists using the
protests as a cover for their activities. Most significantly, British police
have made an explicit link between the protests and a possible attack on
Bush by Al Qaeda.

A senior Scotland Yard spokesman told the Times, "We are not so concerned
about some anti-war protester throwing rotten fruit at the president. Our
worry now is the more dangerous elements who may be here."

The linkage of the protests with a possible attack by Al Qaeda raises
serious concerns that a state provocation is being prepared against the
demonstrations. There are no details of the supposed terrorist threat and
the Home Office has refused to comment. But London is being placed under a
virtual state of siege. Some 19 million is being spent on security measures
and all of Scotland Yard's armed units and up to 5,000 police officers will
be on duty, with all leave cancelled.
Bush will be escorted by 250 heavily armed secret service agents, up to 150
national security officials and 50 White House aides. Two 747s and a
specially chartered jumbo are to make the journey to the UK. Once in
Britain, Bush will be accompanied by a specially converted black hawk
helicopter and a motorcade of 20 armoured vehicles.

According to reports, US security officials had originally demanded the
closure of London's underground rail network. The Observer reports "the
British authorities agreed numerous concessions, including the creation of a
'sterile zone' around the president with a series of road closures in
central London."

A no-fly zone is being established over Whitehall, "with the RAF on standby
to shoot down unidentified planes," the Mirror reported. Britain has been
put on its second highest terror alert, reportedly following warnings by Al
Qaeda supporters from North Africa.

The police have also said they reserve the right to close roads at a moment'
s notice. Britain's senior police officer, John Stevens, admitted that
security for the visit will be "unprecedented," but said that this was
necessary because of "one, the level of terrorism threat and two, the nature
of the president's visit."

In such circumstances, and with tensions already running high, it would be
entirely possible for the police or some other British or US state agency to
create a security incident-possibly through the use of provocateurs in the
crowd. This would serve the dual purpose of identifying opposition to the
war with the activity of terrorist groups and lending a veil of legitimacy
to the occupation of Iraq and the general offensive against democratic
rights that has been mounted under the pretext of the pursuing the "war
against terrorism."

The possible repercussions for demonstrators and the organizers of the
protests are grave. Under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001,
introduced in the wake of September 11, the security services have accrued
powers traditionally identified with a police state.

London has been operating under an undisclosed state of emergency for the
past two years, allowing random searches of buildings and people under
Section 44 of the act for a period of up to 28 days, at the discretion of
the home secretary.
Prior to the mass anti-war protests on February 15, over 450 troops and an
extra 1,700 armed police officers were deployed at Heathrow airport and
parts of London-measures that were authorized under the terms of the
anti-terrorism act.

The legislation also enables non-UK nationals certified as "suspected
international terrorists and national security risks" by the home secretary
to be detained without charge or trial for an unlimited period. Detention
can be based on secret evidence-which the detainee and his counsel cannot
see or challenge. Sixteen foreign nationals are currently being held under
these conditions in UK prisons. Just last month, ten men who have been held
for two years without charge in high-security prisons or mental hospitals
lost their appeals against detention.

In addition, the anti-terror law enables the police to impose sweeping
powers to stop and search, and to arrest. More than 150 people were arrested
in September during peaceful protests outside an international arms fair
held in London. Several, including a student and a freelance
photojournalist, were detained under the act. These two recently lost their
case against their detention on the grounds that the police's actions were
"proportionate" to a perceived security threat.

The furor surrounding the president's visit raises the distinct possibility
that this legislation could again be used against those protesting, who
could find themselves hauled off to police cells on the grounds of national
This concern is highlighted by the ominous statement from the Home Office
that armed US special agents accompanying the president would not be granted
special immunity in the case of an "accidental shooting" of a protester.

Why is such a possibility of immunity being considered? Why would armed
agents be anywhere near the protests? Whether these statements are intended
purely to intimidate potential protesters, or worse, all those participating
in demonstrations over the next several days should be vigilant and on their

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]