As we approach the fifth anniversary of the occupation of Iraq, it is indeed ironic that the man who now tells us that an oath of allegiance to the state by young people would enhance respect for authority and engender a stronger sense of citizenship, is the same person who in 2003 helped facilitate the illegal invasion.

Lord Goldsmith’s own respect for authority – in this case the established principles of international law – was found wanting when the Blair government asked for – demanded, to be more accurate - an opinion that an attack on Iraq was lawful. Step forward the then Attorney-General, the very same Lord Goldsmith. The accepted legal position was that an attack on another sovereign state was only justified under specific conditions, including the threat of an attack by that country or where force had been authorised by the United Nations. Neither applied in the case of Iraq.

Goldsmith’s creative mind was exercised by this dilemma. His original memo written on 7 March 2003 was equivocal. He said existing breach of Security Council resolution 1441 could provide a “reasonable case” for the use of force without a further resolution, but conceded that a court might well conclude that another UN resolution was needed. The armed forces were not satisfied with this position. So ten days later, on the eve of the invasion – with no prospect of getting a further UN resolution - Goldsmith bluntly stated that the use of force in Iraq was lawful, dropping all his earlier caveats.

In handing Blair a legal fig leaf, Goldsmith had given the green light to the blatant objective of regime change, the installing of a government more to the liking of Washington and London which would open up Iraq to foreign investment and guarantee oil supplies. When the invasion began on 20 March, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, promptly resigned in protest. She also accused Goldsmith of changing his view on the matter.

Respect for “authority” has continued to plummet following the invasion. In the case of Iraq, the authorities patently fabricated evidence and dossiers about so-called weapons of mass destruction. No wonder fewer and few people believe what the government says on any issue. The authorities are viewed as duplicitous at best, ignoring people’s wishes on a variety of questions ranging from nuclear power to expanded airports.

Goldsmith’s proposals on an oath of loyalty in schools have about as much merit as his discredited opinion on Iraq. The idea of swearing allegiance to the monarchy, Britain’s least democratic institution, is, in any case, absurd and laughable. Goldsmith’s nonsense is yet another sign of New Labour in disarray. Having lost the respect of millions of voters, creating a society more unequal than ever before, Brown’s government is wrapping itself in the Union Jack and banging on about imagined “shared values” in a desperate bid to rally support. Add this to the surveillance, database-driven state that is far advanced in Britain, and you get an idea of the direction New Labour is heading in. It’s not a pleasant prospect.

Paul Feldman
AWTW communications editor

The struggle over future control of Iraq’s oil is coming to a head, with parliament deeply divided over American proposals designed to benefit the major corporations and the country’s trade unionists vowing to resist any foreign takeover. It adds to the deepening crisis engulfing the US-UK four-year occupation of Iraq. Among Americans, sentiment against the Iraq war is at its highest level ever at 76% while the so-called surge of US troops has made no difference in terms of stability and security. Behind the invasion was the dream of privatising Iraq’s state-owned oil industry and opening up the world’s third largest reserves to the global market. Like all the other fantasies concocted by the White House, the notion of easy control of Iraq’s oil has also come up against harsh reality.

Despite attempts to keep the parliamentary process hidden from view, more and more Iraqis are coming to realise the purpose behind a law drafted in Washington before the invasion even took place. The long-sought "hydrocarbons framework" law would give Big Oil virtually unrestricted access to 80% of Iraq’s reserves. According to leaked documents, Iraq stands to lose billions of dollars in oil revenue. Meanwhile, a parallel law carving up the country’s oil revenues between the different regions will add to the sectarian and ethnic divisions that have appeared since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Trade unionists are the most powerful group opposing the carve-up. Subhi al-Badri, head of the Iraqi Federation of Union Councils, said recently: “This law cancels the great achievements of the Iraq people. If the Iraqi Parliament approves this law, we will resort to mutiny. This law is a bomb that may kill everyone. Iraqi oil does not belong to any certain side. It belongs to all future generations." Oil workers staged a three-day strike last month, defying arrests by armed troops, and union president Hassan Jumaa Awaad, has warned: “If those calling for production-sharing agreements insist on acting against the will of Iraqis, we say to them that history will not forgive those who play recklessly with wealth and destiny of a people and that the curse of heaven and the fury of Iraqis will not leave them.”

A recent poll commissioned by a coalition of NGOs and other groups found that a clear majority Iraqis from all ethnic groups would prefer "Iraq's oil to be developed and produced by Iraqi state-owned companies" over foreign companies. Most Iraqis are, however, in the dark about the laws, in yet another example of US-style “democracy”. More than three out of four Iraqis - including nine of 10 Sunni Arabs - say "the level of information provided by the Iraqi government on this law" was not adequate for them to "feel informed" about the issue.

Far from being a great display of US-driven global corporate power and reach, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has turned into a great debacle. It is coming to represent the end of empire rather than the beginning of a new one, the place where corporate-driven globalisation ran into the sands.

Paul Feldman, AWTW communications editor

Three headlines from a country in the fourth year of foreign occupation: ‘Armed robots to go to war in Iraq’; ‘Power cuts worsen as grid collapses’; ‘ US soldier sentenced to 110 years’. Three indictments of the American-British invasion of 2003 that has brought untold suffering and misery to the Iraqi people. Puppet governments installed following the removal of Saddam Hussein have no authority and no capacity to unite the country. Instead, Sunni and Shia insurgents, each with their own agenda, have moved Iraq towards sectarian civil war. Millions have fled the country to Syria and Jordan, leaving the country short of professional workers like doctors and teachers.

Now, as the summer heat blasts the country, the power system is unable to cope.

The electricity ministry says that power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand. Four blackouts have hit the country this week. Power supplies in Baghdad are down to just a few hours a day. This has hit the water supply because blackouts have affected pumping and filter stations. Provinces are disconnecting their power supplies from the national grid because they claim it is one-way traffic, adding to the sense of dismemberment of Iraq. Of 17 power lines running into the capital, only two were operational this week. The rest have been sabotaged. One province south of the capital has been without power for three days because in a country with the world’s third largest oil reserves, a 50-megawatt power station in the area has no fuel. Kerbala market stall holder Hazim Obeid, said: "We no longer need television documentaries about the stone age. We are actually living in it.”

But do not worry, the US military is coming to the rescue, or rather its robotic arm is. American forces have deployed robots equipped with automatic weapons in Iraq, the first battlefield use of machines capable of waging war by remote control. The Sword robots are a modified bomb disposal devices. Soldiers operate the robots with a specially modified laptop, complete with joystick controls. The devices are armed machine guns and come with these comforting words from a consultant on the project: “Anytime you utilise technology to take a US service member out of harm’s way, it is worth every penny. These armed robots can be used as a force multiplier to augment an already significant force in the battle space.” The robots have another advantage – they can’t be jailed for the rape and murder of a 14-year old Iraqi and the killing of her family like Private Jesse Spielman was this week. He, of course, is just a pawn in a greater game, where oil and profit are the the goals of the occupation. Many soldiers not yet brutalised by Iraq know this all too well. They understand that companies like Halliburton, once headed by Dick Cheney vice-president and architect of the invasion, are doing nicely. As always, the infantry are fighting someone else’s war.

Paul Feldman, AWTW communications editor

Alastair Campbell’s diaries will earn him piles of money but the former Downing Street spin doctor is still playing fast and loose with the truth about the preparations for the attack on Iraq. Key entries for the days leading up to the infamous autumn 2002 dossier, with its false claims about weapons of mass destruction (WMD), are omitted from his diaries. The dossier, with its introduction by Tony Blair claiming that Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes, played a crucial role in the propaganda justification for the invasion that took place six months later. Campbell was, of course, at the centre of the accusation by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan that the government had "sexed up" the dossier because the early drafts from the intelligence agencies were too weak. While he has always denied any direct involvement in rewriting the dossier, Campbell’s diaries actually reveal that he told intelligence chiefs that the Iraq dossier "had to be revelatory" and that "we needed to show that it was new and informative and part of a bigger case". Then the diaries fall silent about the process that led to the inclusion of the fictional 45 minutes claim. What a surprise!

Across Whitehall, John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was co-ordinating the work of drafting the dossier. Scarlett admitted to the Hutton inquiry into the death of the scientist and WMD expert Dr David Kelly that he had allowed last-minute changes to strengthen the document. One crucial alteration was to cut the observation that Saddam Hussein was more likely to use chemical and biological weapons defensively than offensively. For his loyalty to the New Labour government he was later made head of MI6 and then knighted. While Campbell and Scarlett are alive and prosperous, Kelly was hounded to his death (or perhaps eliminated) by the authorities after briefing the BBC about the way the government had exaggerated Iraq’s military potential.

Campbell’s diaries claim that many cabinet ministers had reservations or doubts about the attack on Iraq. Only one, Robin Cook, resigned. The rest sat on their hands and sanctioned an illegal invasion. They did so even in the wake of another infamous dossier, this time published in February 2003, just weeks before the war. Large parts of the dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" – were actually lifted from published academic articles, some of them several years old. The dossier was nothing more than an old-fashioned, cut-and-paste job that had the fingers of Downing Street spin doctors all over it. It was just one of many examples of disinformation and media manipulation that characterised the Blair years. On this occasion, it proved deadly, however, because the spin helped to justify a war that has resulted in the deaths of tens upon tens of thousands of Iraqis, the dismemberment of their country and a sharp increase in recruitment by Al-Qaeda.

Paul Feldman, communications editor

As the illegal occupation of Iraq enters its fifth year, following an invasion based on lies, here are some facts and figures. They cover the non-stop destruction of Iraq, the uprooting of about 16% of the population and the horrors of the civil war that has engulfed the country.

• 2 million Iraqis – almost 10% of the population - have fled their country, scattered in Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran
• Another 1.9 million Iraqis are estimated to be internally displaced persons
• The British medical journal The Lancet's study found that about 655,000 Iraqis had died in war, occupation, and civil strife between March 2003 and June 2006
• Unemployment is estimated as high as 60%, and inflation last year was 50%
• Fuel and electricity prices are up more than 270% from 2005 levels
• Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the 2003 invasion, according to the UN
• Tea in some markets has quadrupled, egg prices have doubled
• Sectarian murders rose to 1,200 in December 2006 from 200 in January
• More than 140,000 American troops are in Iraq
• Over 3,200 have died and another 24,000 have been wounded
• There are 7,100 British troops in Iraq; 134 have died
• 60% of the British public now believe the invasion was a mistake
• 75% of Americans approved of the war when it began in 2003. Last month, pollsters found that 60% now oppose it
• Iraqi oil production has sunk from pre-invasion level of 2.4 million barrels a day to 1.9 million barrels a day
• The $630 billion provided for the US military this year exceeds in real terms the highest annual amounts during the Reagan-era defence build-up, the Vietnam War and the Korean War
• When Congress approves a $100 billion emergency spending bill in the next few weeks, it will have appropriated $607 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
• A gallon of petrol cost as little as US4 cents in 2005. The official price is now about 67 cents after the International Monetary Fund demanded a cut in oil subsidies
• the number of Iraqis who approve of attacks on foreign troops has risen from 17% in a similar survey three years ago to 51% now
• 60% of Iraqis questioned in a BBC poll believe that things are going badly in their lives; only a third expect things to improve
• On 24 September 2002 Tony Blair told the House of Commons: "The intelligence picture… is extensive, detailed and authoritative. It concludes that Iraq has chemical, biological weapons and continues to produce them."
• March 21, 2007: Still no sign of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Paul Feldman, communications editor

Is Tony Blair planning to go out with a bang in the shape of an unprovoked Anglo-America air attack on Iran? If he is, one thing is certain - he can count on the support of Lord Goldsmith, his Attorney-General. Goldsmith does what he is told by No.10 and will the provide legal cover required to justify attacking Iran. Before the invasion of Iraq, Goldsmith ignored international law and gave Blair the green light.

That, you will remember, led to the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office. Her letter of resignation did not mince words: "I cannot in conscience go along with advice ... which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression." Goldsmith was at it again before Christmas, this time over the planned prosecution for corruption of British executives in the bribes-to-Saudi affair. By all accounts, Blair leant on Goldsmith to declare that a prosecution would not succeed and the case was abandoned, much to the annoyance of the Serious Fraud Office.

The chances of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities are building by the day. In Washington, Blair’s White House co-conspirators have ratcheted up the rhetoric against Teheran over its alleged involvement in Iraq (a bit rich that, coming from a country with 160,000 troops in illegal occupation). Scott Ritter, the former UN inspector who proved before the 2003 invasion that Iraq had no “weapons of mass destruction”, has joined the chorus of opposition to a an attack on Iran. Ritter laments the pathetic stance of the Democrats, who allowed Bush to invade Iraq and applauded Bush when he put Iran in the frame during his recent State of the Union address. Ritter warns: “As things currently stand, the Bush administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary executive unprecedented in our nation's history, believes it has all of the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran militarily. The silence of Congress following the President's decision to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been deafening.

The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress." Ritter says that just as Iraq has severely damaged the Republican Party, Iran would break the Democratic Party if it sat back and allowed Bush to proceed.

Not only that, such an attack would fatally undermine the substance of the American constitution which has separation of powers between the three branches of government at its heart. In Britain, parliamentary democracy has gone the way of the Dodo; in the United States, Congressional paralysis has created a White House that rules unchallenged and by decree. The case for transforming the existing political system in favour of an alternative, truly democratic set-up is irresistible on both sides of the Atlantic.

Paul Feldman, communications editor