World Human Rights Day

You may not know it, but today (10^th December) is World Human Rights Day. Coinciding the with the day that Liu Xiaobo fails to collect his Nobel Peace Prize, awarded for his tireless efforts to promote greater respect for human rights in China, this year’s celebration is a good time to reflect on the billions of people worldwide for whom the very concept of ‘human rights’ must seem like a meaningless abstraction.

I recently returned from Bangladesh, where I spent four days visiting projects supported by UK charity One World Action. Among other things, One World Action works with local NGO Nagorik Uddyog to promote the rights of the 5.5 million Dalits currently living in Bangladesh. Dalits (often referred to as ‘Untouchables’) represent the lowest castes in the traditional Hindu hierarchy, historically engaged in trades and occupations that are considered ‘unclean’ such as sweeping, cobbling, disposing of dead bodies and manual scavenging (a euphemism for sewerage work). In an endemically poor country, these people are the poorest of the poor; Socially, economically and politically marginalised, Dalits are routinely denied even their most basic rights, ignored in public and despised in private.

The plight of Dalits living in India is well documented, having been brought to light by Ghandi as early as the 1930s. However, as most of the Dalits living in Bangladesh were brought in from India under the colonial regime, the majority-Muslim society has until recently regarded caste-based exclusion as an ‘Indian problem’ that does not concern Bangladesh, or at least a ‘Hindu problem’ that does not concern the vast majority of Bangladeshi society.

In the two days I spent visiting Dalit communities in and around Dhaka, the idea that Dalit exclusion is not a Bangladeshi problem became patently ridiculous.

Most Dalits in Dhaka live in so-called ‘colonies’, physically demarcated areas squeezed into the most crowded parts of the city. The entrance of the first colony I enter is marked by a discreet arch, covering a tiny alleyway which leads into a maze of narrow streets beyond. Like Platform 9¾, you would not know it was there unless you were shown. Hidden away like this the colony seems to physically embody the marginalisation and exclusion of its inhabitants; out of sight, out of mind. Our driver Mintu had no idea such areas of town existed and was visibly taken aback by what we saw.

The first thing that hits you in the confusion of smells; open sewers mixed with frying spices and fresh laundry hung over the already crowded alleys, creating a kind of bunting of colourful dripping clothes. Then the inhabitants- not only the dozens of children that we gather as we walk around, but the thousands of flies that make the colony their home. As we tour round a maze of streets we see houses which are no more than small rooms, often home to families of eight people or more. We see the temples and community halls that provide the only large spaces for the community gather. We walk past the toilet block, an open space for showering with no separate areas for men and women, meaning people are forced to wash over their saris and lungis, denied even the privacy of their morning ablutions. The shared WCs are so few in number that they attract an even greater density of flies, gut-churning smells and angry queues of people.

But among the chaos and the squalor you also get a keen sense of a community increasingly aware of its rights and increasingly able and willing to fight for them. I met young women who were studying for college degrees, and who had chosen, rather than escaping their roots, to come back into the community to teach and lead. I met mothers who had started women’s groups, providing the training, support and loans necessary to earn extra income and provide alternative occupations outside the traditional Dalit trades. And I met men and women who through groups such as Bangladesh Dalit Human Rights were advocating at the city and national levels to tackle Dalit exclusion, improve conditions and promote new laws to protect the human rights of all marginalised communities.

A rally organised by BDERM (Bangladeshi Dalit and Excluded Rights Movement) on my fourth and final day in Dhaka demonstrated just how far the movement has come in a few short years. Cars hooted their horns and cycle rickshaws rang their bells in solidarity as Dalit protesters marched past the National Museum proudly holding signs bearing a slogan that is hard to argue with: ‘Dalit Rights are Human Rights.’ As we marched with the crowd I looked to my left and saw that our driver Mintu had joined the protest, the newest convert to a growing movement.

Is the irresponsible media to blame for EU scepticism?

In this post, Young Fabian Claire French argues for a moderate campaign to tackle the ever-growing Euroskeptic sentiment in the British media.

YouGov recently found (pdf) that more than half of the public would vote to leave the European Union if a referendum was held now. I was made equally uncomfortable by the prominence of skepticism among young people and ‘lower class’ (C2DE) voters.

Without the news media, many citizens would simply be unaware of what is happening in in the political sphere, particularly internationally. My belief has long been that the media, particularly print journalism, owes society the duty of delivering a sound, reliable source of information. Unfortunately we constantly witness the responsibility of the fourth estate being eroded.

Research points towards the mass media as the number one influencer on public opinion relating to the European Union. One briefing from the European Parliament said that media reporting of the EU: “in most cases this has tended to concentrate on political matters rather than developing in depth public knowledge”. Soundbites limit the depth and understanding of issues being discussed in European politics.

In June, the Daily Mail ran the headline: EU to ban selling eggs by the dozen: Shopkeepers’ fury as they are told all food must be weighed and sold by the kilo. They were left with egg on their faces when Renate Sommer MEP told the BBC that “Selling eggs by the dozen… will not be banned”. In fact, a procedure of weighing eggs was being debated in the Parliament – a practice that was in place before the bill was even raised.

Rife Euroskepticism amongst tabloid newspapers – particularly those leaning towards the political right – has created a moral panic in the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to mass migration and the dispersion of state sovereignty.

Headlines of “Eastern Europeans… (stealing our jobs/using our public services/driving up our crime rates etc)” have landed us with mixed messages and a frankly misguided public opinion. Gordon Brown’s unfortunate encounter with Gillian Duffy, the “Bigoted Woman”, is the prime example of fear that is whipped up largely by right-wing political parties and media outlets. It was also a turning point for the Labour Party – realising the extent of damage that has been done to the British ‘mood’ on European membership. The EU is no longer just a single marketplace, it is a collection of culturally diverse states, bound by political structures.

The drip feed coverage of EU policy of political parties including the United Kingdom Independence Party, the British National Party and right-wing fringes of the Conservative Party, as well as organisations such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance and Migration Watch is pushing this anti-European rhetoric.

It is up to the think tanks, the organisations and politicians of moderate parties to promote our membership in the European community. There are all sorts of  desirable factors that we all should celebrate and promote – not just us on the left, but liberals and conservatives alike.

The expansion of the EU is likely to cause controversy amongst these organisations and media, as the lengthy debate of whether Turkey should be the next state to join moved closer this week. In a national referendum held this week, 58:42 per cent voting to change the militarised-constitution. The BBC noted that:

“Voters endorsed modifications to Turkey’s current constitution, making the military more accountable to civilian courts and giving parliament.”

Turkey is different to the countries that have joined before it. Its locality – being so close to the Asian boarder; its culture and religion – though it is a predominantly secular country. There will also be the concern of capping the number of migrants coming into western Europe – which was not done in the UK, Sweden or Ireland when Poland and other central European countries joined in 2004.

Good news for Chinese Workers

Change in China is often slow and incremental, here Young Fabian Benjamin Knight looks at the recent currency evaluation and government response to strikes by factory workers and argues that things are looking up for Chinese citizens.

As doubts about whether economic recovery can be secured through private sector growth are expressed here in the UK, key developments have taken place in China which are of great significance to the international economy.

Firstly, the Chinese Yuan was removed from its US Dollar peg. The hope is that by removing the peg to the US Dollar, the Yuan will appreciate in value.  After a long period of being artificially low this is good news for exporters trying to tap in to the Chinese market.

In making it more expensive to buy cheap Chinese goods, their competitive edge over more expensive but higher quality goods produced in the West is reduced. If the global economy is to recover then more goods need to move from West to East – the rise in the value of the Yuan will be crucial in bringing this about. This is good news for struggling manufacturers in the UK and Europe that are trying to sell things to Chinese consumers.

Another impact of this move is that it means the money in the pockets of Chinese workers will be worth more. China is a huge country with a huge economy and trillions of dollars in its reserves, but the average person still earns around $3000, and rural or migrant workers take home even less.  Such an unequal state of affairs gives rise to tensions between the rich and poor, and between employer and employee.

Because of the savings culture in China – brought about largely by lack of state welfare safety nets, and by the One Child Policy – the average Chinese worker is reluctant to consume goods in the same way as their Western counterparts. The Chinese authorities are attempting to shift the very nature of their economy away from export driven growth and towards growth through domestic consumption.

In another important development a series of strikes have taken place in the foreign owned factories across China. Whilst unrest is not a new phenomenon, what is different this time is the way in which the Chinese Government has responded to the strikes. The accommodation of the workers demands for higher wages and better living conditions, and the peaceful nature in which such industrial action is being resolved, is indicative that the Government is willing to ease the huge pressures faced by factory workers.

Millions of migrant workers have travelled from the impoverished rural regions of China, flooding in to the cities and industrial heartlands in search of work and a steady wage which can be sent back to their families in the countryside. These people have contributed greatly to the huge boom in China’s economic prospects over the last 30 years so it is high time that their efforts were met with fairer pay and a better standard of living.

It is all too easy to forget – when so much has changed here over the past months – but our economic recovery is intrinsically tied to the fortunes of up and coming countries such as Brazil, India, Russia and China. In securing our own recovery the UK should play a positive and active role in encouraging business to be done in such a way that delivers fairness for all, not just the privileged.

Stories that speak volumes: Refugee Week 14th – 20th June

“Don’t sit on the sofa. When people sit on the sofa they get red spots on them and they itch too bad. I tell (accommodation provider) but they say it’s my fault because I must not have a dog in the house. I don’t have a dog. I am Muslim I don’t have dogs”

(Beyond Borders, Nottingham’s Refugee Week publication 2010)

Sometimes it’s the simple stories that speak volumes. The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees in the UK is an issue I never stop hearing shocking stories about. A quiet man from Congo Brazzaville who had won the respect of his British community through hours of volunteering and kindness, still with torture marks on his body and a judicial review open, forcibly deported with handcuffed hands and feet carried by 4 security guards onto a plane…A Kurdish man from a political family sent back because the area was considered safe with no regard for his family’s background, dead within a month of deportation.The UK’s disrespect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its treatment of asylum seekers has long been spoken of anecdotally.

Last week brought news of ‘special arrangements’ by the Home Office to speed up the deportation of a group of asylum seekers to Iraq. The Guardian (Tuesday 8th June) explained:

‘Government lawyers have warned high court judges that last-minute legal challenges should not be allowed to “disrupt or delay” a deportation flight to Baghdad due to leave Britain early tomorrow…The disclosure of the “special arrangements” around the charter flight to Baghdad sparked strong concern from immigration legal experts, who said that government lawyers were trying to tell high court judges how to do their jobs…
This is the first time the detailed operations of the “special arrangements” surrounding such deportation flights have become public. But the immigration minister, Damian Green, said they were standard procedure and had been used in 16 previous flights to northern Iraq.’

This is what makes me sad. All political parties are guilty. Something is not right. Asylum seekers have the right to a fair process to assess whether they are eligible for refugee status, and most of all they deserve to be treated as human beings. Why does the UK have such a bad record on this?

Gary Young wisely titled an article in the Guardian on 26 April 2010:

‘Yes, we need an honest immigration debate. But this tough talk isn’t it. Racist fear-mongering prevents discussion of the poverty, natural disasters and wars that cause people to emigrate’.

It also encourages intolerance and lack of understanding:

“They (UK Border Agency) don’t have any idea about our background or what circumstances we have been through. For example, they would ask you about when you had to report to the police in your country: “Where is the copy of the statement now?” How can anybody make them understand that in a country in which there is no photocopier in the University how can there be one in a police station? For God’s sake don’t torture those who have already been tortured.”

(Beyond Borders, Nottingham’s Refugee Week publication 2010)

May Refugee Week 2010 be an opportunity of more of us to take a minute to understand a little more about the truth, rather than the myths, surrounding asylum seekers and refugees, and to move as a country towards a better record on this issue.

www.refugeeweek.org.uk
www.refugee-action.org.uk
www.refugeecouncil.org.uk

What I’ll be looking out for in tomorrow’s debate…

This morning I dragged myself out of bed to get to a meeting of the Young Fabian’s Future of Finance Network only to find everyone talking about what surprises tomorrow’s debate might deliver. Last week’s first Leaders’ Debate managed to throw the Liberal Democrats into the spotlight, and the latest polls seem to be directing us into uncharted waters.

This makes the remaining the politics of the two debates even more exciting. The critical thing will be whether the policies/issues maintain the audience’s attention. Whilst as a country we’ve shown huge interest in foreign affairs it has usually been to show shared compassion or anger in the face of international disasters.

A key area is Europe. Yet this is where the Leaders will probably aim to secure debate points rather than talk turkey about the issue itself. Why? Well say for arguments sake that another 9.4m viewers tune into tomorrow’s debate – how many will care about Europe beyond the shallow concerns that the media portray….3,000?

Anyone who disagrees should explain why turnout for the European elections was so low and why the campaign rarely mentioned Europe. Both do not point to an engaged electorate at large, ready to discuss the UK’s role in European affairs.

So what should we be looking out for in the debate? Here are the three things I’ll be looking out for:

1. To build Trident, or not to build Trident: The Lib Dems have tried to make much out the savings that could be achieved by not building Trident (possibly). And they’ve also committed themselves to doing a full 360 defense spending review.  The simplest angle would be to question their commitment to a nuclear deterrent in the face of supposed unilateralism. But I’ll be look for someone to pick up whether the Lib Dems have already spent the supposed savings without having committed to the Trident U-turn.
2. Special Relationships: We’ve heard much about Clegg’s “Europeaness”. But earlier on this week he told an audience: “”We’re going to have to release ourselves from the historical spell of default Atlanticism that guides us in the world… We’ve been joined at the hip but those days are past”. Whilst that’s something that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee might sign up to, it does open up a flank for debate (especially following Cameron’s gaffe in the earlier debate about protecting us from Iran and China) – can either of the Opposition parties show that they have what it takes to work with the world community as a whole on the big Global issues that Brown thrives on?
3. Afghanistan: There is an incredible amount of political meat on this 9 year old bone. Military funding and supplies, the cost of the war, the limits of humanitarian intervention, the constant rise in military casualties all hang off this issue and generate immense feeling around the country. But I’ll be looking out for the politically risky temptation to make a firm commitment on a solid date when our troops will leave Afghanistan and come home.

So I’m going to be a bit cynical and say that we won’t hear much about actual foreign policy in this debate. But we will hear a lot about “values” when it comes to Britain’s place in the world.

More importantly the three issues about won’t be enough to win me a prize in tomorrow’s Young Fabian Debate Bingo when we once again team up with LabourList, LGBT Labour, London Young Labour, Compass and Progress for a special debate watch party and campaigning session. But there are prizes to be won!

We’ll be blogging, tweeting (follow #leadersdebate) and discussing the debate as it happens right from the venue, so there’s every opportunity to get involved.

However there is also still time to join us this Thursday, April 22nd, for our special event:

2nd Floor, Old Crown Pub,

33 New Oxford Street, London, WC1A 1BH from 7pm

If you want to know more just contact me at vrampulla@youngfabians.org.uk

Hope, Heat, and challenging Hate with 3000 leaflets – next up fighting Tory Cash

The biggest Young Fabian turnout yet last Saturday for our weekend campaign days – this time as we headed out to Transport House, Dagenham and the home of the Hope Not Hate campaign.

Turnout for the day was so high that the Valence ward pre-assigned to the Young Fabians had been delivered to already by the time we arrived

This was far and away the single most impressive campaign day I’ve seen in the UK – and ultimately the most reminiscent of the various campaigns I’ve taken part in in the US. It wasn’t so much about sophistication as style, scale and very good organisation.

The scale spoke for itself – over 540 volunteers and over 90,000 HNH newspapers delivered across the whole of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and into neighbouring Havering. And Young Fabian members more than played their part, forming part of the small group that stayed out in the unseasonal heat into the afternoon, and delivering almost 3,000 copies of the literature to households facing the hate-fuelled and hate-fuelling onslaught of the BNP.

Local Labour MP, and former candidate for deputy leader of the party, Jon Cruddas was driver for the day for part of the Young Fabian campaign team

Style-wise, this day of action was about solidarity, about feeling part of something big, and about being inspired. Inspired by the cause, but inspired by the hundreds of other people who’d given up their Saturday for it. Instantly upon arrival we felt part of something big and important and were driven to get out and contribute to the mammoth efforts of the day. It was exciting in the extreme and reminded me very much of the feelings of many of the Young Fabian members who took part in the delegation I led to Obama’s campaign in Ohio in 2008. But also, the style was one of supporting volunteers, making them feel welcome, helping them to do what they came to do, and thanking them for their efforts. I’ve written much about the importance of people-focused campaign organisation and the little things on Saturday – the one page of briefing and tips handed to volunteers – and the big things – providing lunchtime curry for 500 to accompany a set by activist musician Billy Bragg – really did make a difference to the experience, and therefore the collective achievements of the day.

Next up we’re hitting Westminster North to help Karen Buck in her central London fight against well-connected Tory Joanne Cash and her temperamental local Conservative Association. Hope you feel inspired to join us whether you’ve been out already or not.

Just what is Liberal Conservatism?

This week is set to be the International week of the 2010 Election campaign. So in theory, we should all understand a little more of what William Hague’s Liberal Conservatism is all about. Ahead of the week I’ve just read the Tory manifesto International affairs section and am still puzzled. I’m hoping, but not expecting a little more clarity during the week.

Rightly, the manifesto identifies that more than ever the interests of nation states are interconnected, economically and politically.  But the policy solutions still seem ideologically unclear and unsound.   

While the answers to Britain’s domestic challenges are met with a shrink-state response, the manifesto calls for “a concerted response from the state” in its international chapter.

There also seems to be a glaring contradiction in Conservative policy to the European single currency, varying between forthright hostility to a guarantee for the public to have their say:

“a Conservative government would never take the UK into the euro.”

And later “We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.”

Now, I’m not advocating that now is the right time to join the Euro, but a manifesto is always the right time to be clear what your position is.

The document is unclear of what One World Conservatism is or what Liberal Conservatism would achieve. But from the Tories foreign policy record, I don’t relish the prospect of these ideologies guiding British foreign policy.

Let’s not forget these things as we move into the international week of this election David Cameron went on a free trip to South Africa, funded by a lobbying group founded by a former member of the South African military intelligence to bust sanctions against South Africa. Let’s also not forget that when Labour took office our international aid budget was in decline and we where losing a beef war with Europe. And today in the European Parliament, the Tories lose more legislative proposals than the Liberals, Greens and Communists because of Hague and Cameron’s self-imposed exile from the mainstream grouping.

In the week ahead let’s continue to take a long hard look at the Tories and ask Cameron and Hague, just what is your vision for Britain in the world and where would we be if we took your advice?

Fabianism in bed with offshore financial centres?

Has the Young Fabians lost its marbles? Their new ‘Networks’ projects launch event is sponsored by none other than Jersey Finance, a representative body for financial services in the island of Jersey. An outrage? An abandonment of the socialist fraternity on the very day that the Treasury is briefing that the Chancellor will use the Budget to double the maximum penalty for offshore tax evaders?

Far from it. On Thursday, in the heart of the City of London, the Young Fabians are launching two new innovative projects – the ‘Future of Finance’ and the ‘Technology and Society’ Networks. These networks, collectively, aim to bring young people and young leaders from the worlds of finance, technology, science and engineering together with progressive politics in order to help bring insight, imagination and energy to the broader progressive fight and to respond to our shared economic, social and environmental challenges.

These networks, in the true spirit of Fabianism, are open access and inclusive. They are founded on the belief that there are swathes of socially minded people working at the front edge of finance, research, academia, science and technology who have so much to offer the progressive movement, but perhaps have struggled to find a home in the Left. The networks aim to provide a forum that allows people to combine professional expertise with a social conscience, and – in the process – help the progressive movement become more sophisticated, more aware and more responsive to the realities of the marketplace and the broader environment.

Our inclusivity is our strength. Greater nuanced understanding of a complicated world and dialogue with all actors maybe held in horror and disgust by the revolutionaries, but they are the hallmarks of Fabian gradualism and the foundation of effective real reform towards social and progressive ends.

That’s why we’re delighted that Jersey Finance, alongside the TUC and Prospect Magazine, are supporting the launch of the Young Fabian Networks and that’s we are so keen to embrace those who support our ends, regardless of their place of work. Both Young Fabians members and progressives who aren’t members are very welcome at the launch event and in the Networks themselves. If you’re interested, please click through and RSVP.

How Labour can make EU Policy ‘Back Young Britain’

The recent edition of Anticipations contains an article from Catherine Stihler, one of the Labour MEPs for Scotland.

Catherine argues that Britain must collaborate with EU states both to forge a stable recovery and to build a sustainable social market economy by 2020. The latter is the EU’s response to the Lisbon Agenda (to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy by 2010).

Vital to achieving this goal is the investment in education and skills by domestic governments to equip tomorrow’s work force with the skills for a global economy. This is the very nub of the interaction between the national and the international in policy making. Investment in the skills of its citizens by a national government will allow its workforce to compete for the high skilled jobs of a global marketplace.

Labour has a record of a sustained investment in schools, skills, universities, research and development running hand in hand with a jobs and growth strategy that is beyond Britain’s borders to ensure we look for the jobs of tomorrow.

We should continue this in the next election manifesto as we look beyond our borders for growth, jobs and trade. Labour should continue to make a commitment to young people to allow us to achieve our full potential in the economy of tomorrow. I believe the Backing Young Britain campaign should continue beyond the recession as a positive way of investing in our future to bring high quality jobs to Britain and allow us to compete internationally. Labour can co-ordinate our policies in Westminster and in Brussels to keep European policy working for young Britain and building for our future.

Why we must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our fellow Fabian

At half-time in Tony Blair’s testimony to the Iraq Inquiry, let us recall the horror of Saddam’s regime, and the threat he posed to his own people, the region and the wider world. One need only cast minds back to this Monday, and the execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid – aka Chemical Ali.

Here’s a reminder of the evil perpetrated by Chemical Ali:

“He was known for his ruthlessness, ordering the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX against Kurdish targets. The first such attacks occurred as early as April 1987 and continued into 1988, culminating in the notorious attack on Halabja in which over 5,000 people were killed.

“With Kurdish resistance continuing, al-Majid decided to cripple the rebellion by eradicating the civilian population of the Kurdish regions. His forces embarked on a systematic campaign of mass killings, property destruction and forced population transfer (called “Arabization”) in which thousands of Kurdish villages were razed and their inhabitants either killed or deported to the south of Iraq.

“He signed a decree in June 1987 stating that “Within their jurisdiction, the armed forces must kill any human being or animal present in these areas”. By 1988, some 4,000 villages had been destroyed, an estimated 180,000 Kurds had been killed and some 1.5 million had been deported.”

Fast forward to the eve of war and today’s protests, and the debates about the legality of the war. Leaving aside the need for a second UN Resolution or an “urgent need for self-defence” – the apparent lack of either cited as grounds for illegality by opponents – let us look at a third factor pertaining to the legality of war, a “humanitarian crisis”.

This is what the undisputed chapter in the 2002 Iraq Dossier, titled “Iraq under Saddam”, says:

“Human rights abuses continue within Iraq. People continue to be arrested and detained on suspicion of political or religious activities, or often because they are related to members of the opposition. Executions are carried out without due process of law. Relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice. Thousands of prisoners have been executed.

“Saddam has issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Anyone found guilty of slandering the President has their tongue removed.”

These facts are just part of what we know; the true nature of Iraq under Saddam, the real figure for casualties under Saddam, may never be known. What’s certain is that the figure is less than that of the past seven years.

Finally, to the opponents of the war, I ask this:

• Had WMDs been discovered, would that have made the war legal, despite the lack of a second resolution?

• Had they been discovered, would the aftermath have been any less bloody?

• If the UN had passed a second resolution, would that have made the aftermath any less bloody?

• Had the aftermath not been as bloody, would the question of legality had been so important?

• If Britain had not joined the war, would America have gone ahead regardless, and would the resulting aftermath have been any different?

And imagine, for one second, that there had been no war, that Saddam had developed WMDs, that he’d used them, on the Iraqi people, neighbouring countries or even us. An emboldened, strengthened, nuclear-armed Saddam. Untouchable. Torturing, raping and murdering innocent men, women and children forever more…

As internationalists, liberals and democrats, whatever the reasoning, justification or legality for the war, we should all be proud that it was a Labour leader, a Labour Prime Minister, who removed this evil regime and freed the Iraqi people.