Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran

Oxford Research Group is part of a consortium of organisations to publish this important report, coordinated by Crisis Action. The joint report by 15 organisations - including think tanks, aid agencies, religious groups and trade unions - warns that, despite the seriousness of the situation, there is still 'time to talk'.

The prospect of a nuclear Iran causes acute concern not only in the United States and Israel, but also in Europe, the Middle East and most of the rest of the world. This report does not seek to quantify the likelihood of military action against Iran. It argues that the consequences of any possible future military action could be wholly counterproductive as well as highly dangerous. Diplomatic solutions to the Iranian nuclear issue must be pursued resolutely.

The report concludes that military action against Iran could:

• Further jeopardise the prospects of peace taking root in the Middle East - Long standing Iranian links to Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia groups in Iraq, along with the presence of significant minority Shia populations in Saudi Arabia, could lead to severe destabilisation throughout the Middle East.
• Severely undermine hopes for stability in Iraq - Iran has several thousand intelligence agents operating in the Shia region of Iraq and has been accused of arming Shia insurgents. A decision to activate insurgent units could lead to a massive escalation in violence.
• Bolster the position of hard-liners and set back chances of reform within Iran - Recent municipal elections suggest that the bellicose rhetoric of Ahmadinejad is beginning to lose appeal. Over the winter there have been fuel shortages and inflation continues to rise. Ahmadinejad's popularity is waning. Military strikes would unify Iranians, ignite greater nationalist feeling and undermine the growing prospects of an internal shift in power.
• Push developing countries into greater poverty - If military action led to an increase in oil prices. For example, a $10 increase in oil price could drop the GDPs of Sub-Saharan African states by an average of 3% with serious implications for those already living in poverty.
• Damage UK, US and European economies - if oil prices rose to $100 per barrel this could increase the risk of recession.
• Threaten serious environmental contamination - Bombing could result in radioactive contamination, oil slicks and oil well fires that could take years to deal with.
• Increase the terror threat to the UK by fuelling resentment and bolstering extremists.

WHO plays dubious role in Swine flu pandemic

On June 11, 2009 Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO, declared the Swine Flu a pandemic. The declaration of phase six means that emergency procedures are put into motion which bypass established systems designed to safeguard the public health. The result of this is described in part six of this DeepJournal series on the Swine Flu. Conclusion: the vaccine is being tested while being administered to the public. The definition of what a pandemic is, is therefore of great import.

read more

Government flu advisors not independent

Ab Osterhaus is playing an important role in the affair surrounding the Swine Flu. Through his influence and conflicts of interest, he personifies a system that is now being subjected to investigation from all directions. Soon the investigators will undoubtedly stumble upon SAGE, the strategic advisory group of vaccine and immunity experts for the World Health Organization, or WHO. Osterhaus turns up here as well - he is an expert with SAGE.

read more

Influence of industry on 'fake pandemic' investigated

Also beyond The Netherlands the question is being raised over whether the large-scale acquisition of vaccines made sense. The Council of Europe began an investigation into this question last Tuesday. 'A number of members of the Council of Europe have expressed exceptionally harsh criticism of the World Health Organization and are asking themselves out loud whether drug manufacturers had too much influence in this decision'.

read more

How Dutch Minister Klink decided on vaccines with additives - 2

The Netherlands has an ongoing contract with Solvay Pharmaceuticals for the making of vaccines without additives. Then Dutch Health Minister Klink severs - with all of its accompanying financial consequences - the contract with Solvay. He signs new, secretive contracts with GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, companies that make vaccines with additives - the so-called adjuvants. In The Netherlands everyone is receiving the same vaccine containing adjuvants - whether they are young or old, pregnant or not. What happened that caused Klink to make this decision?

read more

How Dutch Minister Klink decided on vaccines with additives - 1

In the international battle against Swine Flu different countries use different vaccines to protect their citizens. In the Netherlands vaccines containing additives are being used. Even women 13 weeks pregnant are receiving this vaccine. In arriving at his decision, Dutch Health Minister Klink sought advice from the Health Council of The Netherlands. But he didn't get this advice. And yet he still went ahead and made a decision. Who advised him on this?

read more