International Women's Festival 2009

Report

Building an Alliance for Joint Action against War
Saturday 28 February 2009

Conference sponsored by the Network of Oxford Women for Justice and Peace
and Women Solidarity for an Independent and Unified Iraq

A conference to build a loose alliance for joint action against the perpetual war on people was held on 28 February 2009 at the North Oxford Community Centre. There were 38-40 participants from a number of organisations. The names of participants and their affiliations are in Annex 1 of this report. The rapporteurs were Margaret Stanton and Rosemary Galli of NOW.

The conference was divided into two sessions: a morning session, chaired by Caroline Raine of NOW and an afternoon session chaired by Jenny Stanton of NOW.
The morning session, which began at 11:00, heard three speakers, with questions and answers directed at each speaker following their presentation. The first speaker was Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear disarmament. The second speaker was Dr. Lamees Ibrahim of Women Solidarity for an Independent and Unified Iraq (WSIUI) and the third speaker was Alice Ukoko, chief executive officer of Women of Africa. Each speaker was allotted approximately 15 - 20 minutes.

The morning session broke for lunch at approximately 13:00. The afternoon session resumed at around 14:00. Bruce Kent of Movement for the Abolition of War addressed the plenary followed by Edith Rubinstein of Belgium and International Women in Black. The plenary then broke up into three workshops, on international links, on joint action proposals and on working with the media. At approximately 16:00p.m. the plenary resumed to hear the results of the workshops. It adopted a Statement of Intent for joint action (see Annex 2) and nominated an ad hoc Committee to begin to implement some of the joint action proposals. Margaret Stanton of NOW agreed to convene the first session of the ad hoc Committee.

The Morning Session:
Caroline Raine welcomed all present and explained the main objectives of the day - discussing the possibility of building joint action against war - and then introduced Kate Hudson, national Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Kate Hudson:
Ms. Hudson said that for the last 7 or 8 years we have heard much about the dangers of nuclear proliferation among smaller powers: the Iraq invasion was ostensibly about WMD and so was much of the threat of action against Iran. In fact, it is the most powerful states that are failing in their obligations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuing re-armament; for example Trident Replacement. Moreover, there seems to be a changing attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. The US now describes nuclear weapons as part not just of a bigger arsenal but as a usable force, as a "first use" policy, which is a dangerous development.
During the past few years, public opinion has change, with more people, and not simply peace activists, favouring nuclear disarmament. There has been a larger shift from Cold War views. In the current situation even those responsible for the Vietnam war-war criminals-such as Henry Kissinger and George Schultz are calling for a move towards disarmament initiatives. There are also signs of such a call from such international quarters as Javier Solana [EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy], Silvio Berlusconi, from France, Australia and Russia.

Ms. Hudson noted that the Obama administration had taken some positive steps towards opening talks with Russia in order to agree on limiting nuclear warheads to 1,000 each. This was counterbalanced by its initiative to increase troops in Afghanistan. Another positive measure was its expressed willingness to renew START treaty talks. Ms. Hudson asked why-especially in the light of the advice of its three retired generals in a letter recently published in The Times-the UK has not put Trident replacement on hold just as the US has decided to put deployment of Reliable Replacement Warheads on hold. She asserted that the tide is going toward nuclear disarmament but the question before us is how we move this forward. In September a report will be issued on what is called the Concept Phase of Trident Replacement: there is a need to campaign to make Parliament the centre of its discussion and the arena for decision-making rather than elsewhere. The campaign should call for reconsideration of Trident replacement. We need to reconstruct the alliance made two years ago across civil society and rebellion in Parliament when the issue was first put forward. This alliance included the churches, trade unions and other organizations

Ms. Hudson spoke to seven questions and comments from the floor.
1. What about the weaponry utilizing depleted uranium? Ms. Hudson explained that depleted uranium was a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and had been used in weaponry in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia as well as Iraq. She stated categorically that these weapons must be outlawed, that there was plenty of evidence of their lethal effect on combatants and non-combatants alike and she referred the audience to the ICBUW website for information and campaign literature.
2. The question was raised regarding such burning and competing issues as the credit crunch and climate change. Ms. Hudson replied that the economic question regarding the costs of Trident Replacement is important and is of great concern amongst the trade unions. The argument is put forward that jobs will be lost if Trident is not replaced but the counter argument is that very few jobs are really involved. A similar, related argument is that investment in green energies would create more jobs while helping the environment. Ms. Hudson cited trade union members' testimony that they would prefer to work at clean energy jobs. Ms. Hudson questioned government priorities when the costs of Trident replacement are put at £76 billion, which is the same as the estimated cost of climate change measures.
3. Some campaigners against Trident Replacement have come out in favour of nuclear energy. Are these issues not inter-linked? Ms. Hudson admitted that some CND and other campaigners have come out for nuclear energy. The argument, however, is that it provides too little energy and too late. At present UK nuclear power stations only provide 4% of the country's requirements and they all need replacing. To replace them takes from 10 to 15 years-too late to deal with climate change.
4. In addition to the countries already mentioned by Ms. Hudson, it was emphasized that depleted uranium, white phosphorous and hitherto untested weaponry have also been used in the ongoing Gaza conflict! Ms. Hudson totally agreed and added experimental weapons such as dime (?) weapons using alloys of tungsten were also employed. She noted that the United Nations has called Israel's use of such weapons a breach of the Geneva Convention.
5. The comment was voiced that perhaps we are too optimistic to think that the costs of Trident and other modern weapons of war will deter governments from investing in them, that history shows even in severe economic downturns, governments arm and make war. There are many levels of decision-making and campaigners have to be aware of this and approach government at all levels. Ms. Hudson stressed that campaigners must become strong enough to defeat the arms manufacturers' lobby.
6. How to reply to David Milliband and others who say that there is no scientific evidence to show negative health effects on UK soldiers handling depleted uranium weapons? There is plenty of evidence out there. One just has to look on the ICBUW website. Another example is that the Italian government has banned their use because many of its soldiers have been dying as a result.
7. The last commenter underlined the difficulties of alliance-building. Ms. Hudson replied that there are many alliances out there and it is important to communicate with them. She cautioned that we should not try to form something new if there is another group that has the same goal. We should work with them. There is a great need for more cooperative forms of organization and she pointed to the International Peace Bureau in Geneva.

Dr. Lamees Ibrahim, founding member of WSIU and International Action for Iraqi Refugees

In the first part of her talk, Dr. Ibrahim explained how the second war in Iraq began. She pointed out that the media was complicit; it was not told the truth and did not try to investigate the situation. The corporate media relayed the messages coming out of the Pentagon's press briefings instead of probing them and questioning their veracity.

The propaganda was that the war was to liberate the Iraqi people and promote democratic government. It all began in 1998 with the passage of the Liberation of Iraq act by the US Congress authorizing the allocation of 98 million dollars for financing the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi. As many analysts have shown, it worked closely with the neo-conservatives, the enthusiasts of the New American Century Project, for US military Dominance, on land, in sea, in the air and in space. As George Bush put it in autumn of 2002, "US military might should not be challenged." George Bush declared that there would be a war in Iraq even if its government complied with UN resolutions. Also in 2002, Colin Powell stated that those who joined the US in the war effort would be rewarded with contract, those that did not, would not. In Feb 2003, Richard Perle an advisor to Mr. Bush said after the return of the UN inspectors to Iraq, "Even if Iraq is given a clean bill of health, we will not be satisfied".

The mainstream media demonized Iraq, painting it as a monster out of control. Iraq's offer to allow inspectors in to search for WMD and to hold UN-supervised elections within two years was ignored. So the invasion of Iraq took place with a devastating war. A war that has not ended so far.

Dr. Lamees referred the conference to the fact sheet that contains most of the important statistics, which paint a devastating picture of the situation in Iraq, a man-made catastrophe. The war is not just a war for oil, but also a war for Israel. Israeli methods used on the Palestinians by Ariel Sharon in 2002, were and are actually being used in Iraq by the occupiers. US marines received Israeli training prior to the war on Iraq. The war is a staging post for the US's plans to the east of Iraq. Moreover, The US/UK blatant disregard for international law and international consensus emboldened Israel into launching its devastating wars on Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza recently. Journalists blame Hezbollah and Hamas as well as Israel in an attempt to appear 'well balanced and not biased'. Dr. Lamees reminded the conference that the media outlets in this country are no longer a source for learning the whole truth. Activists are increasingly dependent on the Internet or on TV channels such as al Jazeerah English and Press TV, reachable on the Internet. The idea that Israel launched its war on Lebanon in 2006 and its war on Gaza on the 27th Dec 2008, as a knee jerk reaction is naïve to say the least. Israel broke the ceasefire agreement, by not lifting the siege as promised and by continuing its practice of illegal assassinations. This illustrated to all the real vision of peace 'Israeli style'. Many analysts believe this war on Gaza was planned at least 6 months ahead of time and that it was politically timed.

The price Iraqis have had to pay for Bush and Blair's mission of democracy in Iraq is very big. Dr. Lamees quoted Hanaa Ibrahim of Women Will Association, who said that in today's Iraq: Peace: means town and village sieges and one ton bombs dropped on residential areas, as has happened in Mosul, Tikrit and Baiji in 2008, Fallujah in 2004 and Arab Jebour in 2007. Democracy: means unprecedented corruption, the Iraqi government today is the third most corrupt in the world according to Transparency International. Western values preached by Bush and Blair: mean national libraries and archives on fire, Museums looted and bombed. Emancipation: means nearly 100,000 prisoners in occupation government's and US prisons. Law and order: means militias and bribe- able security forces that do not hesitate to abuse its powers. Self-determination: means the government and all its institutions comply with the occupier's plans. Liberation: means living amongst the ruins of the infrastructure and Depleted Uranium, with no electricity, clean water or access to sewerage. It means women struggling to feed the children, make painful choices, whether to buy medicine or food. Buy fuel for heating and cooking or a pair of shoes for her daughter to go to school. Freedom: means over 200 000 mercenaries killing and maiming Iraqis at will and with impunity. It is the freedom of the Special Forces and secret police of any country in the world to roam our cities and do their dirty work.

Dr. Lamees stated that what is happening to Iraq, Palestine, Somalia, Haiti and other places in the world is not good for the West and is not good for humanity. "Look at what's happening to civil liberties and to accountability. We must come together to fight our common enemy, international capitalism and its war machine. We need to restore the authority and jurisdiction of international law; we need to unite against the enemy of humanity." She noted that Iraq Occupation Focus, a London based solidarity group, has launched Justice for Iraq Campaign and urged the conference to look up their site, justiceforiraq.net, and to support their campaign.

In response to a question on Sunni-Shia relations, Dr. Ibrahim noted that relations between the two sects were generally good before the current war. There were frequent inter-marriages and there still are today. US propaganda promoted divisions between them and hammered this message into peoples' heads to the point that the first question Iraqis ask each other is whether they are Sunni or Shia. All sectarian incidents appear to have been organized rather than spontaneous. Relations between Christians and Muslims were also good before the war. Our hope is that someday when the occupation is ended, relations can become good again.

In response to a question about campaigning, Dr. Ibrahim placed great emphasis on writing to the media, pressuring them to correct their reporting-to report the truth.

In response to the Obama administration's timetable for withdrawing occupation forces, Dr. Ibrahim noted that deadlines can change and have changed, that there are US military bases now in Iraq. She queried how they can just be abandoned. She underlined that the US troops that will leave Iraq will be moved to Afghanistan and that they could easily be shifted back to Iraq. She asked what will be done about the war crimes committed during the occupation. What about the devastated infrastructure? After the first Gulf War, Iraqis rebuilt within six months but under the occupation, what has been done? She asked about compensation for victims. She reiterated that the US interests will not change especially in regard to oil.

In response to the comment on the mystery of how UK foreign policy can be in such defiance of public opinion on war in Iraq, Dr. Ibrahim answered back: where is democracy in Iraq?

Adding to the comment that it appears that the US was out to destroy the cradle of civilization and that it now has numerous bases in Iraq, Dr. Ibrahim highlighted the unfairness, to the Iraqi economy and people, of the procedure allowing the oil minister to sign contracts on oil exploration and commerce, without referring to the Iraqi parliament. She further asked, when will the 200,000 mercenaries now operating in Iraq leave, even if the US and UK withdraw forces?

Dr. Ibrahim agreed when asked whether Iran was not another reason for the US presence and the existence of its bases in Iraq.

Ms. Ukoko remarked on her shock at the devastation wrecked upon Gaza women and children. She could not believe this was happening. She stated that politics is being used by the few to destroy the masses of people, invading humanity and calling it a WAR! In the Niger Delta, oil is also at stake (as in the Middle East). The war in the Delta is constant and destroys both people and the environment. The people cry: take it and leave us alone! People can only give what they have. There is enough oil for all of us.

Nigeria does not have a true government; that is, a government that protects its people. Politicians are only out for their own advantage and are in partnership with the war powers. Even ordinary Nigerians are not aware of what is going on in the Delta. We need to make a video to show how Shell is polluting the environment. Nigerians do not realize there is military rule in the Delta. The Nigerian president has even asked the UK government to send soldiers to quell the resistance against the destruction of the Delta's environment and means of livelihood. Women of Africa (WOA) mounted a campaign in London during the Nigerian President's visit to sign the supposed agreement to allow British troops into the Delta. The WOA campaign was to solicit public support against the imminent military invasion of the Delta.

Alice Ukoko further informed us that WOA had followed its actions with a letter to Gordon Brown appealing to him to support dialogue in the resolution of the problems of the Niger Delta rather than using the barrel of the gun. The British Prime Minister was asked about the difference between his attitude towards Zimbabwe and Nigeria. Ms. Ukoko underscored: we need a way to face these war-mongers.

The first person to comment from the floor, Tahrir Swift, noted the similarities of what Shell is doing in Iraq and the Niger Delta and stated that imperialism is the same all over the world. NATO is being touted as the security force against so-called terrorism [of the people fighting back].

In answer to the question of the peace-building process that Women of Africa has been initiating, Ms. Ukoko spoke of her efforts at a conference organised by Oxfam and its partners in the Netherlands on 22.01.09. Ms Ukoko spoke on "The Impact of Oil Exploration in the Niger Delta of Nigeria: The Case of Shell Nigeria". The audience included Dutch bankers as well as a representative of the Central Bank, most of whom are investors in Shell's activities in the Niger Delta. Alice Ukoko used the opportunity to call on all Shell investors to stop financing the destruction of the environment and of lives in the Niger Delta.

A senior Shell officer attended the conference. The only defence he could muster was that Shell did not have the funds to lay the pipes necessary to stop gas flaring and instead to convert flared gas for domestic and commercial use. .

Alice Ukoko was asked to inform the conference of her work with grass-roots women during her last working trip to Nigeria (25.01.09 to 23.02.09). In response, Ms. Ukoko emphasized that this time Women of Africa focused on meeting with top decision-makers, including Shell Nigeria, the newly appointed Minister of Niger Delta Affairs in Abuja and finally the youth in the resistance movement. In these conversations, she stressed both the need to end military hostilities in the region and to stop criminal elements from feeding into the efforts of the main militant youth groups in the region.

Ms. Ukoko was asked her opinion on AFRICOM; she commented that she personally has taken note of the country where the African military headquarters is to be situated and that she is becoming weary of building working relationships with that country. Other than that, she has not taken any public action to show her disgust at this African Head of State's co-operation with America's effort to establish military bases in Africa.

The conference was warmly greeted and welcomed by the Lord Mayor of Oxford, Councillor Susana Pressel. She noted that Oxford belongs to the world-wide movement of Mayors for Peace that each year commemorates the August bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an anti-war protest. She also mentioned that Oxford City Council has declared Oxford as a city of Sanctuary.

Mr. Kent put emphasis on networking rather than creating an entirely new organization. He stressed that there are many international and national alliances and proceeded to summarize briefly a history of the peace movement. He suggested that all involved in anti-war activities should have a copy of Housman's Diary and Directory, which is the standard compilation of peace organizations-"the bible of the peace world." Mr. Kent cautioned against trying to "poach" members of other groups, rather giving respect to diverse organisations.

One of the oldest international organizations is the International Peace Bureau in Geneva with roots in the 19th century. It consists of 250 affiliated members and is headed by Colin Archer and a small staff.

Another smaller group is the World Peace Council, which had been sponsored by the Soviet Union in its beginnings.

He explained the history behind MAW with roots in the movement arising out of the Hague Conference of 1899 led by Russian Czar, which produced a 50 point plan for the abolition of war. MAW believes that only a change in the culture of war will lead to its abandonment and detailed a number of initiatives it undertakes: with the Imperial War Museum, producing peace music CDs, promoting Children's War Peace Day and the Peace History Conference. MAW has given rise to the Peace Pledge Union.

Bruce Kent admonished: "don't found a new alliance; don't try to duplicate other's things." It is necessary to reach out to those who are campaigning to end poverty and to protect the environment. There is a need to make the connection between ending poverty and ending military spending. Our byword should be mainstreaming.

Bruce Kent fielded a number of questions and comments from the floor.
1. The first person raised the question of reaching out to such groups as Oxfam, Greenpeace, and the World Development movement. Mr. Kent felt that Oxfam and such like organizations are too dependent at the top level on donors and governments. However, one might be able to reach middle and field level personnel. Greenpeace is strong on nuclear issues.
2. Sheila Triggs of WILPF urged that people participate in the Put People First initiative of 28 March. Let us grasp the networks that exist. We can become part of them and make them our own.
3. Another person felt that one way of networking is to make linkages between war, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons and the economic question.
4. Khadiga Safwat of NOW agreed that it was necessary to bring together as many people and groups possible around the least common denominator. Defining what we mean by 'peace' is necessary since the word has been co-opted by those in power.
5. Margaret Stanton of NOW called attention to how war today affects civilians today more than ever, especially women and children. She noted that the NPT treaty is coming up for renegotiation this year and urged the coming together of various peace groups in this country and abroad on this issue.
6. Sarah Lasenby of NOW underlined that it would have been helpful to Alice Ukoko when she was campaigning in Nigeria to call upon groups in this and other countries to picket the Nigerian embassies.
7. One person wondered whether we would be willing to live our grandparents' lives.
8. Alice Ukoko of Women of Africa underscored that indeed it would have been good to have more people linked together to help each other.
9. Dr. Lamees Ibrahim stressed the importance of watching the media and how they report all of the issues we have raised. She noted Media Lens and Arab Media Watch as alternative sources of information.

Bruce Kent responded to several of these comments and questions by repeating that, of course, Let a thousand flowers bloom and Live simply so that more people can live. He also felt that much more work is needed on monitoring the media.

Edith Rubinstein of Women in Black (International and Belgium WIB, Coordinator of the French-language WIB list)

"My name is Edith Rubinstein. I am a Woman in Black from Brussels. Being a WIB means that I am a feminist against war and violence, and against racism. As my confidence in institutions is rather low, I would even say, I am a bit anarchist. And this is why the network of WIBs suits me perfectly, because it has no other requirements than those I mentioned before. And in a conference about alliances, this way of functioning could be useful.
In the feminist movement, I consider myself as an eco-feminist. 'Eco' stands for ecology but also for economy. Alliances are very important but women's presence in them is not always evident "
Ms. Rubinstein gave an example of this when she recently attended a decroissance conference at the University of Brussels whose purpose was to discuss limited growth on the planet. She had expected an audience of mainly middle-aged people but found many young people there and felt hope that their de-politicization had come to an end. Unfortunately, "my pleasure was attenuated because I had to come to the conclusion that, once more, the visions of women were completely ignored, a tendency which is already very present in the World Social Fora."

Men and women have different perspectives about situations and pose different solutions to them. Education makes women more altruistic, which brings some tenderness to life. Men need to be more like this. "History tells us that, very generally, in the different struggles, most women showed solidarity with their male partners. In some cases, they even started social movements. The best known case is the start of the Russian revolution in February 1917, when female workers left the fabrics in Saint Petersburg to demonstrate for bread and the end of the war. After all, women are the nurturers of the children and the family. Women really have a sense of solidarity!"

But now, men betray women. Look at the situation of women in Algeria for example. They have not been rewarded for their efforts. Feminists look for alliances with the Left and have, as well, been deceived. "From the start, at the end of the 19th century, the socialist movement proclaimed the equality between men and women. But at the same time they insisted on the priority of the class struggle." Feminist movements have been labelled as 'bourgeois.' Sandinistas voted for a complete ban on abortion even when the woman's life is in danger. Even the pope does not go that far!

"In a conference about alliances, I thought it was important to evoke the dissatisfaction of women activists. They feel they can speak as much as they want, but that they are not heard or simply ignored. Our partners, or husbands, our friends, our sons, our comrades agree generally that women, in the entire world, are the victims of a structural patriarchal violence." Why then do they not give our cause the solidarity it deserves? Women can help make change: women are more prone to dialogue and ethical issues, which seems particularly important today. This is an appeal to men!

After these two presentations, the conference broke up into three workshops in order to discuss issues around forming alliances and a conference statement of intent. The following is a résumé of the discussions in the three workshops.

There was general appreciation and comment from the floor regarding these comments and suggestions. The Lord Mayor suggested that we
1. Build upon existing links that various schools have with schools abroad;
2. Support Israeli peace groups, especially women's groups
She mentioned that Oxford was planning to bring its twin cities together for a meeting on Peace.

The workshop discussed the causes of conflict, for example, the evils of sanctions; the need to change people's minds through promotion of mediation and fostering a culture of peace.

The group suggested a mailing list as a way to support the efforts of the different organizations at the conference, such as attendance at marches and so on. It noted the need to exchange ideas on effective forms of protest and also for practical support, such as the hiring of a coach from Oxford to the Put People First Demonstration on 28 March. It called for solidarity actions such as support for the people of the Niger Delta, the Anti-NATO demonstration and putting pressure on the United Nations.

The workshop proposed the following addition to the conference Statement of Intent:

"We recognize the close links between war and poverty and the need to divert some of the money we spend on weapons to tackling poverty and also for tackling climate change. We pledge to work with groups focused on these issues, as long as they support our principles."

It also proposed that instead of "We therefore agree that representatives of our organizations meet together…" the Statement of Intent should read "We therefore agree that representatives of this conference meet together….."

The discussion that followed focused on the relationship between war and poverty and on whether we should call for diverting 'some' rather than 'all' the money. The consensus was to change 'some of the money' to simply 'money' and to eliminate the second 'for tackling' in the first sentence.

The workshop discussed the need for media-monitoring bodies such as Arab Media Watch and Media Lens, which has a website, does analysis and monitoring and gives contact details of journalists.

The workshop suggested changing the opening line of the Statement of Intent to read:
"Wars increasingly kill and injure hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially women and children" and suggested that it mention other types of damage caused by war, e.g., economic, psychological, emotional, cultural, etc.

The workshop raised the issue of how coordination between local, national and international groups would be managed and if we were proposing an organization to take this role on board.

The discussion that followed suggested a number of different alternative media sources to use, including Indymedia, Media Workers Against the War, and Facebook. It was noted that the Oxford branch of Indymedia might be shutting down.

Ad Hoc Committee
The Chair called for nominations from the floor for representatives to the Ad Hoc Committee whose role would be to finalize the Statement of Intent and help implement a programme of joint actions. The following members of the Ad Hoc Committee were approved:

Margaret Stanton, who agreed to convene the first meeting, which was held on 9 March.
Christopher Manley
Emma Jones
Shawn Paulson
Elena Tiffert-Vaughan
Nigel Day
Nigel Anstee-Algar
Rosemary Galli has agreed to compile and maintain a mailing list of participants

There were more than 40 participants but for reasons of confidentiality the list is not being published on our website. However, if you feel you have a genuine reason for contacting any of them, you may email Rosemary Galli with the details.

The following Statement of Intent was approved on 9 March 2009 by the Ad Hoc Committee in light of the proposals discussed by the plenary session of the Conference:

"This conference notes that wars increasingly kill and injure hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially women and children. War also causes immense economic, psychological, emotional and cultural damage.

We call for the world's resources and advances in science and technology to be used not for military confrontations but for the benefit of all the people of the planet.

We recognise the close links between war and poverty and the need to divert money we spend on weapons to tackling poverty and climate change. We pledge to work with groups focused on these issues, as long as they support our principles.

We believe that our aims can be strengthened and developed more quickly if all our groups declaring themselves against war, both here in the United Kingdom and abroad, come together from time to time to reinforce a strong alliance for joint action against war.

We therefore agree that representatives of this conference meet together as an Ad Hoc Committee, before April 2009, to implement a programme of action, possibly including:

International Women's Festival 2009

Report

Building an Alliance for Joint Action against War Saturday 28 February 2009

Building an Alliance for Joint Action against War
Saturday 28 February 2009