Bermingham battles on for peace

THERE are those who question the effectiveness of human rights campaigners who are willing to place themselves at risk by entering war zones to bear witness and give voice to those affected.

But it would be difficult to argue that the risks Dublin peace campaigner, Michael Birmingham, took in Iraq during the latest Gulf war were in vain. Any casual internet search reveals hundreds of interviews, sound bites,

radio clips and video streams of the determined Irishman on every media outlet possible from CNN to tiny student stations across the world.

And in each one, he argues passionately, calmly and rationally for the simple everyday rights Iraqis have lacked for close on 15 years now just as he said he would do when he left Ireland for Baghdad last December knowing he might not return.

So mission accomplished then? Well, not quite. Last night the Tallaght homeless shelter worker crossed the desert from Jordan and is now back in Baghdad.

Speaking from Amman before he left yesterday he explained why he is going back. Typically it's because he believes he can achieve something and feels its his duty to try.

"I just want to see if there is any possibility of showing solidarity with the Iraqi people. It looks like the role of our Governments will continue to be negative and the task of building anything positive will fall on the shoulders of Iraqis themselves who will struggle to do so against our policies," he said.

The war and the glare of non-stop coverage it was afforded across the globe may be over but to Michael it was just a distraction from the real crisis in Iraq.

Consequently it's difficult to get him to divulge the standard headline-grabbing lines about living through the onslaught on Baghdad.

"There were missiles and bombs flying around all over the place and where we were staying was just across the river from one of Saddam's palaces so our windows broke from the bombs and the hotel really shook a lot," he said, sounding bored.

This is what the reporters always ask him but it is not what he wants to talk about.

There are, he thinks, more important issues at hand like how the Iraqi situation was glossed over by the media networks in Britain and the US and what's really going to happen now for the average Iraqi?

While in Baghdad during the war Michael says he was particularly disappointed with the preconceived notions large US and British networks brought to their reporting.

"They were quite bad. You could see as soon as they spoke that they had an intent. They knew what they wanted. They would always speak to British or US experts or failing that anybody British or American.

"The outcome of that is people who are listening or reading that coverage miss out on most of the truth of what's actually going on."

That is why he believes his role was worth risking his life for although the inherent dangers of war were in many ways the least of his difficulties.

"It was quite difficult given the intent the media would have. I always had to preface and end everything I said with the fact that I am not a supporter of Saddam If you didn't do that they would immediately paint you as a supporter of the regime."

The Irish coverage, which he was able to follow on the internet, did present a more truthful version of events, he says, but he was still often disappointed with the nonchalance of many back home.

"What was really very important was that all of us, not just the media, should have made an effort to do whatever we should to understand the level of brutality the Iraqis were experiencing and change it."

It angers him now that Ireland is not taking a stronger stance to ensure the rights of everyday Iraqis are protected now the bombing has finished.

"You don't see any of our politicians going to Iraq now and bringing a model of democracy or suggestions how human rights are going to be protected.

"When Michael D Higgins, Patricia McKenna and Pronnsias DeRossa came to Baghdad they got heavily criticised by the likes of Pat Cox. But how are you supposed to promote human rights in a country without actually going there to at least talk with the victims?"

And it's this Ireland's complicity in the apparent disregard for ordinary Iraqis that makes Michael most angry. He even goes as far as calling Ireland's recent €5m aid package as a gratuitous insult saying Iraqis don't need out short change but rather a chance to stand on their own feet.

"Ireland needs to show solidarity with a people whose lives have been utterly devastated by an ongoing policy which since before 1991 has systematically destroyed their entire society.

"There is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq which is a direct result of sanctions, the 1991 war and this recent war and in that context the 5m Ireland has just sent to Iraq is a gratuitous insult.

"It's very easy to project humanitarian donations as being beyond criticism but the thing to do in Iraq is to help the Iraqi people get away from under the foot of the American army.

"All of the Iraqis I speak to these days say they don't need and they don't want our help. They just need us to stop repressing them. They need us to stop killing them, destroying their bureaucracy and their vital institutions," he says pointing out that the war didn't stop the thousands of children who die every month from basic preventable diseases from dying.

"The war did nothing for the real killing in Iraq. It just distracted us from all of that," he said.

So what now of the future for Iraq? His choice of words is typically cautious yet critical of current plans to establish a true independent democracy in Iraq.

"I'm always reluctant to try to predict the future. I just don't have the experience or the knowledge to do that but I've got eyes to see what is going on now and where it's going and it's a terrible picture."

When George Bush and Tony Blair speak of an Iraq for the Iraqi people Michael can't help but hear nothing but hollow promises and the echo of similar talk in the past.

"The only thing they defended was the oil ministry. They let the rest of the country go to hell. Why would we believe there was any change in their policy?", he said.

But Michael is also anxious to point out that, despite decades of suffering under western policies, most Iraqis are not hateful.

"We seem to have an opinion and a fear that Iraqis and Arabs have a lot of hatred towards us in the west but it's nonsense. They are upset at the US policies but they don't blame the ordinary westerners they are just frustrated at our governments."

But could that frustration boil over if things don't now change?

"If we continue to show the callousness as to whether they live or die sooner or later they will start getting angry with us. On the other hand there is no reason to worry that an Iraq properly supported would be a nation in any way antagonistic to the west."

As when he was first exposed to the blast of rushing air from the US bombing of Baghdad, it is what might be coming next that frightens him most. And that's the real reason why he feels he has to go back.