Time to re-visit A Canadian on Iraq from 2003

Peace Activism: An individual Journey

Canada and a Canadian’s involvement in the Iraq conflict

Donn Lovett

“one drop in the ocean, but each drop can swell the tide”

Judy Small

It was fall, 1962.  I was 13 years old and the world was on the brink of a nuclear war.  This time the given reason was the deployment of missiles in Cuba by the Russians.  Something, apparently, the United States disagreed with. I remember those days as if they occurred last week.  I spent six months of my life in constant stress.  If I slept, I had nightmares about nuclear war.  While awake I constantly thought of nuclear war and the destruction that would result, including my death.  I remember the federal Canadian Government Organization called the Emergency Measures Organization (EMO), telling me that in the event of a nuclear attack while I was at school, I should hide under my desk.  Remember, I was 13 and even at that age, I knew that “under the desk” was where they would find the vapour from the nuclear explosion.  Provided of course, there was someone around to look for the vapour.

I remember one particular Monday evening.  I know it was Monday because I delivered the Star Weekly magazine on that day.  It was September in Winnipeg and after 6:00 p.m. when the sun was setting and the street getting dark.  Suddenly the air was filled with the unprecedented sound of air raid sirens.  I panicked and running to the first house I could find, pounded on the door.  The man who met me immediately recognized my problem, tried to answer my stream of questions quickly and attempted to calm me.  He put me in front of his television to show me that the sirens were part of what the EMO referred to as a “mock nuclear attack”, and I should not be afraid.  How dare my government do this to a 13-year-old child?  They staged a “mock nuclear attack”, sounding air raid sirens without warning.  I knew I had to do something to prevent a complete personal collapse.  I sought people with whom I could discuss these issues and who were already doing something about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  I joined a peace movement and learned what “one person can do”.

Also, vivid in my memory was the fact that the Cuban Missile Crisis was solved, not because one country attacked another, but rather as an outcome of dialogue.  Yes, the Russians sent ships and the Americans countered with more ships, but ultimately dialogue prevented a war and the United Nations was involved in the solution.  This message that I received from the events of 1962 still resonates today.  That is, that dialogue is still the best way to solve disputes and the United Nations Organization is needed more than ever.

My activism carried me through high school and the Viet Nam War.  The point is my activism was born out of these events and the tumultuous 60’s.  In 1981 I found myself living in Baghdad and working for a Canadian company called Canron.  We were providing water pipe and fittings to Iraq for the supply of drinking water.  The Iraqi regime had decreed that everyone in Iraq would have clean drinking water and properly treated sewage.  As a Canadian company we were doing millions of dollars of trade in Iraq and I was sent to administer the contracts.  My experience living among the people of Iraq and interacting with them was one of respect, kindness and honesty.  When the Gulf War broke out and the U.S. talked about collateral damage for the first time, I thought of my Iraqis friends, and so I saw the war from a different perspective than did most North Americans.

I followed the events in Iraq and learned about the effect of the embargo on the people of Iraq and in particular to increased infant mortality.  My daughter was born in December of 1990 and, being a ‘stay at home father’, I was deeply involved in raising my child and – readily empathized with those Iraqis who were losing their children at an alarming rate. Reports of the rise in infant mortality rate and deaths of civilians were stalled by the U.S. and U.K. at the United Nations.  They blocked reports coming from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF.  Finally, the information could no longer be hidden and the “Oil-For-Food” programme was initiated in an attempt to alleviate the hunger to which years of embargo had subjected the Iraqi people.

We learned that during the 1991 Gulf War the U.S. led bombing raids that attacked every hospital, every water treatment plant, every wastewater plant, most schools and every major intersection in downtown Baghdad in order to destroy the water distribution and sewer collection systems.  All attacks against civilian infrastructure are in direct violation of the UN Charter and must be considered war crimes. A good friend of mine, Denis Halliday, the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq said the following “We are in the process of destroying an entire society.  It is as simple and terrifying as that.  It is illegal and immoral.”

The World Health Organization (WHO), reported that “Pre-1990 Iraq reflects the health status of a modern developing society, in which the wealth it obtained from exporting its main commodity, oil, contributed to improving the quality of life of the Iraqi people, which then (1988/1989), was already at a relatively ‘satisfactory’ level, with indications of a trend for further improvement.” UNICEF reported that, “The Government of Iraq made sizable investments in the education sector from the mid-1970’s until 1990. Educational policy included provision for scholarships, research facilities and medical support for students. By 1989 the combined primary and secondary enrollment stood at 75% (slightly above the average for all developing countries at 70%). Illiteracy had been reduced to 20% by 1987. Education accounted for over 5% of the state budget above developing countries of 3.8%.”

After the imposition of sanctions in 1991 we know that:

1. 1.5 million Iraqi civilians have died since 1991 as a direct result of the sanctions.
2. 600,000 of the dead were children under 5 years of age according to UNICEF reports and substantiated by the Red Cross. A recent UN report stated that the infant mortality rate in Iraq is 133.  This means that for every 1,000 children born, 133 will not reach the age of 5.  By comparison, Canada’s infant mortality rate is less than four.
3. The number of malnourished children has increased over 300% since 1991.
4. Maternal mortality rates have more than doubled during this period of the sanctions and 70% of Iraqi women suffer from anemia. 
5. Unemployment has soared under the sanctions, as has inflation. The average civilian salary, for example, is CAD$3.60 per month.
6. An estimated 800 tonnes of depleted uranium contained in ammunitions were used by the allied forces in the Gulf War. Cancer rates in Iraq have increased five-fold since the Gulf War. Childhood leukemia in Iraq has the highest rate in the world.

These undeniable facts lead me to travel to Iraq to view first hand the devastation to the Iraqi civilian population and the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructure and the civilian economy.  I could no longer stand by and let the crimes continue, crimes to which the Canadian government was a partner.  Tacit approval of the unjust conditions to which Iraqis were subjected was tantamount to direct involvement in the destruction.

I began to contact people I thought could give me information to help me develop a plan of action to assist the people of Iraq.  The first was Denis Halliday.  I remembered reading a statement that Mr. Halliday had made after he resigned his position with the UN in protest over U.S. interference in the relief operations in Iraq.  He said, “I can find no legitimate justification for sustaining economic sanctions under these circumstances.  To do so in my view is to disregard the high principles of the United Nation’s Charter, the Convention of Human Rights, the very moral leadership and the credibility of the United Nations itself.”

Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Denis J. Halliday, an Irish national, to the post of United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, at the Assistant Secretary-General level on September 1, 1997. Halliday served as such until the end of September 1998.  During this period, the Security Council Resolution 986 “Oil for Food” Programme, introduced in 1996/97 to assist the people of Iraq under the Economic Sanctions imposed and sustained by the Security Council, was more than doubled in terms of oil revenues allowed.  This enabled the introduction of a multi-sectored approach, albeit modest, to the problems of resolving malnutrition and child mortality.  Mr. Halliday resigned from the post in Iraq, and from the United Nations as a whole, on October 31, 1998, after serving the Organization for 34 years.

After running the "Oil for Food" program, which uses Iraqi oil revenues to distribute basic food rations and medical aid to Iraqi civilians, Halliday turned his attention to spreading the word about sanctions-related suffering. I contacted Mr. Halliday in late 1999 and invited him to Canada.  We met in Ottawa for a series of lectures and I took him to the House of Commons to meet the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bill Graham.  I wanted him to ask Mr. Graham to hold hearings on Iraq at the Standing Committee.  Graham agreed immediately and the hearing was scheduled for March 2000.  I arranged for Mr. Halliday and Mr. Arthur Millholland the president of Oilexco, the only Canadian company participating in the “Oil-for-Food” programme, to come to Ottawa as witnesses to the Committee.  The Hearings lasted for three days, culminating in Report #5, “Resolution on Iraq”, which was tabled in the Canadian House of Commons on April 12^th, 2000.

Report #5, which was unanimously supported by the 18 Members of Parliament sitting on the Committee and representing all five political parties, called for a de-linking of sanctions.  This meant the removal of economic sanctions but leaving military sanctions in place.  It further called for an opening of dialogue between Canada and Iraq.  The deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Tariq Aziz, accepted Report #5, as a good basis to resolve the situation in Iraq.  It was suggested that the Secretary General of the United Nations might use that report as a basis for breaking the impasse on getting proper humanitarian relief to Iraq.

Report #5 was rejected outright by the then Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, and it died without being taken to the UN.  The main reason given by senior advisors to Axworthy, at a meeting that I attended, were as follows.  “While we recognize the destruction to the people of Iraq, we cannot do anything to upset the U.S. Administration because they will beat us up on trade.”  One of the senior advisors was a medical doctor who had visited Iraq and seen first hand the difficulties being experienced by the people of Iraq.

This resulted in two important outcomes for me.  I met Madame Colleen Beaumier, the Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I discovered that Lloyd Axworthy would not act if it meant confronting the United States.

I invited Madame Beaumier to come to New York to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Tariq Aziz.  She agreed and the meeting was arranged for September 2000 at the Iraq Permanent Mission to the UN in New York.  We discussed Report #5 as a basis to solving the economic embargo on Iraq while agreeing that at this stage the military embargo had to remain in place.  The meeting was cordial and it was the first time that parliamentarians from Canada and Iraq had met since the Gulf War.  By now Canada had closed its embassy in Baghdad even though Iraq maintained a Charge d’Affaire in Ottawa. The action now became one of getting individual MPs to endorse Report #5, in an attempt to get a majority of the 301 MPs to sign a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (and copied to the Foreign Minister) demanding that Canada accept the results of the Report drafted by the Standing Committee assigned the task of advising the Foreign Minister.  We received unanimous support from the Bloq Quebecois, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservatives, while individual members of both the Liberal Party and the Alliance Party, led by Dr. Keith Martin agreed to endorse the Report.  We had the support of 127 members when Parliament was dissolved on October 22^nd, 2000 and an election called.  This nullified our efforts until after the election.

A new parliament was elected in November 2000 and we restarted our efforts to get Report #5 accepted by the Canadian Government.  However, we now faced a new resistance.  John Manley was appointed to the position of Foreign Minister and he took an even closer stance with Washington.  During Manley’s tenure Canada moved as close to Washington as Canada had ever been. This caused individual MPs in the Liberal ranks to distance themselves from any initiative that may confront the U.S.  We also witnessed a hardening of a pro-American position with the Alliance Party, under their new leader, Stockwell Day.  Although we still held the support of the Bloq, the NDP and the Tories, getting majority support was becoming increasingly more difficult.  This, combined with the election of the neo-conservative Bush Administration, made the matter of getting a resolution of the Iraqi sanctions almost impossible.  It became clear to me that removal of sanctions could not happen without the return of the weapons inspectors and a resolution on the question of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), which became the buzzword of the Bush White House.

At this time the Bush White House had little or no interest in foreign relations.  It seemed hunkered down in an isolationist mentality until the attack on the World Trade Center in September 2001.  The ensuing “War on Terrorism” set a course for Bush and his neo-conservative cohorts that continue to affect the world in a seriously negative way. The appetite for war, demonstrated by Bush after the September attack, provoked me to call a meeting of international diplomats and interested individuals, to meet in New York to see what we could do to dampen the US enthusiasm for war.  I contacted Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both former United Nations Humanitarian Coordinators in Iraq at the Assistant Secretary-General level.  I contacted Scott Ritter, the former US Marine Major and head of the UN weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991 through 1998.  I also asked the former Foreign Minister of Canada, Lloyd Axworthy to join us, along with the president of the Canadian oil company, Oilexco, Arthur Millholland.  Lloyd Axworthy had had a change of heart since leaving Ottawa and wanted to see what could be done to ease the pressure on Iraqi civilians.  All agreed and a meeting was arranged for the end of November 2001 in New York, ironically held at the Republican Women’s Center.  Mr. von Sponeck could not join us but was in contact via phone and email.

Although several ideas were discussed, it became clear that the return of the weapons inspectors was the only way out of the impasse.  It was thought that Canada could play a role, given that it had an outstanding reputation at the UN and was not an imperialist nation. Iraq might accept recommendations coming from there.  However, John Manley was still Foreign Minister in Canada and not predisposed to anything that may confront the U.S.  We decided to continue discussions and to formulate a plan that could be discussed between Canada, Iraq and the UN.

Lloyd Axworthy agreed to discuss our meeting with Louise Frechette, a Canadian and the Deputy Secretary General of the UN, and with Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, whom he was to meet with at dinner while he was in New York and Washington.  Conversations within the group continued over the last part of 2001 and into 2002.

In January of 2002, Prime Minister Chrétien appointed Bill Graham as the new Canadian Foreign Minister and hopes for a more sovereign Canadian position with regard to the USA gave us a reason to quicken our attempts to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq.  By this time Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck were now concentrating their efforts in Europe.  Arthur Millholland was in the UK and busy with his business efforts.  Lloyd Axworthy became busy with his UBC institute.  It was left to Scott Ritter and I, to continue the discussions started in New York in the fall of 2001.

Scott Ritter arranged to meet with the Labour Party in the UK and the French Government to discuss the return of the inspectors.  I began to build support in Ottawa with MPs with whom we could work.  Notably, Madame Francine Lalonde of the Bloq, Dr. Keith Martin of the Alliance, Joe Clark of the Conservatives and Alexa McDonough of the NDP were contacted and they agreed to keep in touch with the initiative.  Madame Lalonde became quite active and was a strong source of support.  I was in constant contact with Madame Colleen Beaumier who gave us access to the Liberal caucus.

Meanwhile, I developed a relationship with Robert Fry, the senior advisor to Bill Graham, the Foreign Minister, as well as with Chris Hull and Graeme McIntyre from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT).  Through Robert Fry we could get access to the Foreign Minister if the matter was significant enough.  At this point we were feeling quite encouraged and I asked the Standing Committee to meet with Scott Ritter to discuss the return of weapons inspectors.  Thanks to the efforts of Madame Lalonde and Dr. Martin the Committee agreed to meet with Scott Ritter and Denis Halliday in early June 2002.

The meeting with the Standing Committee was very successful.  Scott Ritter was able to convey the importance of getting the weapons inspectors back into Iraq as a necessary step to getting the economic sanctions removed.  There was a sense from the meeting that Canada could play a role once the inspectors had returned.  Scott Ritter and I then met with Madame Lalonde to develop a document entitled “The Honest Broker”.   The thrust of this document was to ask Iraq to agree first to the return of the weapons’ inspectors and then to permit Canada, South Africa and Belgium to help mitigate any difficulties that might arise between Iraq and the UN as a consequence of the inspections.  These countries would not interfere with the inspectors themselves because they recognized that the U.S. would not tolerate any interference with the inspection process.  However, situations might have arisen requiring some form of reconciliation between the UN and Iraq during the inspections. Canada was chosen because it is the major trading partner of the U.S. with a close historical, political and geographical relationship.  South Africa was chosen to represent the non-aligned nations and Belgium because of its membership in NATO and the EU.

In August 2002, Scott Ritter went to South Africa to meet with the Tariq Aziz of Iraq, Mr. Pahad, the Deputy Foreign Minister of South Africa, and the Belgium Foreign Minister.  During these meetings it was agreed that Scott would go to Baghdad to address the Iraq National Assembly on September 8^th, and during the presentation would discuss the return of the inspectors.  South Africa and Belgium agreed to cooperate with Canada, if Canada would take the lead on the “honest broker” initiative.

Meanwhile back in Canada, I stayed in touch with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister to ensure that, at the very least, Canada would continue to support the UN and not support US unilateral actions.  On two occasions in July and August of 2002, in direct phone conversations with Prime Minister Chrétien, I was assured that Canada would keep supporting the UN.  On August 9^th, 2002 at a meeting with Bush in Detroit, Mr. Chrétien reiterated Canada’s support for a UN resolution to the Iraq situation.  At the same time I had met with Minister Graham, who also assured me that Canada would stay with a UN resolution.  To this day they have maintained that position and I believe that Canadians should be very proud of these actions of our Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, in the face of the tremendous pressure from the Americans to support their unilateral actions.  I was in the Canadian House of Commons on March 17^th, 2003 when the Prime Minister announced that Canada would not support the US war on Iraq.  This was one of the bravest things our Prime Minister has ever done.

Scott Ritter met with the Iraq National Assembly on September 8^th, 2002 and told them in no uncertain words that they had to allow the inspectors to return and that there was no room for negotiations on this matter.  Further, they had to advise the UN that they would accept the inspectors before the U.S. was able to get a resolution before the UN that they would not be able to deal with.  Iraq accepted what Scott had to say and dispatched Foreign Minister Sabri to New York for September 14^th.

While this was being organized and unfolding, Bush was dragged kicking and screaming to the UN on September 12^th.  This happened through the efforts of a number of countries including Canada and the UK.  He appeared at the UN because there was virtually no support for U.S. actions against Iraq and Bush felt that the U.S. could beat the UN into submission.  The timing worked out for Iraq who had agreed to come to New York for September 14^th and, through a series of negotiations in New York that I was involved in, made its proposal to the UN through Kofi Annan on September 16^th, 2002.  The proposal allowed for a return of weapons inspectors to Iraq with no conditions attached.  The negotiations were finalized in November 2002 and that way was paved for Hans Blix to return to Iraq after 4 years without inspections.

The return of the inspectors neutralized the U.S. demand that Iraq disarm.  However, it soon became apparent that the U.S. was not interested in a disarmed Iraq, but rather wanted control of the country for several reasons, not least of which was Iraqi oil and the fact that in their war on terrorism they had not been able to find Osama bin Laden.  The U.S. then moved to the language of “regime change” and the world began to respond to their actions, culminating in the mass rallies held worldwide on February 15^th, 2003.  Tens of millions of people protested the U.S. position including 1.5 million people in London, who opposed Tony Blair’s pro-U.S. stance and 1 million people in Rome, who opposed their government’s support for the U.S.  Spain saw hundreds of thousands of people in Madrid and Barcelona protesting the Spanish government’s support of Bush.  As a result, the U.S. changed its rhetoric from “regime change” to “liberation of the Iraqi people and a change in human rights”.

In January 2003 I organized a parliamentary delegation to go to Iraq with the knowledge of Prime Minister Chrétien and Foreign Minister Graham.  Madame Colleen Beaumier and her able assistant, Natalie Jewett joined me on the trip.  In Baghdad we met with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Tariq Aziz, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Naji Sabri, the Iraq Trade Minister, Communications and Transportation Minister, Deputy Agriculture Minister and the Deputy Speaker of the Iraq National Assembly accompanied by several members of the Assembly. The purpose of the trip was to convey to Iraq the Canadian position with regard to disarmament and to receive any message that Iraq wanted put before our government.  The Iraqis asked one thing and that was for Canada to maintain its position in support of the UN.

We arrived back in Canada on January 29^th, 2003 and worked non-stop to try and reach agreement on an initiative that would prevent the U.S. from invading.  This involved a two stage proposal.  Initially there was the six point s for piece plan that was developed through the efforts of Scott Ritter and the Deputy Foreign Minister of South Africa, Mr. Pahad and was an extension of the Canadian initiative that was being discussed by the non permanent members of the UN Security Council in February 2003.  After the attack by the US and the UK a modification of that plan which was now being sponsored by the Vatican was tabled.  Both of these proposals had been somewhat agreed to by Iraq and involved Disarmament, Human Rights, Democracy, Diplomacy, Economy and of course Peace.  These initiatives are attached to this paper for review.  But as the entire world now understands the U.S. and the UK were not interested in a peaceful solution to Iraq.

The point of this article is to let people know that anyone can make a difference.  Although we failed in our attempt to prevent the U.S. from invading Iraq we accomplished great things during the past few years.  Canada did not change its position and support the US/UK war.  Canada maintained its support for the UN.  We met with several governments around the world and we felt we influenced their decisions.  And we must not forget the events of February 15^th, 2003 when the world stood up in the largest support for peace ever experienced.

My 23 year old daughter, Shanda traveled to Iraq in 1999 as part of an international women’s conference.  While in Iraq she visited several schools and talked to children about the sanctions.  She was invited to meet with Madame Aline Chrétien and in December 1999 had a 90 minute audience with Madame Chrétien to discuss her experience in Iraq.  More recently, my 12 year old daughter, Kate visited the Iraqi Embassy in Ottawa 2 weeks ago to have a tea with the Iraqi Charge.  My daughters have become anti-war activists in there own right.  I cannot forget the undying support I receive from my wife, Nora Stewart.  Nora is an engineer and a senior partner in a large energy evaluation firm in Calgary.  Without her absolute support I would not be able to accomplish anything.

Our responsibility now is to ensure that the US does not become the judge, jury and executioner for the world.  We shall overcome.

Prologue – September 2003

A great deal has happened vis a vis Iraq since this paper was written in April of 2003.  For our part a large group of activists and academics traveled to Northern Cyprus on April 25^th and met at the Eastern Mediterranean University to discuss what to do next.  Out of those discussions came the dream of Dr. Tareq Ismael to build the International University of Baghdad (IUB).  The initial proposal was developed in Cyprus and it was decided that the initiative should be a Canadian sponsored initiative.

The IUB would begin as a “virtual university”, meaning that the project will begin to get underway in terms of establishing programs, international connections, and so forth, even before it would acquire a physical presence in Iraq.  Once established, however, it will be a graduate-focused institution and would compliment post-secondary education in Iraq, rather than compete in the post-Ba’ath environment.  Not only will the university spearhead needed educational programs, but it will also make available a wealth of educated individuals capable of filling the “brain-drain” that resulted from the years of war, militarization and sanctions.  Before the U.S. and British-led attack on Iraq, there were 10 universities in the country, but the quality of education provided at these universities was in decline as there was not enough funding available to run these institutions properly, principally due to the UN Security Council sanctions and the choices made by the previous Iraqi government to focus predominantly on militarization.  Vast numbers of university professors and professionals, such as doctors and engineers, left the country in the 1990s as a result of the dramatic decline in social services.  Now, largely due to the destruction and looting incurred in the recent war and its aftermath, none of the universities in Iraq remain fully functional.  This is a predicament that urgently requires attention, as access to education has always been instrumental in developing a lively and independent civil environment.

The established universities in Iraq will benefit greatly from an internationally-focused and graduate-centred educational facility in their country. The IUB will be able to draw students from all over the world to study in Iraq, alongside Iraqi citizens, creating a constructive dialogue that is capable of transcending the simplicities of international conflict scenarios.  The breadth of experiences possessed by the international students will enhance the resources and connections that Iraqi citizens themselves would have, fostering greater civil society through an ever increasing independence from governmental contacts.  At the same time, the unique experiences of the Iraqi students – historically, politically, economically and culturally – along with the potential revival of a “cosmopolitan” Baghdad, will serve to enrich the international students who would be studying at the IUB.

The planning committee has already garnered a great deal of international recognition for this project, including support from individuals such as Betty Williams, the Irish Nobel laureate, and Jordan's Prince el-Hassan Bin Talal, brother of the late King Hussein, who is acting as the chairman of the board of trustees.  Furthermore, IUB advocates include Canada’s Prime Minister Jean Chrétien; along with Edward Broadbent, former leader of NDP; Richard Falk, professor of international law (Emeritus) at Princeton University; and John Polanyi, winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry and professor of chemistry at the University of Toronto.

With the help of other supporters, the IUB planning committee is also currently working to urge Nelson Mandela, former South African President, to become a member of the university’s board of trustees.

At this crucial time when many Iraqis see any outside involvement as largely negative and tied to an “occupation”, and relate to the international environment in terms of “conflict”, the reconstruction of Iraqi educational infrastructure through this project and others will help to provide an example for the positive possibilities of international cooperation.  Canada is in a unique position to spearhead such a project and should seize the opportunity to foster positive development in Iraq and advance our traditional role as a peacemaker in the international environment.

While in Ottawa over the past few months we have had meetings with several MPs, Senators, DFAIT, CIDA and potential partner agencies such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

To summarize the rationale we presented in Ottawa for why Canada should lead this initiative:

1.      Canada has had a long-standing relationship with the Middle East and in particular with Iraq.  Prior to the Gulf War of 1991, Canada was one of Iraq’s primary trading partners, and the Canadian Wheat Board was the largest supplier of wheat to Iraq.

2.      Canada is considered a non-imperialistic actor in the region.  We have not had the expansionist policies of France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

3.      Canada has had a reputation as a Middle Power and a peacemaker in world affairs.

4.      The stance that Canada took in the recent Gulf War of not supporting unilateral US action has reinforced Canada’s image in world affairs.

5.      Canada can exercise a tremendous amount of influence in Iraq and the region by taking these kinds of initiatives.

The question most often asked by the people we meet is “What can we do to help with the project?”

You may contact me at donn.lovett@gmail.com.  I look forward to hearing from all of you and your personal journeys.

12th Annual Rocky Mountain Burns Dinner

I am remiss in thanking those who organized, welcomed and entertained me on Janaury 19th, 2013.  The event was held at the Lougheed House, a brilliant site and the food was spectacular.

The evning began with drinks, of course, it's celebrating Robbie Burns.  We were piped in by Dan Lidgren and welcomed to supper by Mark Boulay. We then had a scotch tasting, my favourite, the 12 year old Glenfarclas.  By the end of the evening it was a challenge to determine what I was drinking.

Following the scotch tasting Scott Matson said the Selkirk Grace.

The Selkirk Grace, is a prayer said afore eatin that's attreebute tae Robert Burns:

"In connection with the poet's visit to the seat of the Earl of Selkirk, it is stated by Cunningham, that at one of the meals there, Burns was asked to say Grace, and he delivered what is usually styled 'The Selkirk Grace'":

Some Folk hae meat that canna eat,

And some can eat that want it;

But we hae meat, and we can eat,

So let the Lord be Thanket!

Following the First Remove - Cook-a-Leekie Soup we were entertained with a beatiful rendition of 'The Flower of Scotland' sung by Ben Robinson.

Then came the Second Remove - Herb Salad and Bison Cakes.

Now it was time for the address to the haggis by the almost sober and nearly standing Bruce Cameron.

Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face, 

Great chieftain o' the pudding-race! 

Aboon them a' ye tak your place, 

Painch, tripe, or thairm : 

Weel are ye wordy o'a grace 

As lang's my arm. 

The groaning trencher there ye fill, 

Your hurdies like a distant hill, 

Your pin wad help to mend a mill 

In time o'need, 

While thro' your pores the dews distil 

Like amber bead. 

His knife see rustic Labour dight, 

An' cut you up wi' ready sleight, 

Trenching your gushing entrails bright, 

Like ony ditch; 

And then, O what a glorious sight, 

Warm-reekin', rich! 

Then, horn for horn, they stretch an' strive: 

Deil tak the hindmost! on they drive, 

Till a' their weel-swall'd kytes belyve 

Are bent like drums; 

Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive, 

Bethankit! hums. 

Is there that owre his French ragout 

Or olio that wad staw a sow, 

Or fricassee wad make her spew 

Wi' perfect sconner, 

Looks down wi' sneering, scornfu' view 

On sic a dinner? 

Poor devil! see him owre his trash, 

As feckless as wither'd rash, 

His spindle shank, a guid whip-lash; 

His nieve a nit; 

Thro' bloody flood or field to dash, 

O how unfit! 

But mark the Rustic, haggis-fed, 

The trembling earth resounds his tread. 

Clap in his walie nieve a blade, 

He'll mak it whissle; 

An' legs an' arms, an' heads will sned, 

Like taps o' thrissle. 

Ye Pow'rs, wha mak mankind your care, 

And dish them out their bill o' fare, 

Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware 

That jaups in luggies; 

But, if ye wish her gratefu' prayer 

Gie her a haggis!

After stumbling to his seat having carefully cut himself with the cerimonial knife during the address we began the Third Remove - Alberta Beef Tenderloin with Demi-Glaze servved with Vegetables (Yum!).

Followed by Ben Robinson singing 'Scotland Forever', not a dry eye in the room.

Rising once again, Bruce Cameron gave a moving Immortal Memeory.

The Immortal Memory is the main speech of the Robbie Burns evening to underline the reasons why Burns Memory is, and should be, immortal. It should bring out points as to why he is relevant in our times and society. It should help people understand what Burns said and encourage them to apply Burns principles and values to their own lives and to society around them resolving to improve both. It should persuade them to re-examine their country's nationhood, preserve it, and make it a force for good among their fellow nations. It should be a personal tribute.

We had a dessert of fresh Raspberry Cranachan Trifle and of course, whiskey cream and Jeff Robinson closed the formal part of the evning with the Toast to the Lassies.

This was originally a short speech given by a male guest in thanks to the women who had

prepared the meal. However, nowadays it is much more wide-ranging and generally

covers the male speaker's view on women. It is normally amusing but not offensive. The men drink a toast to the women's health.

The formal part being completed, we proceeded to have various forms of scotch tasting in bars around the City,

God help us all!

Day 11 – Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

A hearty Scottish breakfast and off to MacDuff on the Northern Coast.

Our first stop was at the site of the Battle of Culloden.  Our guide was brilliant in describing the relevance, history and geography of the Battle.  Nora's Clan Stewart was present.

The Battle of Culloden was the final confrontation of the 1745 Jacobite Rising.  On 16 April 1746, the Jacobite forces of Charles Edward Stuart fought loyalist troops commanded by William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland near Inverness in the Scottish Highlands.  The loyalist victory at Culloden decisively halted the Jacobite intent to overthrow the House of Hanover and restore the House of Stuart to the British throne; Charles Stuart never mounted any further attempts to challenge Hanoverian power in Britain.  The conflict was the last pitched battle fought on British soil.

Charles Stuart's Jacobite army consisted largely of Scottish Highlanders, as well as a number of Lowland Scots and a small detachment of Englishmen from the Manchester Regiment.  The Jacobites were supported and supplied by the Kingdom of France and French and Irish units loyal to France were part of the Jacobite army.  The government force was mostly English, along with a significant number of Scottish Lowlanders and Highlanders, a battalion of Ulster men from Ireland, and a small number of Hessians from Germany and Austrians.  The battle on Culloden Moor was both quick and bloody, taking place within an hour.  Following an unsuccessful Highland charge against the government lines, the Jacobites were routed and driven from the field.

Between 1,500 and 2,000 Jacobites were killed or wounded in the brief battle, while government losses were lighter with 50 dead and 259 wounded.  The aftermath of the battle and subsequent crackdown on Jacobitism was brutal, earning Cumberland the sobriquet "Butcher".  Efforts were subsequently taken to further integrate the comparatively wild Highlands into the Kingdom of Great Britain; civil penalties were introduced to weaken Gaelic culture and attack the Scottish clan system.

Charles Edward Stuart, known as "Bonnie Prince Charlie" or the "Young Pretender", arrived in Scotland in 1745 to foment a rebellion of Stuart sympathizers against the House of Hanover.  He successfully raised forces, mainly of Scottish Highland clansmen, and defeated the Hanoverian Army stationed in Scotland at the Battle of Prestonpans.  The city of Edinburgh was occupied, but the castle held out and most of the Scottish population remained hostile to the rebels; others, while sympathetic, were reluctant to lend overt support to a movement whose chances were unproven.  The British government recalled forces from the war with France in Flanders to deal with the rebellion.

After a lengthy wait, Charles persuaded his generals that English Jacobites would stage an uprising in support of his cause.  He was convinced that France would launch an invasion of England as well.  His army of around 5,000 invaded England on 8 November 1745. They advanced through Carlisle and Manchester to Derby and a position where they appeared to threaten London.  It is alleged that King George II made plans to decamp to Hanover, but there is no evidence for this and the king is on record as stating that he would lead the troops against the rebels himself if they approached London.  The Jacobites met only token resistance.  There was, however, little support from English Jacobites, and the French invasion fleet was still being assembled.  The armies of General George Wade and of William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, were approaching.  In addition to the militia, London was defended by nearly 6,000 infantry, 700 horse and 33 artillery pieces and the Jacobites received (fictitious) reports of a third army closing on them.  The Jacobite general, Lord George Murray, and the Council of War insisted on returning to join their growing force in Scotland.  On 6 December 1745, they withdrew, with Charles Edward Stuart leaving command to Murray.

On the long march back to Scotland, the Highland Army wore out its boots and demanded all the boots and shoes of the townspeople of Dumfries as well as money and hospitality.  The Jacobites reached Glasgow on 25 December.  There they reprovisioned, having threatened to sack the city, and were joined by a few thousand additional men.  They then defeated the forces of General Henry Hawley at the Battle of Falkirk.

The Duke of Cumberland arrived in Edinburgh on 30 January to take over command of the government army from General Hawley.  He then marched north along the coast, with the army being supplied by sea.  Six weeks were spent at Aberdeen training.

The King's forces continued to pressure Charles.  He retired north, losing men and failing to take Stirling Castle or Fort William.  But he invested Fort Augustus and Fort George in Invernessshire in early April.  Charles then took command again, and insisted on fighting a defensive action.

The bulk of the Jacobite army was forced to join by their clan chiefs, landlords or feudal superiors.  In consequence, it mattered little whether the average clansman believed in the Jacobite cause or not. Because of recruiting in this manner, when the campaign began to fizzle out in the lead-up to the battle, desertion was a major problem in the Highland regiments within the Jacobite army.

One of the fundamental problems with the Jacobite army was the lack of trained officers.  The lack of professionalism and training was readily apparent; even the colonels of the Macdonald regiments of Clanranald and Keppoch considered their men to be uncontrollable.

The Government army at the Battle of Culloden was made up of infantry, cavalry, and artillery.  Of the army's 16 infantry battalions present, four were Scottish units and one was Irish.  The officers of the infantry were from the upper classes and aristocracy, while the rank and file was made up of poor agricultural workers.  On the outbreak of the Jacobite rising, extra incentives were given to lure recruits to fill the ranks of depleted units.  For instance, on 6 September 1745, every new recruit who joined the Guards before 24 September was given £6, and those who joined in the last days of the month were given £4.  Regiments were named after their Colonel.  In theory, an infantry regiment would comprise up to ten companies of up to 70 men. They would then be 815 strong, including officers.  However, regiments were rarely anywhere near this large, and at the Battle of Culloden, the regiments were not much larger than about 400 men.

The Government cavalry arrived in Scotland in January 1746.  They were not combat experienced, having spent the preceding years on anti-smuggling duties.  A standard cavalryman had a Land Service pistol and a carbine.  However, the main weapon used by the British cavalry was a sword with a 35-inch blade.

The Royal Artillery vastly out-performed their Jacobite counterparts during the Battle of Culloden. However, up until this point in the campaign, the Government artillery had performed dismally.  The main weapon of the artillery was the 3-pounder.  This weapon had a range of 500 yards and could fire two kinds of shot: round iron and canister.  The other weapon used was the Coehorn mortar. These had a calibre of 4⅖inches.

On 30 January, the Duke of Cumberland arrived in Scotland to take command of the government forces after the previous failures by Cope and Hawley.  Cumberland decided to wait out the winter, and moved his troops northwards to Aberdeen.  Around this time, the army was increased by 5,000 Hessian troops.  The Hessian force, led by Prince Frederick of Hesse, took up position to the south to cut off any path of retreat for the Jacobites.  The weather had improved to such an extent by 8 April that Cumberland again resumed the campaign.  The government army reached Cullen on 11 April, where it was joined by six battalions and two cavalry regiments.  Days later, the government army approached the River Spey, which was guarded by a Jacobite force of 2,000, made up of the Jacobite cavalry, the Lowland regiments and over half of the army's French regulars.  The Jacobites quickly turned and fled, first towards Elgin and then to Nairn.  By 14 April, the Jacobites had evacuated Nairn, and Cumberland camped his army at Balblair just west of the town.

The Jacobite forces of about 5,400 left their base at Inverness, leaving most of their supplies, and assembled 5 miles to the east near Drummossie, around 12 miles before Nairn.  Charles Edward Stuart had decided to personally command his forces and took the advice of his adjutant general, Secretary O’Sullivan, who chose to stage a defensive action at Drummossie Moor, a stretch of open moorland enclosed between the walled Culloden enclosures to the North and the walls of Culloden Park to the South.  Lord George Murray "did not like the ground" and with other senior officers pointed out the unsuitability of the rough moorland terrain which was highly advantageous to the Duke with the marshy and uneven ground making the famed Highland charge somewhat more difficult while remaining open to Cumberland’s powerful artillery.  They had argued for a guerrilla campaign, but Charles Edward Stuart refused to change his mind.

On 15 April, the government army celebrated Cumberland's twenty-fifth birthday by issuing two gallons of brandy to each regiment.  At Murray's suggestion, the Jacobites tried that evening to repeat the success of Prestonpans by carrying out a night attack on the government encampment.  Murray proposed that they set off at dusk and march to Nairn.  The Jacobite force however started out well after dark at about 20:00.  Murray led the force cross country with the intention of avoiding government outposts.  This however led to very slow going in the dark.  Murray's one time aide-de-camp, James Chevalier de Johnstone later wrote, "This march across country in a dark night which did not allow us to follow any track, and accompanied with confusion and disorder".  By the time the leading troop had reached Culraick, still 2 miles from where Murray's wing was to cross the River Nairn and encircle the town, there was only one hour left before dawn.

After a heated council with other officers, Murray concluded that there was not enough time to mount a surprise attack and that the offensive should be aborted.  Sullivan went to inform Charles Edward Stuart of the change of plan, but missed the prince in the dark.  Meanwhile, instead of retracing his path back, Murray led his men left, down the Inverness road.  In the darkness, while Murray led one-third of the Jacobite forces back to camp, the other two-thirds continued towards their original objective, unaware of the change in plan.  One account of that night even records that Perth and Drummond made contact with government troops before realizing the rest of the Jacobite force had turned home.  Not long after the exhausted Jacobite forces had made it back to Culloden, reports came of the advancing government troops.  By then, many Jacobite soldiers had dispersed in search of food, while others were asleep in ditches and outbuildings.

However military historian Jeremy Black has contended that even though the Jacobite force had become disordered and lost the element of surprise the night attack retained a worthwhile prospect of success if it had been pressed on with. Black maintains the assault was abandoned while still practicable and if the Jacobites had advanced the conditions would have made British morale vulnerable and disrupted their fire discipline.

Early on a rainy 16 April, the well rested Government army struck camp and at about 5am and set off towards the moorland around Culloden and Drummossie.  Jacobite pickets first sighted the Government advance guard at about 8am, when the advancing army came within 4 miles of Drummossie. Cumberland's informers alerted him that the Jacobite army was forming up about 1 mile from Culloden House—upon Culloden Moor.  At about 11am the two armies were within sight of one another with about 2 miles of open moorland between them.  As the Government forces steadily advanced across the moor, the driving rain and sleet blew from the north-east into the faces of the exhausted Jacobite army.

Cumberland's superior artillery battered the Jacobite lines, while Charles, moved for safety out of sight of his own forces, waited for the Government forces to move.  Inexplicably, he left his forces arrayed under Government fire for over half an hour.  Although the marshy terrain minimized casualties, the morale of the Jacobites began to suffer.  Several clan leaders, angry at the lack of action, pressured Charles to issue the order to charge.  The Clan was first away, but an area of boggy ground in front of them forced them to veer right so that they obstructed the following regiments and the attack was pushed towards the wall.  The Highlanders advanced on the left flank of the Government troops, but were subjected to volleys of musket fire and the artillery which had switched from round shot to grape shot.

Despite this, many Jacobites reached the Government lines, and for the first time a battle was decided by a direct clash between charging highlanders and formed redcoats equipped with muskets and socket bayonets.  The brunt of the Jacobite impact was taken by only two Government regiments—Barrell's 4th Foot and Dejean's 37th Foot.  In a matter of minutes Barrell's regiment lost 17 and suffered 108 wounded, out of a total of 373 officers and men.  Dejean's lost 14 and had 68 wounded, with this unit's left wing taking a disproportionately higher number of casualties.  Barrell's regiment was smashed apart, temporarily losing its colours.  Dejean's was pushed aside, and Sgt. Bristoe's gun detachment, which was placed between the two regiments was easily overrun.  Major-General Huske, who was in command of the Government second line, quickly organised the counter attack.   Huske's counter formed a five battalion strong horseshoe-shaped formation which trapped the Jacobite right wing on three sides.

Located on the Jacobite extreme left wing were the Macdonald regiments.  Popular legend has it that these regiments refused to charge when ordered to do so, due to the perceived insult of being placed on the left wing.  Even so, due to the skewing of the Jacobite front lines, the left wing had a further 200 metres of much boggier ground to cover than the right.  When the Macdonalds charged, their progress was much slower than that of the rest of the Jacobite forces.  Standing on the right of these regiments were the much smaller units of Chisholms and the combined unit of Macleans and Maclachlans.  Every officer in the Chisholm unit was killed or wounded and Col. Lachlan MaclachlanL, who led the combined unit of MacLeans and MacLachlans, was gruesomely killed by a cannon shot.  As the Macdonalds suffered casualties they began to give way.  Immediately Cumberland then pressed the advantage, ordering two troops of Cobham's 10th Dragoons to ride them down.  The boggy ground however impeded the cavalry and they turned to engage the Irish Picquets whom Sullivan had brought up in an attempt to stabilize the deteriorating Jacobite left flank.

With the collapse of the left wing, Murray brought up the Royal Écossois and Kilmarnock's Foot guards who were still at this time unengaged.  However, by the time they had been brought into position, the Jacobite army was in rout.  The Royal Écossois exchanged musket fire with Campbell's 21st and commenced an orderly retreat, moving along the Culwhiniac enclosure in order to shield themselves from artillery fire.

Immediately the half battalion of Highland militia commanded by Captain Colin Campbell of Ballimore which had stood inside the enclosure ambushed the Royal Écossois.  Hawley had previously left this Highland unit behind the enclosure, with orders to avoid contact with the Jacobites, to limit any chance of a friendly fire incident.  In the encounter Campbell of Ballimore was killed along with five of his men.  The result was that the Royal Écossois and Kilmarnock's Foot guards were forced out into the open moor and were rushed at by three squadrons of Kerr's 11th Dragoons.  The fleeing Jacobites must have put up a fight for Kerr's 11th recorded at least 16 horses killed during the entirety of the battle.  The Royal Écossois appear to have retired from the field in two wings.  One part of the regiment surrendered upon the field after suffering 50 killed or wounded, but their colours were not taken and a large number retired from the field with the Lowland regiments.

This stand by the Royal Écossois may have given Charles Edward Stuart the time to make his escape.  At the time when the Macdonald regiments were crumbling and fleeing the field, Stuart seems to have been rallying Perth's and Glenbuchat's regiments when Sullivan rode up to Captain Shea who commanded Stuart's bodyguard:  "Yu see all is going to pot.  Yu can be of no great succor, so before a general deroute wch will soon be, Sieze upon the Prince & take him off...".  Shea then led Stuart from the field along with Perth's and Glenbuchat's regiments.  From this point on the fleeing Jacobite forces were split into two groups: the Lowland regiments retired in order southwards, making their way to Ruthven Barracks; the Highland regiments however were cut off by the Government cavalry, and forced to retreat down the road to Inverness.  The result was that they were a perfect target for the Government dragoons.  Bland led the charge against the fleeing Highlanders, giving "Quarter to None but about Fifty French Officers and Soldiers He picked up in his Pursuit".

The total of Jacobite casualties during the battle has been estimated at about 1,500 – 2,000 killed or wounded.  Cumberland's official list of prisoners taken includes 154 Jacobites and 222 "French" prisoners (men from the 'foreign units' in the French service).  Added to the official list of those apprehended were 172 of the Earl of Cromartie's men, captured after a brief engagement the day before near Littleferry.  In striking contrast to the Jacobite losses, the Government forces suffered 50 dead and 259 wounded, although a high proportion of those recorded as wounded are likely to have died of their wounds.  For example, only 29 out of 104 wounded from Barrell's 4th Foot survived to claim pensions.  All six of the artillerymen recorded as wounded died.  The only Government casualty of high rank was Lord Robert Kerr, the son of William Kerr, 3rd Marquess of Lothian.

As the first of the fleeing Highlanders approached Inverness they were met with a battalion of Frasers led by the Master of Lovat.  Tradition states that the Master of Lovat immediately about-turned his men and marched down the road back towards Inverness, with pipes playing and colours flying.  There are however varying traditions as to what happened at the bridge which spans the River Ness.  One tradition is that the Master of Lovat intended to hold the bridge until he was persuaded against it.  Another is that the bridge was seized by a party of Argyll Militia who were involved in a skirmish when blocking the crossing of retreating Jacobites.  While it is almost certain there was a skirmish upon the bridge, it has been proposed that the Master of Lovat shrewdly switched sides and turned upon the fleeing Jacobites. Such an act would explain his remarkable rise in fortune in the years that followed.

Following the battle the Lowland units headed south, towards Corrybrough and made their way to Ruthven Barracks.  The Highland units headed north, towards Inverness and on through to Fort Augustus.  There they were joined by Barisdale's Macdonalds and a small battalion of MacGregors.  The roughly 1,500 men that assembled at Ruthven Barracks received orders from Charles Edward Stuart to the effect that all was lost and to "shift for himself as best he could".  Similar orders must have been received by the Highland units at Fort Augustus.  By 18 April the Jacobite army was disbanded.  Officers and men of the units in the French service made for Inverness, where they surrendered as prisoners of war on 19 April.  The rest of the army broke up, with men heading for home or attempting to escape abroad.

Some ranking Jacobites made their way to Loch nan Uamh, where Charles Edward Stuart had first landed at the outset of the campaign in 1745.  Here on 30 April they were met by the two French frigates—the Mars and Bellone.  Two days later the French warships were spotted and attacked by the smaller Royal Navy sloops, the Greyhound, Baltimore, and Terror.  The result was the last real battle in the campaign.  During the six hours in which the ferocious sea-battle raged the Jacobites recovered cargo on the beach which had been landed by the French ships.  In all £35,000 of gold was recovered along with supplies.  Invigorated by the vast amounts of loot and visible proof that the French had not deserted them some of the Highland chiefs decided to prolong the campaign.  On 8 May, nearby at Murlaggan, Lochiel, Lochgarry, Clanranald and Barisdale all agreed to rendezvous at Invermallie on 18 May.  The plan was that there they would be joined by what remained of Keppoch's men and Cluny Macpherson's regiment (which did not take part in the battle at Culloden).  However things did not go as planned.  After about a month of relative inactivity, Cumberland moved his regulars into the Highlands.  On 17 May three battalions of regulars and eight Highland companies reoccupied Fort Augustus.  The same day the Macphersons surrendered.  On the day of the planned rendezvous, Clanranald never appeared and Lochgarry and Barisdale only showed up with about 300 combined (most of who immediately dispersed in search of food). Lochiel, who commanded possibly the strongest Jacobite unit at Culloden, was only able to muster about 300.  The following morning Lochiel was alerted that a body of Highlanders was approaching.  Assuming they were Barisdale's Macdonalds, Locheil waited until they were identified as Loudoun's by the "red crosses in their bonnets".  Locheil's men dispersed without fighting however the damage was done and Cumberland had an excuse to venture deep into the Scottish Highlands.  The following week the Government launched punitive expeditions into the Highlands which continued on throughout the summer.

Following his flight from the battle, Charles Edward Stuart made his way towards the Hebrides with some supporters.  By 20 April Stuart reached Arisaig on the west coast of Scotland.  After spending a few days with his close associates, Stuart left most of them in a small boat and made way to the island of Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides.  From there he travelled to Scalpay, between the islands Harris and Lewis, and from there made his way to Stornoway.  For five months Stuart crisscrossed across the Hebrides, constantly pursued by Government supporters and under threat from local lairds, who were tempted to betray him for the £30,000 upon his head.  During this time he met Flora Macdonald, who famously aided him in a near escape to Skye.  Finally on 19 September Stuart reached Borrodale on Loch nan Uamh in Arisaig where his party boarded two small French ships which ferried them to France.  He never returned to Scotland.

The morning following the Battle of Culloden, Cumberland issued a written order reminding his men that "the public orders of the rebels yesterday were to give us no quarter".  Cumberland alluded to the belief that such orders had been found upon the bodies of fallen Jacobites.  In the days and weeks that followed, versions of the alleged orders were published in the Newcastle Journal and the Gentleman's Journal.  Today only one copy of the alleged order to "give no quarter" exists.  It is however considered to be nothing but a poor attempt of forgery, for it is neither written nor signed by Murray, and it appears on the bottom half of a copy of a declaration published in 1745. In any event, Cumberland's order was not carried out for two days, after which contemporary accounts report then that for the next two days the moor was searched and all those wounded were put to death.  One officer who refused to accept the order to kill the wounded was Thomas Wolfe, later the leader of the British forces on the Plains of Abraham.

In the aftermath of the battle, Government troops felt justified in giving no quarter to the wounded lying upon the moor.  The Jacobites' aborted night attack in the early hours of 16 April would no doubt have been as merciless.  Jacobite officers ordered their men to use only swords, dirks and bayonets, to overturn tents locate "a swelling or bulge in the fallen tent, there to strike and push vigorously".  In total, over 20,000 head of livestock, sheep, and goats were driven off and sold at Fort Augustus, where the soldiers split the profits.

While in Inverness, Cumberland emptied the gaols that were full of people imprisoned by Jacobite supporters, replacing them with Jacobites themselves.  Prisoners were taken south to England to stand trial for high treason.  Many were held on hulks on the Thames or in Tilbury Fort, and executions took place in Carlisle, York and Kennington Common.  The common Jacobite supporters fared better than the ranking individuals.  In total, 120 common men were executed, one third of them being deserters from the British Army.  The common prisoners drew lots amongst themselves and only one of out of twenty actually came to trial.  Although most those who did stand trial were sentenced to death, almost all of these had their sentences commuted to transportation to the British colonies for life.  In all, 936 men were thus transported, and 222 more were banished.  Even so, 905 prisoners were actually released under the Act of Indemnity which was passed in June 1747.  Another 382 obtained their freedom by being exchanged for prisoners of war who were held by France.  Of the total 3,471 prisoners recorded nothing is known of the fate of 648.  The high ranking "rebel lords" were executed on Tower Hill in London.

Following up on the military success won by their forces, the British Government enacted laws to incorporate Scotland — specifically the Scottish Highlands — within the rest of Britain.  Members of the Episcopalian clergy were required to gives oaths of allegiance to the reigning Hanoverian dynasty.  The Abolition of Heritable Jurisdictions Act of 1747 ended the hereditary right of landowners to govern justice upon their estates through barony courts.  Previous to this act, feudal lords (which included clan chiefs) had considerable judicial and military power over their followers—such as the oft quoted power of "pit and gallows".  Lords who were loyal to the Government were greatly compensated for the loss of these traditional powers, for example the Duke of Argyll was given £21,000.  The estates of those lords and clan chiefs who had supported the Jacobite rebellion were stripped from them and then sold with the profits used to further trade and agriculture in Scotland.  The forfeited estates were managed by factors.  Anti-clothing measures were taking against the highland dress by an Act of Parliament in 1746.  The result was that the wearing of tartan was banned from everyone in Scotland except as a uniform for officers and soldiers in the British Army and later landed men and their sons.

Leaving Culloden, we ask directions of the village wizard and are lead to Cawdor Castle of Shakespeare fame in the tragedy Macbeth.

Shakespeare's play Macbeth took liberties with the story of the historic Scottish King Macbeth, who ruled Scotland after his forces killed King Duncan of Scotland in battle (not assassination, as in the play).  The play, first written in 1606, drew from somewhat fanciful tales of King Macbeth written by the monk Andrew of Wyntoun (in Fife) in his Cronykil (completed in 1406).  Among the elements Shakespeare took from the monk's stories was the idea of the three prophesying weird sisters.

In the play, Shakespeare has the three sisters foretell that Macbeth, then Thane of Glamis, would become Thane of Cawdor and King thereafter.  Duncan, indeed, almost immediately thereafter makes Macbeth Thane of Cawdor.  Believing it necessary to accomplish the remainder of the prophecy, Macbeth and his Lady murder Duncan in his sleep, an act that leads to Macbeth's ultimate downfall.  In the play, the murder of Duncan takes place in Macbeth's castle in Inverness, not Castle Cawdor (hardly surprising, as Macbeth had only just been granted the title Thane of Cawdor and thus would not yet have made any castle in Cawdor his home).

Although the name Cawdor will forever connect this classic work of literature to Cawdor Castle, the castle did not exist during the lifetimes of Macbeth or Duncan, and the events of the play are almost wholly fictitious.  The castle's guidebook quotes the 5th Earl Cawdor (the 23rd Thane) as saying, presumably with some irony, "I wish the Bard had never written his damned play!"

Cawdor Castle is a tower house set amid gardens in the parish of Cawdor, approximately 10 miles east of Inverness and 5 miles southwest of Nairn.  It belonged to the Clan Calder.  It still serves as home to the Dowager Countess Cawdor, stepmother of Colin Robert Vaughan Campbell, 7th (and present) Earl Cawdor and 25th Thane of Cawdor.

At Cawdor Castle, I was able to drive a team of imaginary horses,

We listened to the piper at the entrance to the Castle,

And find out where Hamish is not allowed to park.

From Cawdor it’s off to Fort George.

Fort George is a large 18th century fortress near Ardersier, to the northeast ofInverness.  It was built to pacify the Scottish Highlands in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising of 1745, replacing an earlier Fort George built with the same aim after the 1715 Jacobite rising.  The fortress has never been attacked and has remained in continuous use as a garrison.

The fortification is based on a Star design, it remains virtually unaltered and nowadays is open to visitors while still serving as army barracks.  Originally the depot of the Seaforth Highlanders and later the Queen's Own Highlanders (Seaforth and Camerons), it was more recently home to the Royal Irish Regiment, and as of 2007, the new garrison of the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland.

We depart for Nairn and Forres, traditionally believed to have been the home of both Duncan and Macbeth.  The real-world location of Brodie, located between Forres and Nairn, is thought to be the meeting place of Macbeth and the witches, commonly known as Macbeth's Hillock.  It is near Forres on the heath where the three witches meet Macbeth.

Brodie Castle was built in 1567 by Clan Brodie but destroyed by fire in 1645 by Lewis Gordon of Clan Gordon, the 3rd Marquess of Huntly.  It was greatly expanded in 1824 by the architect William Burn who turned it into a large mansion house in the Scots Baronial style.  The Brodie family called the castle home until the late 20th century.  It's widely accepted that the Brodies have been associated with the land the castle is built on since around 1160, when it is believed that King Malcom IV gave the land to the family.

In Forres we happen upon Sueno’s Stone.

Sueno's Stone stands over 6.5 metres high and is a Picto-Scottish Class III standing stone. It is the largest surviving Pictish stone of its type in Scotland.  Lady Ann Campbell, the Countess of Moray, is noted in the early 1700's as carrying out maintenance on the stone in an attempt to stabilise it.  This was achieved by constructing stepped plinths around the base and these are what can be seen today.  Archaeological excavations carried out in 1990 and 1991 suggest that it may originally have been one of two monumental stones.

Enough of the sites, we are hungry as horses and seek nourishment at the Crown and Anchor in Findhorn.

The Crown and Anchor Inn, dating from 1739, is the oldest surviving structure in the village.

Other prominent buildings of note include Findhorn House built in 1775, which is the home of the Royal Findhorn Yacht Club,

The Kimberley Inn,

the James Milne Institute,

The Universal Hall at the Findhorn Foundation

and the ice house Heritage Centre.

We spent a relaxing afternoon on the expansive beach at Findhorn before departing for the drive to MacDuff

 and the night at Monica And Martin's Bed And Breakfast.