HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
http://frontierpost.com.pk/editorials.asp?id=1&date1=9/19/2002 The Frontier Post (Pakistan) September 19, 2002 Editorial Iraq�s acceptance -NATO, deemed redundant after the Cold War, has called for �action, not words�, which in its lexicon could well mean a complete forfeiture of Iraqi independence. -It appears difficult, if not impossible, for Iraq or for that matter any other country, to stop them gyrating their pistol-laden hips on war drums. The US and the UK share weird, nay wild, ideas about the new outlook of this world. -Going by the response of the US and, of course, of its bellwether, the UK, it becomes obvious that their aim is not to pave the way for the resumption of inspection of Iraq�s factories supposed to be producing weapons of mass destruction but the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent bifurcation of Iraq into three zones: Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. Not unexpectedly, Iraq has conceded the demand for unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. The natural follow up of this Iraqi acceptance should have been an American announcement that it was abandoning its bellicosity towards Iraq. The US instead has stated that it will persist in its pressure on Iraq, as it considers the Iraqi decision as no more than a tactical move. The much-touted dove in the US administration, Secretary of State Colin Powell, gave a fairly good idea of his country�s intransigent belligerence and hawkish designs against Iraq when he stated that despite the offer (by Iraq), the US would continue to push for a new UN resolution against Iraq. A White House spokesman, advancing the same line, reacted in these words: �A new effective UN Security Council resolution will actually deal with the threat (?) Saddam poses.� This was a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong UN Security Council action, he argued.There is no prize for guessing which country instantly kowtowed to this American logic, even as most of the world took the Iraqi offer as a token of that country�s intention to forge a compromise on the issue the of the inspectors� return. Saddam had a history of playing games, so stated a Downing Street spokesman. He followed it up with a warning that weapons inspectors must have unrestricted access to all areas (read Saddam Hussein�s palace) �any time, any place, anywhere.� While the UK used this opportunity to demonstrate yet again its unmistakable loyalty to the US, as if more proof of that were needed, China and Russia welcomed the Iraqi offer and so did Germany and France. Russia stated that now the task was to ensure that inspectors could get to Iraq as soon as possible and start their work. France, in its response, said the UN Security Council must now hold Saddam Hussein to his word. The Arabs and other Muslim countries, including Pakistan, have taken a positive view of this Iraqi move. Malaysia has called for the lifting of the curbs on Iraq in lieu of this initiative. NATO, deemed redundant after the Cold War, has called for �action, not words�, which in its lexicon could well mean a complete forfeiture of Iraqi independence. So, the Iraqi offer of the return of UN inspectors without the precondition that such a return should be preceded by an end to the non-fly zones and the lifting of the sanctions clamped in 1991 appears to have run into the dangerous territory of the US and UK�s jingoism. It appears difficult, if not impossible, for Iraq or for that matter any other country, to stop them gyrating their pistol-laden hips on war drums. The US and the UK share weird, nay wild, ideas about the new outlook of this world. The association of the obnoxious ideas of both has engendered a unilateralism that sees no limits. Though the US sought to shun the impression of its being outright unilateralist by taking the issue of Iraq to the UN and seeking a resolution sanctioning action if Iraq refuses to budge, it is futile to suggest that it may have transformed its way of looking at the world through its own kaleidoscope. It can be argued that the US move of seeking UN authorisation for action could be the most cogent reason for Iraq�s stepping down from its demands for an end to the no-fly zones and the lifting of the curbs, as it might have feared that sooner or later, the US may be able to get a resolution against it through the Security Council. But the point is that Iraq must be given a chance to prove that it means what it has pledged. Going by the response of the US and, of course, of its bellwether, the UK, it becomes obvious that their aim is not to pave the way for the resumption of inspection of Iraq�s factories supposed to be producing weapons of mass destruction but the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent bifurcation of Iraq into three zones: Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. This is a dangerous undertaking, which must not be permitted at any cost. Equally alarming is the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes invoked by the US. If the international community does not resist it, there is a danger that it could presage an era of a free for all in this world, which is already not a safe place for many weak states. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.bacIlu Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
