http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,903943,00.html 'Why should "we" be in favour of selective vigilantism?' Thursday February 27, 2003 The Guardian Haifa Zagana Of course there are alternatives to war, if we are serious about finding them. We need, for instance, to enforce the weapons inspectors, and empower them to examine other things such as prisons and human rights. I don't believe that the military threat has been a factor in access for the inspectors. But the single most important thing is to lift the sanctions. If we want to empower the people of Iraq, to help them regain their dignity, that is the only answer. How can you possibly think about overthrowing the regime or implementing democracy when your first thought is how you will feed your children tomorrow? We have had 12 years of intellectual stagnation under sanctions, students unable to get papers, journals, and that has only strengthened the arm of the regime against the people. It makes me angry when they say the Iraqi people are weak, incapable, and we are going in to liberate them. I strongly believe that if sanctions were lifted, the Iraqi people would be sufficiently empowered to get rid of Saddam on their own. If the west hadn't supplied Saddam's regime with weapons, and then imposed these crippling sanctions, we would have done it long ago. � Iraqi novelist, based in London. Tariq Ali The speed with which a political agenda decided in Washington for its own purposes (in this case the overthrow of a regime and the occupation of an oil-rich country which sells oil in euros and not dollars) is then imposed on Britain may be nothing new, but is still disturbing. The US determines its needs, the Murdoch media empire approves, and liberal journalists are put on the defensive. What are "we" to do about Saddam? Who the hell are "we"? And why should "we" be in favour of the selective vigilantism determined by US interests in the region? The Iraqis need democracy, and neither Saddam nor the US will ever give them that. Democracy in an oil-rich country is a dangerous option for the west (note recent attempts to topple Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). If they elect a government that challenges the west (as happened in Iran), then what? Another regime change. Saddam was at his worst when he was a staunch ally of the US, unleashed first against local communists, Kurds and trade unionists, and subsequently against Iran, with the open backing of Reagan's then envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, and Britain's Margaret Thatcher. Today, he is a weakened and enfeebled dictator. Had his people not been so devastated by western sanctions, they might well have toppled him by now. That is why Blair's late decision to invoke humanity has a false ring. The notion that Iraq threatens the US, or its favourite Israel, is truth only for hardcore believers. They want Iraq, partially for the oil and partially to re-map the region. Ariel Sharon is already demanding an assault on Iran after the "liberation" of Baghdad. Tim Pigott- Smith The question "What do we do instead of war?" need only be addressed if the questions "Why do we need a war?" and "Why do we suddenly need it?" have been credibly answered. Manifestly, they have not. Existing justification for this war is not only slender, it is profoundly distrusted. That is why there is such strenuous international opposition to it, at both diplomatic and popular levels. If war is the answer, shall we not have to invade Israel? They, too, have violated UN resolutions. Ought we not to take on China? They occupy Tibet. What about North Korea? Should we try a pre-emptive strike there? And then, is there not a case for regime change in America? We should give them the right to proper democratic elections. Richard Eyre No one can dispute the virtue of removing the Iraqi dictatorship. The question is: at what cost? Consider the arithmetic. Saddam's regime brings misery to most and death to hundreds; a war (in which nuclear weapons may be used) will bring misery to all and death to hundreds of thousands. "Oh," say the war's advocates, "but it will be swift and clinically effective." Anyone who uses those words in relation to any war is either a self-serving liar or self-deluding fantasist. "Clean wars" and "smart weapons" are pernicious oxymorons. All war is dirty; the piously regretted "collateral damage" always occurs. If you ignore the moral case, the political opportunism, the pursuit of US national interests, and the partiality of removing weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, while condoning them in other countries with equally repressive regimes, the case for the war doesn't add up. I realise that, as the old angel of death Henry Kissinger said, "It would be an unimaginable blow to American power to put all that weaponry into the Middle East and then not use it," but its use can only be justified (as it was in the Gulf war) by Iraq invading or attacking another country. Until then, American power will have to put up with the blow of ceding to the authority of the UN and continuing sanctions which, in the cruel arithmetic of suffering, have to be preferable to war. � Theatre director Peter Maxwell Davies If the weapons inspectors find breaches of resolution 1441, the weapons or facilities can be removed under the authority of the UN. That is why the weapons inspectors are there. They should be allowed to get on with the job the UN has set them. War is not the answer to human rights abuses. Killing Iraqi people to rid them of a cruel tyrant is a case of the cure being worse than the complaint. If we went to war in every case of human rights abuse, we would be in a state of permanent warfare. There are many regimes in the world where the population lacks basic human rights: Burma, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people are just a few examples. Human rights abuse as a justification for military intervention is used extremely selectively. The American administration's concern is tempered by a strong dose of political and economic self-interest. � Composer Jeremy Hardy I think that there is a way to impose sanctions that don't starve the people or make them sick. Iraq needs to be rebuilt into a prosperous and strong country that can build its own opposition to stand against the regime. You can stop him from importing weaponry or things to torture people with, but lift the sanctions that have been in place over the past 12 years. It is these that have prevented the people from rising up. They need materials to rebuild their national grid and ways of obtaining clean water for everyone. The threat of force could work if he was a rational person, but he doesn't seem to have shown much fear of getting killed. If he had been clever and bent over backwards for the inspectors, then he could have got out of this. But he hasn't. � Comedian Andy Kershaw We should continue with inspection and containment. Saddam has posed no external threat for 10 years and, only two weeks ago, Hans Blix said he was getting full cooperation from the Iraqis. I can't see that that's changed. I'm with the French and Germans on this one: the inspectors need to be given as much time as they need. Even if it takes years, that is a much better option than war. What we need to be asking ourselves is why now? I am amazed that no one, not even one of my fellow journalists, has asked this question. Saddam poses no more threat now than after the Gulf war, no more threat than in 1997 when Blair was elected, no more than in 1998 when the inspectors came out, and no more a threat than when Bush got himself fraudulently elected. We also need to lift sanctions immediately, and they should have been lifted as soon as we realised what they were doing. I've been to Iraq, and what we are doing to these people through sanctions is disgusting. It's grotesque. Saddam poses no threat to any one except his own people, whom we are depriving of clean water because we will not provide them with the supplies they need. I am no cheerleader for Saddam, but if you want a way to ignite the Arab world against the west, then going to war against Iraq is the way to do it. � Broadcaster/journalist
Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 -- Euphorian
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
