-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old%A7ion=current&issue=2002-04-
06&id=1715&searchText=
}}}>Begin
Cover Story
FEATURES
Hands off Iraq
Neil Clark says that the agitation against Saddam shows there are no limits to the
stupidity of liberal imperialism They are at it again. Despite the unfinished
business
in Afghanistan, the Iraqiphobes have lost little time in trying to whip up support for
their long- desired cluster-bombing of Baghdad � or nuclear bombing, if our
�humanitarian� Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon is to have his way.
�Unlike Peter Rabbit, Easter Bunny felt quite at home in Mr McGregor�s garden.�
In the countdown to military action we must brace ourselves for the usual round of
Saddam scare stories which inevitably signal that an attack on Iraq is imminent.
Super-guns, killer agents and anthrax in our reservoirs: whatever it is, rest assured
that those dastardly Iraqis will be planning it in the weeks and months ahead.
Before the B52s set off and the propaganda war goes into overdrive, it is surely
worth considering a little more closely why on earth all this is happening. Why is a
�regime change� in Baghdad considered so desirable, even at the extent of risking a
major Middle East war ?
Not even the most hardline hawks now bother to argue that Iraq has to be attacked
because it was somehow behind the events of 11 September. Instead the
Iraqiphobes have fallen back on their favourite casus belli: Iraq has to be dealt with
because it possesses weapons of mass destruction that threaten not only the Middle
East but also the whole of Western civilisation.
�Iraq has a whole cocktail cabinet of chemical and nerve agents,� claimed the
ubiquitous former UN weapons inspector Richard Butler in a recent interview, despite
not having set foot in the country for more than three years. Butler�s allegations
differ
quite radically from those of his erstwhile fellow-inspector Scott Ritter, who rates
the
Iraqi threat as �zero�. The British government�s dismissive reaction to the Iraqi�s
recent offer of immediate access to a British weapons inspection team only adds to
the suspicion that the Iraqiphobes would rather bomb first than see Ritter�s analysis
confirmed.
With the powerful interests ranged against it, it is of little surprise that Iraq
struggles
to get a fair hearing. Opec members are desperate to see Iraqi oil reserves, the
second biggest in the world, stay off the world market indefinitely. Yet strong reasons
exist why Britain, far from bowing to such interests, should instead be radically
rethinking its policy towards Iraq. The moral argument that in lifting sanctions we
would be saving the lives of about 600 children a month is surely reason enough. But
even leaving this aside, there are sound realpolitik reasons why Britain should
change course.
Iraq is a country with umbilical links to Britain. It was Britain who helped free the
peoples of Mesopotamia from the Ottoman yoke, and Britain who gave the country
its modern name. The Baghdad funeral of the traveller Gertrude Bell, who had
dedicated her life to the creation of an independent Iraq, was attended by thousands.
Generations of Iraqi politicians, government officials and civil servants have been
educated in Britain, and for years English was the compulsory foreign language for
all Iraqi university students. These factors put Britain in pole position when it came
to
developing commercial interests in Iraq, something successive trade secretaries, up
to and including Alan Clark, were not slow to exploit. Weapons sales were admittedly
part of the trade, but so too were medical supplies, school and university textbooks,
and hospital equipment.
Ten years of slavishly following the Washington line on Iraq has seen all these
advantages vanish. Britain is now universally despised in Iraq, and it is the French
and the Russians who are the first in the queue for reconstruction rights and oil
concessions. Unless Britain changes course quickly, the enormous commercial
opportunities in helping to exploit the second largest oil reserves in the world will
be
gone for ever.
Broader still, by restoring diplomatic links with Baghdad, Britain would be
acknowledging at long last the key role that Ba�athist governments have to play in
Middle East security as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. Like it or not, the
most likely alternative to the secular regimes of Assad in Syria and Saddam in Iraq
would be militant Islamic ones. For all its lack of �Western freedoms�, Iraq has had
for
the last 20 years a practising Christian as its deputy prime minister. In no other
Islamic country in the region has a non-Muslim risen to such prominence. If Lady
Thatcher sincerely believes militant Islam to be the �new Bolshevism�, then she has
chosen a rather strange target in Iraq.
While certain sections of the Labour party seem to understand the need to build new
relationships with Syria and Iraq, the Conservative party seems stuck in a �firm
action� mindset. �What has happened to Conservative England�s distrust of
America?� Matthew Parris asked in these pages a few weeks ago. He was right to do
so. Eleven years ago, in the parliamentary debate before the Gulf war, arguably the
most powerful and impassioned speech against military action was made by a
Conservative, the former Foreign Office minister Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar. Today,
the Tory benches chime the �Bomb, bomb, bomb� mantra in unison. �How can any
intelligent person be expected to believe that a country of 19 million people, mostly
impoverished desert dwellers, poses a threat to world peace?� asked the arch-Tory
sceptic Auberon Waugh in 1998. On Waugh�s analysis, one can only conclude there
to be a singular lack of intelligence on both government and opposition front
benches.
Exasperating as the present Blair/Duncan Smith axis may be, the prize for the most
crackpot reason to attack Iraq must go to a �liberal�, Geraldine Brooks, the former
Middle East correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. Not even bothering to claim
that Iraq threatens world peace or has any links with al-Qa�eda, Ms Brooks argues
that the country should nonetheless be bombed �for the sake of the Iraqi people�, to
help free them from the �bleak and terrible regime of Saddam Hussein�. It really does
seem that modern humanitarian imperialism knows no limits. Today Baghdad,
tomorrow Beijing? We await Ms Brooks�s call.
After ten years of the most savage economic embargo of modern times � not to
mention the sporadic bombing raids to enforce the absurd no-fly zones � it is time to
say enough is enough. The Iraqis, a proud and hospitable people, have surely paid
too high a price for the crimes of their leader. Let us hear no more of the �weapons of
mass destruction� nonsense, no more of sanctions, and certainly no more of planned
bombing campaigns. The best way to ensure peace throughout the whole region, for
Arab, Christian and Jew alike, is to welcome Iraq back, unconditionally, into the
international community. Britain, whether on grounds of morality, or pure
self-interest,
should lead the way.
Return to top of page
� 2002 The Spectator.co.uk
End<{{{
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no automatic endorsement
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[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
