Iraq: Military action a last resort, says Commissioner Poul Nielson

by karlof1 Thu Feb 27, 2003 09:03

Like most, this Minister ignores the reality of the Iraqi situation as my ever evolving argument notes.

Wouldn't you say that war is already afoot in Iraq and has been since the sanctions (economic war) and the illegal "no-fly zones" (an on and off air war) were ukased? Wouldn't it also be fair to admit that this already existing war, compounded with the planned affects of the Gulf War, amount to genocide with over 2 million dead and an average of 7,000 more every week? Lastly, given the first two premises, wouldn't it be proper to conclude that what is being threatened by Bush et al is an escalation of the genocide, not the starting of a war?

Given the above argument, which based on the existing evidence is sound, it would seem that those MPs voting with the government have gone on record promoting crimes against humanity and unwittingly given evidence against themselves. Finally, in a paraphrasal of what Justice Jackson said at the Nuremberg Trials, it is the DUTY of Every citizen to Prevent by ANY means the committing of crimes against humanity by her or his government, of which genocide is the most heinous.

by Loki Thu Feb 27, 2003 16:01

The British Guardian has asked several anti-war campaigners the
question above - a selection of answers is pasted below

'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