He tries not to get the three confused.
|
He tries not to get the three confused. |
|
N |
Home Recent Publications Fiction HIV/AIDS Opinion Reviews Miscellanea   for US readers...  |
N |
That was the headline in yesterday's Bangkok-based Independent on Sunday. It continued: You do not have UN approval. You do not have your country's approval. You do not have your party's support. You do not have the legal right. You do not have the moral right. You must not drag Britain into Bush's unjust and unnecessary war. Point One: Iraq probably does possess chemical and biological weapons. Point Two: Saddam Hussein and those who support him have undoubtedly killed and tortured thousands of Iraqis and Kurds, in addition to the suffering caused by wars against Iran and Kuwait. Point Three: It would considerably relieve suffering and local tensions if Saddam Hussein were replaced by a more moderate leader. Point Four: There is no evidence that any of the terrorist acts directed at the United States or the United Kingdom in the last twelve years has originated in Iraq. (Some of those responsible may have passed through Iraq, but they also passed through many other countries that the US is not planning to invade.) Point Five: There is no evidence that Iraq intends using any of its weapons against any other than its immediate neighbours. Point Six: There is no evidence of co-operation between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; in fact there is some evidence of hostility between them. Conclusion One: In terms of threats to its own population and its neighbours, there is no qualitative and little quantitative difference between Iraq and several other countries in the world. North Korea starves its citizens; China's citizens fare better than under the Great Leap Forward but it continues to occupy Tibet and Xinjiang; Zimbabwe terrorises its own citizens and its leadership continues to plunder the Congo; Israel continues to suppress the Palestinians; Russia's war in the Chechen Republic goes on; low-level fighting continues in parts of West Africa; Turkey has only reduced its maltreatment of its Kurds in the hope of joining the European Union; Somalia continues in a state of anarchy; the civil war in the Sudan has not been resolved; terrorism in Algeria continues. In other words, there is no reason to single out Iraq for special attention. Conclusion Two: If the United States were seen to give equal attention to the world's injustices, it would receive widespread support for its intended action in Iraq rather than widespread condemnation. Point Seven: Continuing threats towards Iraq only increase hostility towards the United States and those countries that support it, particularly the United Kingdom. Point Eight: That hostility is greatest in Muslim countries where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seen to be a greater injustice than the Iraqi dictatorship. Point Nine: Al-Qaeda and its sympathisers are guerrilla terrorists. They are everywhere, not in Iraq. Support for the organisation or similar organisations will only rise after an invasion. Conclusion Three: Terrorism will only be defeated when the causes of terrorism are defeated. These causes vary widely and include, but are not restricted to, poverty and political repression. Conclusion Four: An invasion of Iraq by the United States (and the UK) will destabilise world peace (never stable at the best of times), and increase terrorist attacks around the world. Conclusion Five: The current UN-led weapons inspection, combined with intelligent political pressure applied with, not against world opinion, is the only principled, intelligent and safe response to Iraq. Point Ten: No comprehensive plan and very little money has been committed by the United States or the United Kingdom to protecting refugees and reconstructing Iraqi society after a war. Point Eleven: The United States lost interest in Afghanistan immediately the Taliban was defeated; life in Kabul has improved but warlords, fundamentalism, ignorance and poverty continue to dominate life for the majority of Afghanis. Point Twelve: Turkey will take advantage of the US invasion to deny Iraqi Kurds the right to self-determination. Conclusion Six: The United States will fail to create an equitable society in Iraq, as it is failing in Afghanistan. Point Thirteen: The war on terrorism appears to have stalled. Sixteen months after the destruction of the World Trade Center, one man has been sentenced in a German court and another has been arrested in Pakistan. Point Fourteen: George Bush needs to win the next election. Point Fifteen: George Bush's father failed to resolve the previous Gulf War. Point Sixteen: George Bush, Dick Cheney and others have strong links to oil companies. Point Seventeen: Most of the language, body language, tone and imagery used by George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and others reveal the aggression of oversize adolescent boys who use their physical strength to mask their underlying insecurities. Conclusion Seven: George Bush's primary reasons for invading Iraq are (a) to be seen to take action, irrespective of the appropriateness of that action, (b) to secure significant sources of oil for US consumers, (c) to compensate for perceived failings in his father's presidency. Conclusion Eight: Steps must be taken to disarm and eventually replace Saddam Hussein, but not through war, and not in isolation of other geopolitical events. Point Eighteen: Can anyone explain why Tony Blair is dragging half his cabinet and a deeply antagonist country into a conflict designed to boost a US president's ego and likely to cause us significant harm? Conclusion Nine: The UK's only principled response to the Iraqi situation must be an immediate and unequivocal withdrawal of support from the United States position and unequivocal support for the UN process.  |
N |
   
 
|
N |
| 10 March 2003 |
© Martin Foreman |