|
ZNet | Iraq
Anti-War Interviews From The Guardian
by Multiple Authors; The Guardian; February 27, 2003
Today the Guardian published a number of interviews with anti-war activists.
We have tried to compile some of the more powerful statements in a manner
that makes sense.
Z
------------
We Proceed In Iraq As Hypocrites
Zadie Smith
The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is
that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative
to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause. The case against is
clear. To begin war on Iraq would be to launch a pre-emptive strike on
a country we fear will attack us on a future unspecified date, in a future
unknown manner, with weapons we have not been able to find. It would be
to set the most remarkable international precedent. It would be in contravention
of international law and the UN charter. It would be to consolidate a
feeling of injustice in the Middle East, the consequences of which we
will reap for generations. It would be, simply, illegal.
It is telling that where the pro-war discussion becomes most urgent,
most passionate, is precisely where it is least tenable, that is, as a
response to September 11. It cannot be simultaneously unconnected (as
has been admitted) and the engine of all action (as is endlessly inferred.)
Again, it is for the pro-war contingent to clarify their position. We
are told that we shall "sweep in and out of Iraq", "set
up shop" there, and then proceed in "sorting out" the Middle
East situation.
The reality is that we will be told by television that we "swept
in", but, as in the first Gulf conflagration, there will be massive
civilian casualties, unavoidable in a military attack on a nation where
children make up more than 50% of the population. If we are committed
to the idea that a civilian death in the west is of equal value to a civilian
death in the east, then we proceed in Iraq as hypocrites and cowards -
and the world knows it. This is what people mean when they say "Not
in my Name" - it is not liberal tosh or soft-headed fantasy. It is
a repudiation of the responsibility of that blood. It is the pro-war contingent
who become fantastical when they imagine a quick or a "smart"
war.
The anti-war contingent is accused of being without alternatives, which
is rather like being told by a young thug: "I'm going to rob this
house, and I'll be justified in doing so, unless you have a better idea
as to how I can make a thousand quid in an hour." The lack of alternatives
to an illegal action does not legitimise that action. "Why now? Why
here?" are not idle questions, they are requests for explanations
on why a pre-emptive, illegal war has become suddenly become more palatable
than the diplomatic stalemate that preceded it. Rather than insane cowboy
rhetoric, political fact is requested. The following questions were asked
by Senator Byrd two weeks ago in the senate, a speech which made no appearance
in any form in the American press. To whom are we handing power after
Saddam Hussein? Will our war create chaos in the region and result in
a horrific attack on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear
arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by
radicals, bolstered by Iran which, after all, has far closer ties to terrorism
than Iraq?
I hope it is not considered anti-American to suggest that when significant
questions like these go unreported anywhere in the American media, the
pro-war contingent appears to need to add suppression of information to
this extraordinary descent into illegal, irrational procedure. Why are
the answers to Senator Byrd's questions being fudged? Why are the questions
themselves not discussed in the American press? What exactly is going
on here? Anti-war movements are often sentimental, muddle-headed and politically
naive. This one merely requests an explanation.
'Why Should "We" Be In Favor Of Selective Vigalantism"
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
Solutions
Kamil Mahdi
It is not in the interest of the Iraqi people to simply go back to the
position before this crisis. War, comprehensive sanctions and containment
are all damaging to Iraqi society and detrimental to people's ability
to challenge tyranny. Here we are, possibly within days of a cataclysm
and certain military defeat, yet the regime's structures are intact.
The alternative to war is not the threat of war, which is implicit and
understood. The alternative is to start a political process that empowers
the people of Iraq and shifts the domestic balance in their favour. War
and sanctions both write off the people and target them. The way to empower
the people is by both shifting the agenda and establishing the credibility
and authenticity of international concern. Propaganda and spin in the
service of war will not convince Iraqis that this is not an imperialist
project. The way out of the present impasse is:
1 Maintain weapons inspections to allay western concerns.
2 Introduce human-rights monitors.
3 Lift the economic blockade and demand professionalism and transparency
in economic affairs under UN monitoring.
4 Implement Resolution 688, including an end to repression.
5 Genuinely support Iraqis, not by imposing an agenda and stooges on
the opposition.
6 Start a process of truth and reconciliation.
7 Relieve debt and remove reparation to enhance moves toward democracy.
8 Move towards UN-supervised elections after a time.
9 Curb Ariel Sharon and move immediately towards a just Middle East
peace under resolution 242, with recognition of Palestinian rights.
The Saddam regime is now in retreat and its project is doomed. This
is an opportunity to undercut its domestic power base and also to curb
extremism. The alternative to a political process is a devastating imperialist
war, followed by a bloody liberation struggle.
· Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in Middle
East economics at the University of Exeter.
Hans von Sponeck
I was in charge of the UN humanitarian programme in Iraq, and I resigned
in protest over what I perceived to be a criminally faulty UN sanctions
policy. It is now well documented that the policy of sanctions are a main
cause of the death and destitution in Iraq. The evidence is there to prove
it. Plus, sanctions haven't weakened Saddam one bit, and we know it.
To say I am against war is an understatement. What is required is dialogue
and disar mament, with a concurrent lifting of economic sanctions, as
well as very strict controls at Iraqi entry points. The best way is to
continue with resolution 1441. I totally agree with the French and Russian
and German proposal to continue with the disarmament and monitor thoroughly.
Iraq is the most X-rayed country in the world. We need to accept it
is a threat to nobody, even if it would be good to have a new government.
What is required is a continuation with the disarmament process, a strengthening
of monitoring, and the lifting of a punishment from the Iraqi people who
have done nothing wrong, while scrutinising tightly what the Iraqi government
will do with the greater economic freedom. But there is absolutely no
justification to consider Iraq as an imminent threat that would justify
a pre-emptive strike - which in any case is against international law.
· Former UN humanitarian controller for Iraq
Harold Pinter
"What should we do?" The question should be: "What have
we done?" The US and the UK couldn't care less about the Iraqi people.
We've been killing them for years, through sustained bombing and the brutal
sanctions which have deprived hundreds of thousands of children of essential
medicines. Many of them are dying and are dead from the effects of depleted
uranium, used in the Gulf war. The west has shown total indifference to
these facts.
What is now on the cards is further mass murder. To say we will rescue
the Iraqi people from their dictator by killing them and by destroying
the threadbare infrastructure of their country is an insult to the intelligent.
We have no moral position in this matter whatsoever.
The impending war is about testing new weapons of mass destruction (ours)
and control of oil. The arms manufacturers and the oil companies will
be the beneficiaries. The United States will be making a giant stride
towards controlling the world's resources. The whole thing is about "full
spectrum dominance" - a term coined by the US - not me.
Noam Chomsky
Exactly the right question, and in my opinion, we know exactly the right
answer to it. It's useful to remember that Saddam Hussein is not the only
monster supported by the present incumbents in Washington until he did
something contrary to their interests. There's a long list that they supported
right to the end of their bloody rule - Marcos, Duvalier, and many others,
some of them as vicious and brutal as Saddam, and running tyrannies that
compare well with his: Ceausescu, for example. They were overthrown internally,
despite US support for them. That's been prevented within Iraq by the
murderous sanctions regime, which has devastated the population while
strengthening Saddam, and forcing the population to become hopelessly
reliant on him for survival.
Solution? Give Iraqis a chance to survive, and there's every reason
to believe that they'll get rid of him the way that others have. Meanwhile,
strengthen measures to ensure that Saddam, or some replacement, doesn't
develop significant military capacity. Not a very serious problem right
now, since as is well known, Iraq is militarily and economically the weakest
country in the region, but it could be down the road, and in his hands,
it would be likely, even without the US and UK to supply him.
· Institute professor at the department of linguistics and philosophy,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Back
to top.
Contact
Legalese Site
Map |
