The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
This will be my last posting (in response to Jason on this issue) to the whole list although I'll still reply directly to Jason. > Surely, the broader the issue the more > chance there is of onvolving more groups and individuals. If that were true then why not broaden the issue to pro-democracy campaigners and anti-SH groups wishing to indict him for crimes against humanity? Why not broaden to anti-nuclear campaigners etc? In the end the more the merrier but not at the cost of having to spend time on individual groups' particular campaign themes. > At the moment, many groups are not attending because they see a > focus on sanctions that ignores bombing as unprincipled and illogical. That is a great shame and possibly shortsighted. Some groups may be unhappy because the issue of SH isn't being discussed or capitalism or middle east policy or arms to Iraq etc. An analogy could be that I receive an invite to a campaign meeting to lobby for a pedestrian crossing on a busy road where several children have been run over. I may feel that the real issues are to reduce car ownership, tax fuel more, increase public transport, ban out of town shopping centres, and provide free public transport to school for short distances (below 3 miles) etc. I would still attend the meeting. >> In terms of civilian casualties sanctions far outweigh the illegal >> bombings. I was referring to enforcement of the 'no-fly zones'. > Operation Desert storm > destroyed manufacturing industries, water sanitation, oil > production, electricity facilities, hospitals, schools, roads, > bridges, fertiliser plants etc. poisoning the environment with > uranium dust for untold generations. It in this context of near > apocalyptic destruction and subsequent leverage over Iraq that > sanctions have their deadly effect. I fully agree with this but this war without sanctions afterwards would have produced far fewer casualties than sanctions without this war. > However, you may say that bombing's in the past. Yet even now > without constant military monitoring, naval and air blockade the > sanctions against Iraq would be far more permeable. This is a pragmatic argument not a principled one:) In any event if we destroy the argument for sanctions then the blockade disappears. > even Amnesty doesn't fear condemning acts of war particulary when > they happen in other countries But they are very weak on sanctions. Some people think that sanctions are becoming much worse than many wars. >I don't understand your objection to the term Imperialist though- it's >a bit like saying we can support the Indian protest movements >around Gandhi etc but we mustn't use the term Empire or >Imperialist. However, if you wish to avoid the term, fine. Different in a historical context - we had an empire then. Nowadays, unfortunately, use of this word seems to raise people's hackles. It implies a belief in colonies and the extension of empire. >The point is that at > the moment we risk certain groups feeling excluded from > participating fully in NCMs if they have a certain analysis: If you are going to have groups excluding themselves then I suppose the bottom line is whether as an immediate aim we prefer to work against sanctions or work against the bombing in the 2 zones. I pick sanctions. > As for the extremely rare person who supports bombing > but not sanctions I have no fear of alienating them; *** I think that there are more people who would oppose these sanctions on Iraq than would oppose this bombing which is apparently limited to military targets (punishment attacks). *** > we could end up appearing to support war against Iraq and, for that > matter, alienate far more people. This is a danger to guard against. My desire for a campaign focussed just on sanctions also runs foul of those who would want us to attack SH. My response is the same: I am not going to campaign against the bombing or SH. This does not mean that I support the bombing or SH. > (the bombings) we're not seen to initiate them and they serve to keep the > media and the public's eyes off the ball (the genocidal sanctions) > > Interesting but implausible surely? There was no suggestion that this effect was intended. The US State Department's (mis)information industry is focussed on saying how bad SH is and trying to defend the sanctions (which they are finding much harder to do). They find it easy to deflect criticism about the bombing (eg concrete bombs). > The anti-sanctions movement is small compared to nearly a million > people in anti-Desert Storm demo in 1990/91. I was broadly pro-sanctions at the time (but not the US illegal naval blockade). I was anti Desert Storm. > Why? Well, there may be other reasons but the lack of media > attention now must count for a lot. That is the key issue for me - especially the TV and especially the BBC. I always felt that the BBC would be the last to have a hard hitting doumentary about the sanctions. Well done Pilger (and ITV). > Actually, in my expereince it's easier to get people mobilised > and active about bombing than sanctions I agree. This is why the 'imperialists' have gone for sanctions in Iraq and elsewhere. However we are making progress on the sanctions issue and this is a great prize to win in order to save future lives. > why don't we see constant TV coverage of the bombing and how Iraq's > bringing it on itself etc. Iraq is not a very open country and often the sites are militarily sensitive so we do not get pictures. The US are happy to portray it as routine 'self defence'. > have you or anyone ever met a member of the public who opposes sanctions > whilst supporting bombing- we never have (yet) though occassionally > the other way round, people who oppose bombing but think > sanctions should stay in place because of Saddam, or they're put in by the UN > or whatever. I am talking about trying to convert people. In order to win more supporters I tend to have to focus on economic sanctions (which SHOULD include dual use items). When I try and focus on the 'no fly zones' things get messier eg protection of the Kurds. True, the UN bit can be a problem. Have you tried 'converting' anybody who is right wing or agrees with the UK government position? Try experimenting with either the sanctions line or the war line. Mark Parkinson Cornwall -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email firstname.lastname@example.org Full archive and list instructions are available from the CASI website: http://welcome.to/casi