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]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Indict Saddam?

Ben Rempel writes (asterisks mine) - 

> If the struggle to lift sanctions is motivated out of a sense of
> solidarity with the people of Iraq, then it strikes me as *illogical*
> to abandon this solidarity because the oppression originates in
> Baghdad rather than in Washington or London.

Logic has nothing to do with solidarity. Living in the UK, I can do
something about UK sanctions. I can do nothing about the Baath regime.
The forces that can affect Saddam, however, deserve no encouragement
from us. The west will not indict him out of tender concern for Iraqis,
but merely to extend the principle that Britain and the US still rule the
world between them.

Since Saddam will be difficult to capture, any future tribunal is likely
to go for small fry, including relatives, former ambassadors and
minor ministers. The whole Iraqi establishment that the west once
found so congenial will now be criminalised. In that situation, the only
'legitimate' successor regime in Iraq would have to be hand-picked in

Rather than support one more measure supposedly to advance the human
rights of Iraqis - from the team that brought you bombs, inspections,
sanctions, Oil for Food - we might take the view that the 'international
community' should just stop meddling.  Instead of advising cynical
statesmen to do this or that once sanctions end, we ought to demand that
they do nothing.

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]