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]
here is some good news from China. China has been advocating that the remaining issues from the 1991 US-led aggression on Iraq, including sanctions against Iraq, should be settled fairly and justly, and at an early date, on the basis of the related resolutions of the United Nations Security Council," Premier Zhu said. Let's hope that China means what it says.
But first let me start with a consideration. I find it very strange that no-one has made any comment on the next sentence, written by Peter Brooke (News 19/26/1/2 (1)):
"And that they probably wonąt amount to anything at all unless Mr Hussein really has his back to the wall.
So the only serious reason they could have for going to war is that it is the only way (short of restoring full control over the Iraqi economy into
the hands of the Iraqi government) of ending the murderous policy of sanctions. This should be borne in mind. Those in the US and British
establishments who are arguing against military intervention are arguing for the indefinite prolongation of sanctions and the continued steady death by
starvation and preventable disease of hundreds of thousands of people."
I find this sentence really lugubrious. Who do you have in mind to put in Mr Hussein's place? A new Unocal/CIA oil-creature like Karzai? Why can't we let Iraq decide for itself? Is that too much to ask? I find it very strange that a part of the anti-sanctions movement agrees with the idea of overthrowing Mr Hussein.
In the IAC-discussion list I found a rather good piece, written by a Carsten Heinrigs, that reflects more what I think about the situation in Iraq.
"Peace and stability in the Gulf region can't be achieved without a strong Iraq, both economically and militarily. The only other alternative seems to be a general disarmament of all countries in the region to achieve a certain military balance that way. This will obviously not happen because neither will the US stop to sell weapons or give military aid to their client states nor will there be serious disarmament negotiations involving all countries in the region.
The idea to convince the western alliance to give up their aggression against Iraq seems quite naive. It is like asking the military to give peace or capitalists to stop making profits.
It is not our business to question the Iraqi government in any way. We don't have anything to say or judge about internal Iraqi or regional affairs of the Gulf besides being interested outsiders. First and foremost we have to show respect and understanding of our responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people.
We should demand nothing less than the unconditional and immediate rehabilitation of Iraq and restoration of its full sovereignty in all aspects. We should demand an end to all military, economic and financial intervention of our countries in the Gulf region ( and elsewhere ). We should use the example of Iraq to further discredit and unmask the United Nations as an oppressive organization in support of the dominant powers.
Let's go with George Bush and state that either you are against the US and its allies or you are with them. There is no middle ground in a situation like we are in now and no basis for communication with those responsible for so much suffering worldwide."