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]
Dear List and Sama,
I find the logic in this message and in similar ones difficult to understand.
While everyone expresses worry about Iraqis, the issues is in the end
summarized into "removing Saddam". As if Iraq is only Saddam, not 26 million
people. As if sanctions are not killing people.
Regime change is at the heart of discussion. It is an illegal act which no law
or agreement in the world accepts. For someone who accepts to change a regime in
one place, it must also mean agreeing to change the regime in other places. Would
Sama agree to a regime change in Iran, for example, or Syria or Egypt or Saudi or
Kuwait? Shi'a muslims are oppressed in Easetern Saudi Arabia and in Hijaz... The
list is long. So where does the line stop??
I thought the whole discsussion in the world has been about Iraq's
non-compliance with SC resolutions. Only the US talked of regime change, a thing
which all states in the world rejected. The only people who supported it are part
of the opposition groups.
What is being suggested here is that the US should violate international law
andthe sovereignty of a state, without a mandate from the people, and go by force
to change a regime (no matter what we think of that regime). The US did that in
Iran in the 1950s and in Chile in the 1970s and in numerous other places in the
world. And we know what that brought and meant to the people. What is to stop
Russia or China later on from the changing the same regime that the US installs in
Iraq? Would that then be accepted by Sama?
Tha following sentence struck me as expressive of what Sama meant: "if the
secret police ('amn) and the Republican Guard are symbollically bombed - thus
removing the fear by which Saddam holds power - then this would be the best
scenario for the US and for Iraqis because: a) it will be the quickest way to get
rid of Saddam and thus better for the US, and b) it will cause the least amount of
Iraqi civilian casualties.".
Since when has what is best for the US been what is best for the Iraqis? Are
we here looking for what is best for the US? I thought our concern was the people
of Iraq not the US!!!
The conclusion that :"Opposing a war on Saddam, calls - at least in the short
term - for the current situation to remain: Saddam oppressiong and slaughtering
Iraqis, sanctions starving the people" is mistaken. Opposing the war also means
opposing sanctions, because sanctions are a weapon in war used to force Iraq to
comply with US demands. To suggest that the alternative to unseating Saddam would
be to continue sanctions suggests that the writer approves of contiunuing
sanctions as long as Saddam is in power. That is what the US has always said...
Sama also says:"our interests (the removal of saddam and the lifting of
sanctions) can only result from the same interests of the US policy to remove
Saddam.." Since when has US policy coincided with "liberation movements" anywhere
in the world? And what are the US interests in removing Saddam? And who but the US
has advocated linking the lifting of sanctions to the removal of Saddam? What kind
of Iraqi would support maintaining sanctions?
And I find it naive to believe that the US would change the regime and then
let those "democrats" in the opposition take over without a price. When one
watches those in the opposition debating on TV between themselves, one wonders if
Saddam would eventually be better than those people. While in opposition and in
exile, receieving salaries from the CIA and MI5, those people are already fighting
with each other and accusing each other of treason. If while in the opposition
they don't allow others to differ with them, what would they do when they are in
power?? And when one knows that most of those "neo-deocrats" come from within the
same regime, one would wonder what lies ahead for Iraq should those really take
over..
I agree that we should campaign for democracy in Iraq, but not on the
"proportional" lines suggested; we would have a government based on sectarian and
ethnic divisions, where the lines are already drawn and where democracy is
suspended. How can we achieve democracy if we already know that the selections
would be on sectarian lines? Haven't we learned from the Lebanese example, where
the same "proportional" division caused a civil war in the end? Do we want people
to move into opposition on secctarian basis, simply because Iraq's majority are
Shi'i?? This sounds to me very dangerous..
And it is also naive to think that the US would bend to public pressure and that
any election would be democratic under US control, so that the US would find it
difficult to install a puppet government. I suppose Sama is suggesting that if the
US doesn't respect the people's decision, those people would kick it out or
demonsrate against it? The elected democratic government of Chile was overthrown
and thousands killed without as much as an apology from the US... Who cared for
the will of the people?
Let us remember that Ricciardone told the opposition that even if Saddam is
overthrown, sanctions will remain in place .... Thatcher said in 1992 that even if
Iraq complies with all SC resolutions, sanctions should not be lifted... And
Bolton recently said that Iraq would not be allowed to develop its arms industry
even after Saddam is overthrown.
The perfect scenario would be for the world to intervene and prevent the US
from forcing its will on sovereign states and nations. The perfect scenario would
be for the sanctions to be lifted and for the genocide to end and for the
blackmail of the Iraqis and Arabs to cease.... Short of that, the Iraqis will die,
under Saddam or under Baqir al-Hakim...
HZ
_________________________________________________________
Find out the latest breaking Business news on Maktoob News.
http://www.maktoob.com/
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk