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 M and all, This is a sincere request. Please tell me, as an Iraqi, what am I to do? Saddam Hussein has been slaughtering my people, sanctions (with the added aid of Saddam) have starved and crippled my country. The opposition parties admit that they cannot get rid of Saddam for another 30 years even if they were all to unite. My people have tried as hard as they can to overthrow the regime - costing over 500,000 lives in the process - and cannot do it. Sanctions are not going to go away anytime soon if things continue as they have been. As I have said many times we are now at a junction between two evils. One path leads to a war by the "Great Satan" that would remove Saddam, lift sanctions and then install a US puppet government. The second path I am very familiar with and is unimaginabley horrible and I truly believe - no matter what anyone says - that nothing can realistically get worse than this, no matter how bad a war is (realistically) or who takes over. What do I do? At the moment I have side-stepped the issue, in the aim of being active and practical, realising that, whether or not a war takes place, our role is to call and campaign for democracy - true proportionally representative democracy - in Iraq. Either way this is a just call and either way it will be of benefit to Iraq. Regards, Yasser ----- Original Message ----- From: "M" <xxx@ntlworld.com> To: "Andrew Zurcher" <aez20@cus.cam.ac.uk>; "Colin Rowat" <c.rowat@espero.org.uk>; <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk> Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: [casi] Re: ethics: ideal and practical policy > I appreciate the response I respect and understand your position. However we > shall have to agree to disagree on this one. > > I will always contend that their are some overriding principals in which the > term pragmatism has been used by leaders in place of the word compromise to > flutter away the rights of a people enshrined by international law. The Oslo > accords for example. International law considers agreements between an > occupier and any body in occupied areas to be null and void if they deprive > civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation > and restitution. Which the recent Oslo accords have done resulting in the > current Palestinian uprising. > > As far as I am concerned their are certain non-negotiable inalienable rights > and principals which must be upheld so that even if they ignored an crushed > today, future generations will not forget them. They will not be handed down > principals diluted by the Governments of the time, like Israel and the US > with comments like "the so called 'occupied territories'" going into the > historical record. Some examples follow: > > USA > > The recent attempts by the US to rewrite the Geneva Convention because it > needed to "fit new challenges" to deal with terrorism was a charade. The > Geneva convention is the cornerstone of protection for combatants and > civilians during wartime. That it has been ignored for years by the US, in > Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Panama is an open secret. Instead of trying to > rectify those gross violations the US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld > feels the need to extend its powers by suggesting the Taliban POW's > treatment will be 'reasonably consistent' with the Geneva Convention. Which > in practice has meant mistreatment and torture of prisoners, denial of > consular access, assassination, forced deportation (kidnap) and more > recently it seems a US sanctioned massacre of 3000 Taliban soldiers at > Shiberghan. The US goes still further by trying to gain legal cover for its > actions by suggesting moves to change the wording of the very convention it > seeks to violate. Perhaps the US fears the consequences these consistent > violations may bring in the face of an increasingly politically aware world. > Recall Pinochet. > > UK > > The UK derogated under Article 5 (1) of the European Convention on Human > Rights in order to bring in its draconian 'Anti-terrorism, Crime and > Security Act'. This is a dangerous precedent in itself as the UK is the only > EU government that has derogated from its international human rights treaty > obligations undermining the European human rights framework and creating a > shadow criminal justice system without the safeguards of the formal system. > Its basis for derogation would not stand up in court. > > ISRAEL > > is a probably the worst example of a state trying to rewrite the > international law by allowing the years to drag by and relying on the > 'pragmatists' in a weak negotiating position to accept its position. This > includes its occupation in breach of international law, its aggressive > settlement-building programme on occupied land in breach of the 4th Geneva > convention (Article 49), denying the return of Palestinian refugees > displaced by Israel as many as 5 million (including their descendents) to > their own country, a right enshrined by the UN (Resolutions 194, 3236) and > the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13). The right of > Palestinian heroic resistance fighter to defend expel the occupier protected > by The Accords of both Lahaye Councils, The 2nd clause of the Lahaye > resolutions (1907), The United Nations' Convention (51st), The Universal > Declaration of Human Rights -(14th December 1960 - resolution 1514) "The > Special Declaration of According the Independence to Colonized Territories > and Peoples" and the Geneva Accords of 1949. Israel hoped this strategy of > the 'long game' would work in Lebanon but the brave resistance forces of > Hizbullah argued their case in the only language the Israeli's seem to > respect, with force. The invaders were expelled because pragmatism did not > rule the day. > > As far as I am concerned these rights, principals, call them what you will > cannot be negotiated. To my mind they engage with the world on the widest > possible level because as you say so yourself "the majority of the people > agree with these important principals". > > I believe in the human race, I believe in their innate morality which means > they do hold these principals high. My aim is not intended to "make us > appear credible to the policy makers who *very occasionally* bother (or are > forced) to listen to us." My aim and I believe the aim of all socialists is > to raise the awareness of the masses, soldiers in the UK armed forces, > nurses, firemen, farmers, the trade unions of this country who already share > these innate values and show them how their leaders have betrayed their > trust and how they are killing their brothers and sisters overseas and > sending our soldiers to die for oil men and their profits. Then the 'policy > makers' will listen, in time, we might even have a regime change of our own. > > As Fidel Castro said "History has shown that great solutions have only from > come out of deep crisis. In a thousand different ways, the peoples right to > life and justice will inevitably impose itself." > > M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Zurcher <aez20@cus.cam.ac.uk> > To: M <xxx@ntlworld.com> > Cc: Colin Rowat <c.rowat@espero.org.uk>; <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk> > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 1:01 PM > Subject: ethics: ideal and practical policy > > > > > > > > Dear M and everyone, > > > > This is as good a time as any to say this. In what I say below I am not > > defending or speaking for Colin Rowat, though I share a lot of his > > beliefs, and I aspire to emulate what I know, through long friendship, to > > be his intelligence and deepgraven humanity. > > > > The issues that you raise, M, with Colin's posting seem to me to have > > missed a central point about mode of discussion, one that is frequently > > missed in 'conversations' taking place on this list. I share your > > concerns, M (as I think does Colin, for that matter), but I think we > > have to make a distinction between *ideal policy* and *practical policy*. > > I'd imagine that a large majority of the people on this list agree on many > > important principles, and that, in an ideal, constraint-free world, we'd > > all opt for peace, prosperity, mutual respect, and happiness (in the > > Aristotelian sense). Where we seem to differ is in our approach to > > normalizing these principles in a practical environment--in adapting these > > beliefs to the world-as-we-know-it. > > > > I read Colin's questions, suggestions, and tentative judgments as (fairly > > brave) attempts to address the current (horrible) situation in a practical > > way. It is true that (it seems to me) he leaves a lot > > unstated--throughout, you might continuously append the phrase, 'given > > likely American policy alternatives' or the equivalent. There is no > > question, for example, that even if the US decided (as some frustratedly > > and frustratingly suggested in the past few days) to push for a complete > > lifting of the embargo at 1 p.m. GMT today, it would have to come up with > > a credible story that would allow it to save face, for reasons good and > > bad (and atrocious). The fact is, we are in a position now where the > > alternatives between war, invasion, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc., > > are not constrained only by fundamental principles of humanity, but by > > political economy and basic schoolyard ego-accommodation. Pretending that > > this is not the case is only going to make us appear less credible to the > > policy makers who *very occasionally* bother (or are forced) to listen to > > us. The 'fundamental humanity' angle is one that religious celebrities > > like the Archbbishop of Canterbury and the Pope (and their equivalents in > > other faith traditions) can champion while retaining credibility, because > > that license is allowed them, and respected. We aren't so lucky, I think. > > > > So in general, while I share M's frustration and concern with > > certain habits of thought and language, of ideology, that we all suffer > > from (myself more than any, I'm sure), I do wish that people on this list > > would *also* be careful to remember the crucial distinction between the > > ideal and the pragmatic. I recognize the value of no-compromise Crying in > > the Wilderness; but there are also times when it is important to engage > > with the world-as-we-know-it, and I hope we won't waste time, and > > frustrate our own solidarity, by confusing one with the other. It seems to > > me that they are both ethical modes of engagement. > > > > az > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > Andrew Zurcher > > Gonville & Caius College > > Cambridge CB2 1TA > > United Kingdom > > tel: +44 1223 335 427 > > > > hast hast post hast for lyfe > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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