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 colleagues,
As an Iraqi by birth, a Kurd by ethnicity and British by
residence, I am very much interested in the issue. So much so, that I have written a long article
on the analysis of it to help others making an informed opinion. I attach copy for your perusal,
use and comments.
Regards,
Muhamad
IRAQ: WAR OR DICTATORSHIP
By: M TAli
It is said that war is simply diplomacy by other means. Dictatorship is the highest form of the
absence of democracyIraq is the manifestation of both war and dictatorship, unless and until one
defeats the other. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship unleashed internal wars on the Iraqi people first,
then waged external wars on the neighbouring countries,Iranfirst and then Kuwait, theGulf War. Is a
third such war inevitable and if so, will it be the finale that topples the dictatorship that
caused all these wars? Is there an alternative means to achieve this? Or, will the dictatorship
prevail and prolong its life span. These are the sixty-four thousand-Dollar questions!
War and sanctions
Like the other emotive topic of sanctions, war divides the world public opinion, peoples,
organizations and governments, into two opposing camps, each of which contains many strange
bedfellows,whilst former comrades-in-arms split their ranks, ending up in different camps. Western
imperialism, its agents and warmongers champion the pro-sanctions and pro-war camp.But it must be
stressed; not everyone in this camp is necessarily an agent of imperialism or a warmonger. As there
are contingents of the international solidarity with the Iraqi people, such as CARDRI : (Committee
Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq-) and INDICT (the campaign to indict Iraqi war
criminals) in the UK, post-Kuwait Iraqi opposition and the Iraqi masses themselves. There is
agreement that the end justifies the means, whilst they harbourdiffering intentions, agendas and
expectations. : On the other hand, world peace movements, humanitarian organizations and apologists
of the Iraqi regime as infiltrators champion the anti-sanctions and anti-war camp. But, it must be
stressed her that not everyone in this camp is necessarily an apologist of the Iraqi regimethere
are contingents of the international solidarity with the Iraqi people, such as Liberation in the
UK, the historical Iraqi opposition and Iraqi communities in theDiaspora.
Generic Iraq
What complicates the already complex Iraqi issue in debates is the cryptic use of the words 'Iraq,
'sanctions' and 'war' without any further qualification or modification. The Iraqi peopleand Iraqi
regime are not synonymous, rather they are antonymous. Economic sanctions on the Iraqi people are
vastly different from non-economic, i.e. military, political and diplomatic sanctions.This simple
distinction has enabled the formulation of the appropriate slogan" lift the economic sanctions on
the Iraqi people, but maintain, or rather strengthen the non-economic sanctions on the Iraqi
regime". This is now adopted by consensus, if not unanimously, by the Iraqi people, their patriotic
opposition and world solidarity with its cause. So much for sanctions.As for war, it must be
identified as on whom. War on the unarmed Iraqi civilians, victims of the regime? No. War on the
Iraqi army conscripts, who>were subjected to the '>Turkeyshoot' when retreating from Kuwait to
Basra? Ney. War on the remaining Iraqi infrastructure, as was the case inAfghanistan last
year?,Never. No, Ney, Never. No, Ney, Never, No more !
<Even within the Iraqi armed forces, we must differentiate between the regular army on the one
hand, and the Republican Guards, Special Forces and Military Intelligence, on the other. Similarly,
between the popular militia and Saddam's fidaiyean, and so on and so forth. It must be stressed
here that this analysis is intended for helping to make an informed opinion aboutthe Iraqi issue.It
is not an invitation or justification for invading. Our preferable option, if we have any say in
the matter that is, up to the last minute, is the peaceful diplomatic resolution. To this end,
there is a consensus of world public opinion, peoples, organizations and governments, that : Any
external involvement, political or otherwise, in the affairs of a country, such as Iraq currently,
must comply with international law. That is to say, the United Nations is the only world
organisation, which has the legitimate authority to pass such a resolution, implement it and
subsequently monitor it. In the case of, sooner or later, there will be the need for UN
involvement, if only to avert the outbreak of chaos and even civil war in the aftermath of the
downfall of the repressive regime.
EmbarrassmentEmbarrassment is the reason behind the anti-war and anti-sanctions stance of the Iraqi
and world left movements. On principle, it opposes any measure, initiative or campaign by American
imperialism because of its history of foreign policy adventures, evoking the memory of Vietnam But,
this school of thought ignores the basic facts that Iraqis not likeVietnam, the Iraqi regime is not
the former Allende government of Chile and Saddam Hussein is not a popular leader, like Fidel
Castro of Cuba.Also, it does not recall the history preceding the liberation of many peoples of the
East. During the Second World War, the Soviet Union was in alliance with world imperialism,
fighting fascism. Was that a strategic error? Definitely, no. Imagine what the alternative
scenarios would have ended up in. But no sooner had the war ended with the victory of the allies
over fascism than the Cold War started between the capitalist and socialist camps. And the rest is
history until the self-destruction of the latter elevated the former, which attributes it to the
superiority of its economic, political and cultural philosophy. Thus, the United States of America
has imposed itself as the unrivalled world superpower accountable to no other. If the American
current stance on the Iraqi regime, which so happens to coincide with our permanent stance, is
embarrassing to us, then coincidence with that of the regime is even more embarrassing. That is if
we regard the state of human rights of the people concerned as our yardstick. Furthermore, it would
completely contradict the stance from armed struggle by the historical Iraqi opposition, which has
been resorting to it for the past four decades. The same cannot be said for the recent Iraqi
opposition. Interestingly, the instances of the adoption of this ideological stance and feeling of
embarrassment are directly proportional to their distance from the epicentre of the event, Baghdad.
Accordingly, it is higher among Western than Eastern organisations and among Iraqi communities
abroad than those at home, and higher among those in liberated Kurdistan than those under
government control. This phenomenon may be attributed to the differences in the lifestyles of an
ivory tower abroad and that of humiliation inside the country. Ironically, when it comes to the
likelihood of the Iraqi people rising to topple the regime single-handed, the expectations of those
living thousands of miles away are much higher than of those stuck at home. A Kurdish proverb
states that those away from the battlefield boast about their swords. In English, something like
the phrase armchair generals comes to mind.
Objectivity
Yet another objective factor missing from the left's stance on American foreign policy is that of
the internationalisation of the state of human rights in the countries concerned. Whereas America
plays the role of defender of human rights because it coincides with its economic interests, the
left sticks to its principles of opposing America even to the detriment of the aspirations of the
people concerned. Recent examples are the republics of former federal Yugoslavia, Kosovo, East
Timor (Indonesia) and Afghanistan. And may be Iraq subsequently !. External American interventions
in these countries were crowned with the collapse of their dictatorships and bringing them to
justice, such as Slobodan Milosovich of Serbia now in The Hague. Is it likely to substitute
Kurdistan for Kosovo, Iraq for Yugoslavia and Saddam Hussein for Slobodan Milosovich? Just a
thought ! The Iraqi issue has already been internationalised ever since the Iraqi regime's invasion
of the state of Kuwait on 2nd August,1990.
The collapse of the socialist camp during the last decade of the twentieth century was the gravest
event in world politics since the Second World War. That is until 11th September 2001, when it
polarised around the foreign policy of America as the biggest victim of international terrorism to
date. There was also a qualitative change in the priorities of American foreign policy. Whereas it
created and supported Islamic fundamentalist militias to fight the Soviet-backed Afghan government,
it then swapped sides by fighting its former friend with the help of its former foe. Obviously, its
priority now is fighting world terrorism and not former or current socialist states. The Afghan
experience is the most highly embarrassing event to the international left movement. Whereas the
Soviet Red Army was perceived as the occupying army, the American Green Berets are perceived as the
liberating army. That is in contrast to the historical experiences of other countries of the world,
such as Vietnam. Who is responsible for this embarrassment? The world left movement conveniently
forgets this fact - instead it puts another valid argument forward. That is the double standards of
American foreign policy towards these countries as opposed to Israel, its client state, which
ignores many UN resolutions. Furthermore, it takes the opportunity to suppress the Arab people in
Occupied Palestine under the pretext of fighting terrorism. States, including Israel, have been the
biggest terrorists in human history. Regionally, only the governments of Iraq and Turkey in their
mistreatment of their respective citizens compare with Israel.
As well as ignoring the external objective factor referred to earlier, some peace campaigners even
disregard the internal objective factor. This is the improbability of toppling the Iraqi regime by
the Iraqis themselves without outside help. Therefore, the external factor is imperative and
decisive, but it does not guarantee the replacement of the dictatorship with the democratic
alternative, as aspired by the Iraqi people. So much for objective factors.
Subjectivity
As for subjective factors, the imperative and decisive one is the popular mood of the Iraqi people,
which is being ignored in the considerations of the impending regime change in their own country.
This mood is a direct result of the internal objective factor. It places its wish, the toppling of
the regime, above all other considerations, including war and peace. In other words, the end
justifies the means. The intensity of this mood is directly proportional to the distance from the
epicentre, Baghdad. By the time it reaches the Diaspora, the picture is inverted as avoiding the
war prevails over all other considerations, including the need for regime change.
Geopolitics have changed so much since 11th September 2001 that the world public opinion's
perception of it is that it is dictated by a few despots and mad mullas in the mystic east and a
few crazy cowboys in the wild west.
Human and material losses
Advocates of the latter, the anti-war campaign, justify their stance by citing the recent
experience in Afghanistan. As a consequence of the aerial, sea and land bombardment, the remaining
infrastructure of Iraq will be pulverised. Moreover, thousands of innocent civilians will perish
during a short period of time. These concerns and anxieties are justifiable and indisputable.
Equally justifiable is the other view that a similar number of casualties will be suffered
gradually if the dictatorship is let off the hook. But if you consider the mood of the Iraqi people
at home, they would much prefer a quick death as collateral damage to a slow death under torture by
the regime's infamous security agents. This view is shared even by the Iraqi exiles, who oppose the
war. At least, they can verify it through conversations with their friends and relations, who have
recently travelled to liberated Iraqi Kurdistan or outside Iraq altogether. Some of them, be it
anonymously, have expressed their views to foreign journalists and organisations during interviews
conducted inside Iraq.
Intentions v Outcomes
In its analysis of international external involvement, the left recalls the history of world
imperialism. It cites that America's ulterior motives are purely economic control of Iraq's oil
reserves, the second largest in the world behind Saudi Arabia, and not its declared concerns about
human rights, democracy in Iraq and world peace by fighting international terrorism.
If oil and economic interests were the real motives, how come imperialist powers and NATO allies
intervened in Kosovo, other former Yugoslavia republics, East Timor (Indonesia) and Afghanistan?
Even assuming the validity of the left's argument, does that necessarily mean that the outcomes in
these countries were accordingly bad for their respective peoples? Assuming they were, will it
necessarily be bad for the Iraqi people? Will the toppling of the ruling dictatorship, regardless
of its replacement, adversely affect the Iraqi people's aspirations to peace, stability and
democracy? Assuming the replacement will also be bad, can it realistically be worse? Will it be any
harder to oppose than the existing regime? No.
In the event of foreign occupation, the state of the human rights of the Iraqi people cannot get
worse, only better. The degree of improvement is directly proportional to the distance of the
source of the occupier from the epicentre, Baghdad, as is the ease of expelling them, should they
overstay their welcome.
As for the intentions of some contingents of the Iraqi opposition, the international solidarity
with the Iraqi people and the anti-imperialist, anti-war campaigners, they are undoubtedly
honourable. But will the outcome necessarily be beneficial to the Iraqi people? Averting war may be
necessary, but it is not sufficient for the interests of the Iraqi people, which are in ending
dictatorship. Ending dictatorship is. Averting war on Iraq prolongs the life span of the regime,
which has long passed its sell-by-date. It will eventually lead to its rehabilitation and the
lifting of all sanctions. In due course, it will be in a position to buy the services of
individuals, organisations and governments, including some who are currently shedding crocodile's
tears for the Iraqi victims of the impending war. The campaigns opposing American imperialism, war
and sanctions, whether we like it or not, are offering a free service to the ruling Iraqi regime's
propaganda. Therefore, the outcomes of the opposing camps on the Iraqi issue are not directly
proportional to their respective intentions. Rather, they are inversely proportional.
Weapons of mass destruction
The United Nations Security Council passed a series of resolutions on Iraq for its invasion of
Kuwait on 2nd August 1990. On military sanctions, UNSCR 687 was being implemented most vigorously
in contrast with others, such as UNSCR 688, which is about upholding the human rights of the Iraqi
people. The former was complemented by UNSCR 1441 in 2002, specifically to deal with Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). America regards these weapons in the hands of Saddam as
threatening its national security and its interests in the region. The world left, on the other
hand, regards these resolutions as unfair on Iraq, selective in implementation and as yet another
example of the double standards of both America and the UN Security Council. It evokes indisputable
statements of facts about similar resolutions passed by the same world organisation on Israel in
Palestine and Turkey in Cyprus, which it has conveniently ignored. But these same people at other
times criticise America and the United Nations for not mediating between Israel and the Palestinian
administration and between Turkey and its satellite in the north of Cyprus on the one hand and the
Greek Cypriot government and Greece on the other. Thus, double standards, selectivity and hypocrisy
in politics are not the distinguishing marks of some governments, organisations and individuals but
rather vice features of all those engaged in it.
As for the Iraqi opposition and international solidarity with the Iraqi people, their stance is
that the source of threat is not so much the type of weapons as who has them. The Iraqi regime did
not use WMD when it invaded Kuwait in August 1990 although it obviously possessed them. when it
invaded Iran in September 1980, it did not have them at the time. But as soon as it acquired them,
it used them against Iranian soldiers in the battlefield and against the Iraqi partisans in
Kurdistan, such as in the town of Helebje in March 1988. In other words,
Even conventional heavy weapons in the hands of Saddam pose a danger to regional countries.
Even conventional light weapons in the hands of Saddam pose a danger to the Iraqi partisans.
Even knives, needles and matches in the hands of Saddam pose a danger to the Iraqi people.
Double standards
During our discourse so far, I referred to several examples of double standards used in the
implementation of international politics, which the world left movement cites in its opposition to
war and sanctions on Iraq. Being statements of well-known facts, there is no point in arguing
against them. On the contrary, we can supplement them with further instances, such as the lack of
enthusiasm by the UNSC in the implementation of its resolution No 688, which deals with respecting
the human rights of the Iraqi people, compared with No 687, which deals with eliminating WMD, as
superseded by No 1441. On the other hand, we can rebut the left's citing of America's refusal to
sign up to international treaties, which are to the benefit of humankind. For instance, the Kyoto
Agreement on the Environment and the International Criminal Court and so on.
We can counter argue with the question: And what will your stance be if America signed up to these
international agreements? Will you condemn it? Will you suggest withdrawal from them? Or What ?
Opponents of international interventions in Iraq invoke the universal principles of national
sovereignty and territorial integrity and the Iraqi regime's right to defend itself against outside
aggression. Once more, these are indisputable statements of noble principles but their
implementation is selective, subject to the individuals' opinions and that country's national
interests, varying with time and place. Why did not they invoke these noble principles when the
Iraqi regime was the outside aggressor in Kuwait in 1990 and in Iran in 1980? Why did not they
oppose American imperialism that vigorously when it was supporting the Iraqi regime in its
external war against Iran and internal war on the Kurdish people, using chemical weapons?
Dogmatism v pragmatism
The world left's stance emanates from its dogmatic support for the socialist movement in its
struggle against imperialist powers. Accordingly, it supports the struggle of the peoples, states
and governments in former colonies against the hegemony of world imperialism. Some of them believe
that these governments are patriotic, defending the interests of their countries and would not
conceivably violate the human rights of its own citizens. And even if they did, they justify
ignoring them during critical political stages of confronting external enemies, such as in Iraq now.
In the past and hitherto, each people side with their own state and government in the event of
political or military clash with another, regardless of the justice or otherwise of its cause.
Lately, the left movement in the capitalist countries has taken principled stances in solidarity
with the former colonies of their own countries, whose foreign policy they defy. Thereby, the
political scene is inverted. The Western leftist, raising the banner of 'no war on Iraq' appears to
be defending Saddam's regime. The Iraqi opposition, holding the banner of 'no to dictatorship',
appears to be defending the American administration. Whilst these two different stances do not
contradict one another, they do cause political confusion among many sections of the respective
peoples.
As for pragmatism, it acknowledges the actual balance of powers and regards the state of the human
rights in the respective countries as the yardstick above all other considerations, including
political embarrassment, noble principles and good intentions. We thank the world left for their
anxiety about the fate of the Iraqi people and acknowledge the role being played by their
governments to realise our people's lifelong wish. But, we have justifiable concerns about the way
it is being conducted, the means to the end and the replacement subsequently.
Conclusion
The Iraqi issue is so complex, sensitive and emotive that it requires careful diplomatic management
of international relations and not taking dogmatic positions in advance.
At last, Saddam Hussein has met his come-uppance. Or, as they say in classical Arabic, every
Pharaoh meets his Moses.
There are also many appropriate slogans in colloquial Arabic of Iraq, which express the feelings of
the Iraqi people.
It is not in the interests of the Iraqi people to be perceived as "Anti-American", "Anti-British"
or "Anti-Anybody". They are only "Anti-Saddam" and that is not by choice as, ironically, they are
historically very patriotic and anti-occupiers. But their sufferings at the hands of Saadam far
exceed that of all occupiers of their homeland, Mesopotamia, throughout the centuries. Neither an
agent of nor an anti-American be on the Iraq issue. Be pro-Iraqi people, anti-war and
anti-dictatorship in equal measure.
What the Iraqi people need desperately are some semblance of a civil society, a helping of
liberalism, a modicum of human rights and a dose of democracy. The prerequisite for all these is
the removal of the dictatorship, lock, stock and barrel, which trampled on their dignity. A once
proud and industrious people of the cradle of civilisation have been reduced by their rulers to
paupers with the cap in one hand and the begging bowl in the other. Let u s restore dignity to the
Iraqi people
The Iraqi people are chronic patients of an epidemic of Saddamitis.
War may be a bitter pill to swallow, but will cure them of the dictatorship.
The threat of war will ease their pain and may cure them of the dictatorship.
The latter should prevail over the former and in turn should give way to diplomacy to resolve the
issue once and for all in the interests of the Iraqi people, regional stability and world peace. It
can be done.
January 2003.
>>> H Sutter <citext@chebucto.ns.ca> 03/12 10:54 pm >>>
Dear Hazim, Yasser, and List,
Thank you to those who shared 'Dr B Khalaf's' opinion.
Sama and Yasser posted it just recently and someone else
posted it a few weeks back.
I agree, Hazim, it would be unethical for a medical doctor
to "so strongly support the killing of possibly hundred of
thousands of innocent Iraqis just to change a regime". It
would also be out of character.
Besides, 'Dr. Khalaf' seems to cherish the illusion that this
would be a "war against Saddam Hussein" - leaving everyone
else untouched (?). Yet he has supposedly experienced the
carnage of war: Iran-Irak and the Gulf massacre where
hundreds of thousands of conscripts and civilians were killed.
(By sheer coincidence, IPO also talk about the "war on Saddam".
So of course does the media.)
There are other things too, e.g. style and tenor: From
someone with 'Dr. Khalaf's' professional background and
maturity one would expect a little more finesse in
getting a point across.
Actually, to me there seems so much out of character in
this piece that I can't really believe in 'Dr. Khalaf's'
credentials. Still, I can see why a pro-war opinion given
by health professional might be assumed to carry more weight.
> Locum consultant neurologist, London
Yes... But just as an idea, this piece could have been
concocted by anyone, couldn't it? :) Sorry if I sound
paranoid. That's what all this propaganda is doing to me.
Regards,
Elga Sutter
------------Original Message------------
From: "hazim awbi" <hazimawbi@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [casi] ... And why I will not
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:24:41 +0000
> This guy has no knowledge of politics and he is totally out of touch.
> Besides, he is anethical regarding his profession. How would a doctor
of
> all people so strongly support the killing of possibly hundred of
thousands
> of innocent Iraqis just to change a regime?
HA
>>From: "Yasser Alaskary" <ya1980@hotmail.com>
>>To: <casi-discuss@lists.casi.org.uk>
>>Subject: [casi] ... And why I will not
>>Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:40:37 -0000
>>
>>[11] http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,895397,00.html
>>
>>... And why I will not
>>
>>Dr B Khalaf
>>Friday February 14, 2003
>>The Guardian
[....]
_______________________________________________
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
DISCLAIMER - London Borough of Hackney may exercise its right to intercept any communication on its
networks - for more information see http://www.hackney.gov.uk/council/data/email_disclaimer.htm
_______________________________________________
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