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 The following is a leaflet circulated by the Bevin Society (which could be described as a sort of left wing think tank) at the march on April 12th. The conclusion, which I think is worth thinking about, is this: The US/UK action has wantonly destroyed the international order brought about after World War Two. A new Order in defence of national sovereignty is therefore needed, based on various international alliances. A French/German/Russian/Chinese entente would be of particular value at present. If it acted forcefully‹supported by right-thinking people around the world‹it could stave off World War Three. Best wishes Peter I r a q : W h a t N e x t in the new Occupied Territory ? Weapons Of Mass Destruction: finding and destroying these was the ostensible reason for making war on Iraq‹despite warnings from the CIA and British Intelligence that Iraq posed no threat to the world. In fact, notwithstanding reports of 100-acre, underground, and other manufacturing locations for WMD, none have been found, nor will be found. This will be glossed over by a cynical political establishment and a despicable media. Regime Change was the second American objective, whilst supposedly not a British aim. Bush and Blair affected to believe that an alternative political structure would emerge if Saddam were removed and the Baath Socialist Party smashed. We can all now see that the truth is otherwise: the Baath Party was broadly-based and involved the widest social elements in governing the country. Only a very competent administration could have brought the people through 12 years of punitive sanctions, particularly damaging in a modern economy like Iraq¹s. The people of Iraq showed by their actions that they preferred to keep the Baath regime than be ruled by their tormentors over many generations. Popular Uprisings: America and Britain killed one a half million people with their sanctions‹yet expected popular uprisings welcoming their invasion. Instead, there has been popular resistance at a level not seen since the American war on Vietnam. Looting: With no welcoming crowds, Britain and American have seized on, and encouraged, looting as a form of popular engagement with the conquerors. The British Defence Minister made light of the Coalition breaking ŒInternational Law¹ on this, saying that the "good practice" of the looters was "liberating items that hadŠ been in the charge of the regime" and was "redistributing wealth among the Iraqi people". Thus Mr. Hoon praises stripping Hospitals and public facilities of their equipment, as well as ruining many people. Of course, destruction of the Baath socialist/welfare infrastructure is a bonus for an occupation intent on foisting liberal market forces on a socialist economy. But Britain and American are breaking the Geneva Convention by allowing looting. The Aid Agencies warned the Coalition in February that it should plan to maintain civil order as it displaced Œthe regime¹. The United Nations did not authorise the war on Iraq, which is therefore illegal, according to ŒInternational Law¹. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN acted to force the return of Kuwait "to its rightful owners" (in the words of a British politician). Just as the UN forced the return of Kuwait to the feudal, undemocratic and unsavoury regime installed by Britain when it artificially carved the Œcountry¹ out of Basra province, so the UN must act to force the invaders to return Iraq to "its rightful owners"‹the Baath Socialist Party. If it does not do so, it will demonstrate its status to be that of "a brothel" (as the Iraqi Information Minister put it). Regime change or leadership change are entirely a matter for the Iraqi peope. It is not a matter for the Latter-Day Imperialists‹with their world-dominating agenda. Military Occupation: America is intent on occupying Iraq just as Israel is occupying Palestine, with Britain supplying a spurious legitimacy. They must not be allowed a UN fig-leaf, or be given a retrospective international blessing for their brutal destruction of a small country. The duties of an occupying Power are clear under ŒInternational Law¹: it must not alter the law, population balance or existing social customs. Israel is breaking international conventions in the way it is conducting its occupation of the West Bank. America and Britain intend to do the same in Iraq. The American intention is to remake Iraq in its own image, using a series of puppet rulers, and use it as a base to control its neighbours. International Order: The US/UK action has wantonly destroyed the international order brought about after World War Two. A new Order in defence of national sovereignty is therefore needed, based on various international alliances. A French/German/Russian/Chinese entente would be of particular value at present. If it acted forcefully‹supported by right-thinking people around the world‹it could stave off World War Three. The Bevin Scoiety is holding a public meeting in The Printer¹s Room, Red Rose Club, 129 Seven Sisters Road London N7 (Tube Finsbury Park; Bus: 4,29,153,253,259,279) on Wednesday, 7th May, 7.30 pm. on the theme: "I r a q : W h a t N e x t in the new Occupied Territory ?" America is intent on occupying Iraq just as Israel is occupying Palestine _______________________________________________ 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 firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk