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]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Multiplying stories






Re Hassan Zeini's posting:

There were few computers available in Iraq until 2000. Even then, many of
the documents I received from Iraqi ministries or State importing
organisations in relation to OFF shipments up to the beginning of this year
were frequently in hand-writing on the poorest quality paper, often without
even a printed Ministry notepaper heading. There is no surprise here.

Has anyone seen an original Arabic copy?

I note, for example, that the newly claimed Al Qa'ida link had origins in
Sudan (today's Times). That is easily traceable.

Even if it were verifiable and verified, does it mean anything? Many
organisations, companies, ministries, whatever, have individuals or groups
who may work on ideas or proposals, meet others, reach decisions and write
memos or recommendations. It is what comes as a result of those memos which
carries importance. You will surely find in the FCO some memos supporting
the removal or reduction of sanctions. I know there are UK diplomats who
personally did not support war and who have no doubt put their views in
writing, if only to file them away as personal opinion. Should the world
turn upside down and we strike lucky and find such a memo in future in a
bombed out ministry in London, will we declare such a memo as evidence of
actual government policy or decision making?

Without wishing to turn this message into a ramble, interesting also were
several remarks from ex-UK Ambassador to Washington, Chris Meyer, on BBC2
on Saturday night to the effect that he clearly understood that the Bush
inner circle determined on regime change in Iraq immediately after
September 11th 2001. Until then, it had been on the personal agenda of a
number of the hawks, but became policy. If that is the case, why were there
so many memos and dossiers on support for terrorism, weapons of mass
destruction, rights of pre-emptive strike etc? Are we to assume that the
British government, trapped by Straw's paradox of the need for credible
threat of military force, chose to be blind to the actuality of that
threat?

Mark Galloway



_______________________________________________
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


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]