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]
I thought I sent this to the list but in error I sent it only to Yasser. Cheers, Ken Hanly ----- Original Message ----- From: "k hanly" <email@example.com> To: "Yasser Alaskary" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [casi] Sanctions: "Hypocrisy, thy name is Rahul Mahajan!" > Have you a clue who Raimondo is? He is a rabid libertarian, who when it > comes to socialism or government versus free enterprise froths at the mouth. > He has some good critical articles some relating to pro-war libertarians but > he is not reliable on many isssues. However, the website antiwar.com, where > his articles appear is an excellent source for anti-war material. > While Raimondo makes some good points do you just gloss over his fluff > about the US revolution being the one libertarian revolution etc.etc. the > ubiquitous knee-jerk anticommunism, antisocialist stuff. He wants to > privatise the state oil companies because formerly they served the interest > of the Baathist elites. Why not use the revenues to help the Iraqi people > instead of for private profit probably by US corporations? Of course > Raimondo also ignores the fact that the oil controlled by Americans will > pay for reconstruction as well as US taxpayers. One could go on and on but > if you are not capable of seeing the gaping holes in this yourself I doubt > there is any hope. I like Raimondo and often read his stuff but on this > issue much of what he says is too dismissive and ignores the excellent > points that Rahul makes. There is no hypocrisy involved at all. The removal > of sanctions without measures to ensure that the oil revenues do not go the > Iraqis and in a manner that simply rewards the US for its aggression is > surely different than removing them before the aggression.While the UN is > certainly nothing ideal it would be better to work through it then have > unilateral US control and it is important not to reward aggression. > > Cheers, Ken Hanly > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yasser Alaskary" <email@example.com> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "AS-ILAS" <AS-ILAS@gmx.de> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:20 PM > Subject: Re: [casi] Sanctions: "Hypocrisy, thy name is Rahul Mahajan!" > > > wow, a semi-decent article. > > and i'd just like to applaud voices for taking the stance they have and cast > my disgust at the stance so many others, some on this list, have taken of > either ignoring the whole issue of sanctions or actually wanting them to > stay. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "AS-ILAS" <AS-ILAS@gmx.de> > To: "casi" <email@example.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:41 AM > Subject: [casi] Sanctions: "Hypocrisy, thy name is Rahul Mahajan!" > > > > http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html > > THE ANTI-AMERICANS > > Why the left-turnabout on sanctions? Hypocrisy, thy name is Rahul Mahajan! > > > > Remember how the sanctions were the equivalent of "genocide" committed by > the Evil American Imperialists against the Oppressed Peoples of Iraq? Well, > that was then, according to Rahul Mahajan, writing on AlterNet, and > reprinted in Counterpunch and Commie Dreams, but this is now, and I quote: > > "After five years spent working to end the sanctions on Iraq, I find myself > in an odd position. I'm opposed to the current U.S. plans to end the > sanctions." > > Say what? So "genocide" is no longer genocide? Apparently so. As Rahul puts > it: "The new situation is fascinating." > > Well, uh, yes, it is, in the same way that a car wreck or a heart attack is > fascinating: if only to observe how ugly reality can get. And how knee-jerk > anti-Americanism, and not concern for the Iraqi people, motivates a certain > section of the anti-war movement in this country and abroad. > > Oh, but "actually, it's not so confusing," Rahul reassures us. You see, the > evil U.S. refuses to set up a puppet government in Iraq "under neutral UN > auspices rather than under those of an occupying power with clear plans for > increased regional domination." Instead of making Kofi Annan and the UN > bureaucracy the absolute dictators of Iraq, the U.S. is going to rule > directly, set up permanent military bases, and use this as a platform from > which to launch attacks on Iran and Syria. > > While Rahul is right that Syria is definitely in the Bushies' sights, Iran > is a different story altogether. The Iranians were cheering on the U.S. > invasion, albeit not too loudly, which eliminated their deadliest enemy and > chief regional competitor. Now we learn that they were all the while > negotiating with the Americans in order to come to some kind of mutual > understanding. Power politics, it seems, is a bit more complex than the > "America, bad, everybody else, good" doctrine of the Third World Left. > > The really telling example of U.S. perfidy, however, is Rahul's trope about > how those dastardly Americans are also plotting "to force the Palestinians > to acquiesce to the Israeli occupation through the latest 'peace plan.'" > Give me a break, willya? The Bushies are going out on a political limb with > this "road-map" business, which the Israelis are hopping mad about: "Force > the Palestinians to acquiesce"? That has got to be a typo! He must mean > force the Israelis to acquiesce. Or else why has their American amen corner > gone ballistic at the mere prospect that the "road map" may lead to the > creation of a universally-recognized Palestinian state? > > The whole thing, avers Rahul, is a plot by the U.S. to "privatize, at least > in part," Iraq's oil wealth, and "pay off American corporations" while > planning the conquest of the Middle East. Military force can accomplish > these goals, is the contention, but > "Some problems are the kind that can't be solved by bombs. Existing UN > resolutions require Security Council approval for Iraqi oil sales and for > disbursement of oil money to pay for other goods. Other countries may be > leery of buying Iraqi oil without some clear understanding that what they're > doing is legal, so the United States cannot simply declare those resolutions > void by fiat, the way it declared war on Iraq." > > What this boils down to is: who gets all that Iraqi oil? Rahul wants the UN > to get it, and the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Dennis Miller cabal wants to reward > "corporations like Bechtel that are closely tied to current and past > administration figures in closed bidding processes with no foreign > corporations allowed." The war, it turns out, was mostly a scheme so that" > the United States will be able to use Iraq's money to pay off mostly > American corporations." And that's not fair! Why not let some of the other > nations - who, after all, just stood around and watched as the U.S. beat up > the schoolyard weakling - in on picking the victim's pockets? Why, those > greedy American imperialists! > > What world do these lefties live in? Rahul complains that "the draft > resolution being currently circulated would give the United States very > open, explicit control over Iraq's oil industry and the money derived > therefrom." This is uttered in a tone of outraged disbelief, but why don't > "anti-imperialists" of the Left take their own rhetoric seriously? The U.S. > imperialists are acting on the "principle" of might makes right, a doctrine > well-known to their Soviet predecessors - and to Marx, one might add. Yet > poor na´ve little Rahul is shocked - shocked! Well, isn't that tough. The > question is, now what? Rahul's answer, incredibly enough, is . more > sanctions! > The whole campaign to lift the sanctions is a ploy by the U.S. to escape the > alleged "legal obligation it shares with the United Kingdom." What > obligation - what law? "Since they committed an illegal, aggressive war > (with no Security Council authorization) against Iraq," Rahul writes, "they > are financially responsible for the reconstruction. Iraq should not have to > pay for its own reconstruction, especially since for years to come its oil > revenues will be barely enough to meet the basic needs of its people." > > First we are told that the evil U.S. is intent on building "permanent > bases," and then we are lectured that the Americans have an "obligation" to > rebuild an entire nation - yet how, exactly, will that be done without > setting up permanent American bases? Indeed, how will it be done without > Americanizing Iraq? The American conquerors of Iraq are supposed to pay for > everything, and control nothing - a proposal that could exist only in the > Bizarro World parallel universe inhabited by all too many leftists, where > reality is inverted and he who pays the piper doesn't call the tune. > > There are apparently no limits to the illogic induced by anti-Americanism, a > delusionary doctrine in which Washington is - and must be - the root of all > evil. > > What trips up the phony anti-imperialism of the pro-UN left in this instance > is that the U.S. invokes international law - embodied in UN resolutions - as > a rationale for the war with at least as much justification as the UN > fetishists of Rahul's sort invoke it to prove the war's illegality. The UN > Security Council approved Gulf War I, and imposed the sanctions, to begin > with. Indeed, it was an American President, the present Emperor's father, > who declared that the first attack on Iraq was the herald of a "New World > Order" - and made a point of his internationalist piety by going to the UN > Security Council before putting the question to the U.S. Congress. > The United Nations is itself an agent of foreign domination over subject > peoples; look at Bosnia and Kosovo, where the ethnic cleansing of Serbs and > the eradication of all political rights was ratified by UN overlords. The > big debate in the West is not between the proponents of an American Raj and > the defenders of national sovereignty, but over which band of bureaucrats > (or gang of profiteers) will have control of the loot. On the grounds that > anything is better than the Americans, the amateur anti-imperialists of the > Left side with the UN - but there is an alternative. Unfortunately, their > ideological blinders prevent many on the Left from seeing it. > The sheer absurdity of the left-turnabout on sanctions underscores the > inherently nonsensical internationalism that is the emotional and political > core of left-consciousness. Workers of the world, unite: militant idealists > who find such slogans attractive are likely to find irresistible a crusade > to "make the world safe for democracy." What is their chief concern? Not > America, not their home city, town, or state, but the world! The evil of war > requires a large canvas. Dangerous idealists are nearly always global in > their aspirations. > > The pathetic rationalizations uttered by our friend Rahul - "the way that > the sanctions work is not the way they used to" - would be funny if the > issue wasn't serious. Yeah, they sure don't make draconian economic > sanctions the way they used to, if the Iraqi people really won't be harmed > at all by them, as we are assured. But then, was the anti-sanctions movement > dead wrong all along - did tens of thousands not die because of them? > > "In the long run," writes Rahul, > " the sanctions must be lifted because they impose a highly inefficient > foreign control of the Iraqi economy, causing the collapse of local economic > activity and requiring money that should be spent internally to be spent on > foreign corporations. In the short run, there is no compelling reason to > lift them in the absence of a legitimate Iraqi government that has the right > to make choices about how Iraq's oil wealth is to be used for the benefit of > the Iraqi people." > > Translation: > "In the short run, f*** the Iraqi people - just as long as we get revenge on > the U.S. by any means necessary. Who cares if the Iraqi economy collapses, > the bad guys profit, and ordinary people suffer - none of these are > 'compelling' enough reasons to stop pompous fools like myself from > determining what is best for the Iraqi people." > > Anti-Americanism is the anti-interventionism of fools. And it is rooted in > anti-capitalism. Why are what Rahul describes as the "state oil companies" > run by Saddam Hussein and his mafia-like family sacrosanct? Why shouldn't > they be privatized? And why not allow foreign ownership? I'm shocked - > shocked! - at Rahul's "xenophobia." > > Okay, that was a bit too easy, I know. Plenty of left-oriented activists, > notably the widely-respected Voices in the Wilderness, oppose this nutty > pro-sanctions position. Let's file this under "It just goes to show." - as > in "It just goes to show how crazy the Left can be if it takes some of its > more untenable principles too seriously" - and move along. > > But one important point needs to be made. As the embodiment of the one and > only successful libertarian revolution in history, the United States is by > its very nature a potentially liberating force in the world. The idea that > no good could possibly come of this war is obviously wrong. But it is not > far off the mark, either, and needs only to be amended: Nothing good for the > U.S. can come of this war. All the benefits, such as they are, will be > reaped in Iraq, by the Iraqis, while we pay and pay, in human lives and > treasure looted from the private incomes of Americans. We spread liberty - > or some deformed version of it - abroad, and nurture tyranny at home: that > is the price of our rulers' internationalism, and we'll be paying it for > some time to come. > > - Justin Raimondo > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 email@example.com > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk