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]
Translated from Arabic from http://www.alkader.net/okt/Na3m%203lyna%20031006.htm Posted October 7, 2003 Yes, we should violate international law!! By: Dr. Tha’er Dori Right from the beginning I must state: in order for us to be a nation worthy of respect, at terms with its past and aspiring for a better future, we should violate international law. With this shocking introduction I begin, having started loosing my nerves every time one of those who show concern for Iraq and who defends Arabs, stands up to try to convince us that Iraq did not violate international law and that Arabs respect what is called international law and that they love it and offer it the biggest room in their houses, and when it visits them it gets the first place and they the threshold.. and so forth.. But what is this international law? They are no doubt pointing to the collection of rules and norms which has governed international relations since World War II and continues to do so. Those were imposed by the victors in that war, who make up only one fifth of the world’s population, and who tailored that law according to their wishes without as much as glancing at the third world; four fifths of the world’s population. Even within that fifth, some nations were dealt injustice by this international law. Don’t rush me, I will give examples! The bases of this international law were personified in the United Nations and its crowned King, the Security Council; comprising of fifteen members: five of them original, deciding everything, and the rest guests of honor; camouflage to give the matter a touch of democracy. Here I have to borrow from a friend of mine who explained it as being similar to Boards of Directors of big companies. The small shareholder, who owns one share, seems to have equal rights with that who owns one quarter of the shares, having the right to attend meetings and vote on decisions. But in the end, that who decides matters is the Board of Directors which is made up of the biggest shareholders. Those big shareholders in the Security Council are called the Permanent Members, who have the right to object to any law they don’t like or is in conflict with their interests. If anyone of those says no to any issue, the matter is settled.. If a member would suggest, in an effort to record scientific facts, a law that states that the sun rises from the east, and the US or France or the UK or Russia or China would object, the resolution would not be adopted, and consequently anyone who says that the sun rises from the east would be in breach of international law. Take the issue of Nuclear Weapons. These countries that have the Veto right all own and stock nuclear weapons, and have tested nuclear bombs and other Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some have used them, like the US. But those countries have felt that developing countries started acquiring the technologies that would allow them to own those weapons, so they adopted a Treaty banning Nuclear Weapons. Of course, those five countries own the weapons and enjoy its warmth and would not hesitate to use it when necessary and perhaps not necessary, as the US did with Japan. But the sons of the slaves, the developing countries, this inferior section of the human race, is forbidden from owning nuclear weapons. And if they even dare think about this, the entire world’s wrath will be heaped on their heads for violating international law and the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. And they will then have to immediately open their establishments and military bases to the world’s spies, who are dressed in the uniforms of international organizations and who carry the badge of International Law. Is this a law worthy of respect? And is any of the people of the third world, who thinks of respecting it, himself worthy of respect? Another issue. You sit in God’s peace in your house, farming your land, making children and you are not known to have had any form of conflict with your neighbor. For you live in peace and do not desire your neighbor’s wife nor envy him his property. God has blessed you. But the Big Five have another opinion. They have discovered that a homeless person in Europe or someone who has a problem deserves to replace you in your house and sleep with your wife and make your children his. They voted on this resolution and none of them used his Veto. And by convincing and coercion they managed to get the other four votes, and they would have gotten them in many ways. You must therefore comply with international law and empty your house and leave it, handing over your wife and children to the stranger, who has the legal right according to international law. And if you do not do that, or object, or are late in complying, you become in breach of international law. Is this story the product of imagination? Certainly not. This is the story of the usurpation of Palestine. The Security Council decided that the Palestinian living in Haifa is not entitled to his house or land or sky or sea, and he has to give them to the Jew from Russia or Poland or Germany. And when the Palestinian and his Arab cousin objected, they were considered outlaws and violators of international law. Any person who thinks of going back to his home in Carmel is a dangerous criminal who violated international law. Is this a law worthy of respect? And is the one who respects it worthy of respect? I have decided to reply to anyone who accuses us of violating international law by saying: - Yes sir, we violated international law, and we will try to violate it again and again until we break out of the bottle in which we were put. One final word: Might and having it is what makes the law in your hand. A man was traveling the desert on a camel. He passed a man next to his mare which was giving birth. When she finally gave birth and the colt was delivered, the owner of the camel held it and said “Thank God, my camel has given birth to a colt”. The owner of the mare complained that that was his colt, the son of his mare, which she gave birth to only minutes ago. He tried to explain with the language of logic and knowledge, which is that camels do not give birth to colts, but the thief insisted on his stand: the colt is the son of my camel. Finally they went to the judge, and each explained his side of the story. The thief was strongly built, shaking his fist while talking, which intimidated the judge. The owner of the mare presented his story with the softness of people of logic. The judge gave his verdict, after carefully eying the thief’s muscles, saying: “If this power equals that power, camels don’t give birth to colts. But if this power is not equal to that power, they do give birth to colts”. And this is the tale of International Law; a law by the powerful. Should we then respect it?!! __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ 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