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]
[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]
Dear all,
as I promised: here is an explanation of the opening session on the PNAC. It is the first of a
series of hearings and inquiries of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI). It will take place in
Brussels the 14th until the 17th of april 2004.
Background information on the project, provisional lists of endorsing organisations and persons,
you can find in the platform text, included underneath or at www.brusselstribunal.org. It should be
stressed that the scope of the hearing is very specific: as other hearings will focus on crimes
against international law, war crimes, use of depleted uranium, etc. we will strictly focus on the
'Project for the New American Century' as the think tank that designed the blue print of a New
Imperial World Order.
We are making a sort of 'pool of specialists' in order to invite the right persons and discuss who
will talk on what. So far Saul Landau, Jim Lobe and Tom Barry, William Rivers Pitt, Neil McKay and
last but not least: Michael Parenti for the second day, have accepted to collaborate. Immanuel
Wallerstein can't come, but proposed to send us a written testemony. Mails are out to many people.
Howard Zinn, who morally supports our endeavour but couldn't make it in April, was so kind to
forward our invitation to Arundhati Roy. François Houtart, one of the founding fathers of the World
Social Forum at Porto Allegre, has accepted to be president. Samir Amin, a famous activist
theorist, has accepted. And so has Nawal El Saadawi.
You are all invited at this event. It will also have a cultural component, as poets, musicians and
other artists (painters f.i.) have joined the onganisation of this event.
Greetings.
Dirk Adriaensens.
Questioning the New Imperial World Order
An International Court of Academics, Journalists, Intellectuals and Artists
on the geopolitical, humanitarian, social, cultural and economical effects of the war policies
devised by the 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) and put into effect
under the Bush War Cabinet
(History) Just before the start of the war in Iraq a petition was launched. It was signed by some
500 artists, writers, intellectuals and academics, including Julia Kristeva, Richard Plunz, Irving
Wolfharth, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Hans Ulrich Obrist, and François Houtart. It called for
moral and, if possible, legal action against the 'Project for the New American Century' and the
authorities responsible for the war against Iraq. It was published on March 21st (one day after the
start of the war) in two Belgian newspapers, De Standaard and De Morgen. It soon appeared that
legal action was unlikely to succeed as the United States have consistently acted against any legal
authority that would be liable to threaten them and still continue to do so. Hence the idea to set
up a 'Moral Court' or 'People's Court' to condemn the new American policy as well as the think
tanks behind it (the latter always remain beyond the grasp of legal action). A broad platform
composed of several Belgian cultural organizations was created to carry out the petition's first
proposal: to set up a Brussels Tribunal, after the historical example of the Russell Tribunal. At a
networking conference set up by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation at the end of June 2003 in
Brussels it was decided that a series of hearings would be held in different places all over the
world, culminating in a final session in Istanbul. The Brussels Tribunal will be one of these
commissions of inquiry. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation accepted to support the initiative.
In a press release after the conference they stated: "A proposal to constitute a Commission of
Inquiry culminating in a Tribunal on the war in Iraq was discussed. Working parties would be
considering this proposal further in a round of consultations in Turkey, Belgium, the United States
and Japan". Many peace and lawyer organisations around the globe joined the network since. The
initiative is gaining in scale and momentum everyday. (A provisional list of supporting
organisations is included at the end of this document).
(Synopsis) The Brussels Tribunal is a hearing committee composed of academics, intellectuals and
artists in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal, set up in 1967 to investigate war crimes
committed during the Vietnam War. The hearing is scheduled for 15-17th April 2004 at The
Beursschouwbug and Les Halles in Brussels. It will be presided by Professor François Houtart, one
of the founding fathers of the World Social Forum in Porto Allegre. It is directed against the war
in Iraq and the Imperial war policies of the Bush II administration. Its main focus will be the
'Project for the New American Century', the think tank behind this war, in particular three of the
co-signatories of the mission statement: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, as they
are the physical link between the discourse and the brutal practice of the New Imperial World Order
as designed by PNAC.
(Concise information on PNAC) The acronym PNAC is a key to the war in Iraq and to many other wars
to come. In the spring of 1997 the neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly
Standard founded 'The Project for the New American Century' (PNAC). The most distinguished
signatories of the mission statement are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Jeb Bush (George W.
Bush's brother), Francis Fukuyama, and 'last but not least' Paul Wolfowitz, a former Professor of
International Politics and former Dean of the Department of International Politics at Johns Hopkins
University. Its current director is Gary Schmitt. It is important to note that many of its members
have close ties with both the military and the oil industry. PNAC describes itself as "a
non-profit, educational organization whose goal it is to promote American global leadership."
Its 'Statement of principles' is unequivocal: "The history of the 20th century should have taught
us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before
they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of
American leadership." (That is the doctrine of "Premptive Strike" and "Benevolent Hegemony")
PNAC drew up a four-point agenda to achieve its mission:
- "we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;"
- "we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to
our interests and values;"
- "we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;"
- "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending
an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles".
In September 2000, before George W. Bush won the presidential election, PNAC published the crucial
report 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century', in
which they clearly stated that to attack Saddam was but an alibi for American supremacy: "The
United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While
the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (p. 14).
The report argued for a large-scale upgrade of the army and estimated that a yearly budgetary
increase of 15 to 20 billion dollars would be required to transform the army into something like an
'imperial super-force' taking the lead in "the revolution in military affairs". However, PNAC was
well aware that this objective would not be easy to achieve: "The process of transformation is
likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor" (p.
51). Thomas Donnelly, main author of the report is currently working for Lockheed Martin.
When Bush came to power, with Dick Cheney as Vice-President, Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of
Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense, the PNAC theories became a blueprint
for the American defense and international policy. This policy was officially accepted in a White
House document personally signed by President Bush: 'The National Security Strategy of the United
States of America' (September 2002). Events have confirmed in the meantime that the theory of
ruthless military world dominance is currently being put into practice.
After 9/11, these people had in hand the necessary "catastrophic and catalyzing event" and the
political credit to implement their program. They could carry out one of the four core tasks of the
transformed American army: "to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars"
(p. IV). This terrible sentence requires maybe some explanation. "Major theatre wars" is a military
term for extended battlefields, but if you know that you will "decisively win" even before going to
war, the effort becomes a 'theatre war' in the more general sense of a 'theatrical war'. The
rhetoric should be evident to the entire planet. In the words of George W. Bush himself: "Who is
not with us, is against us". Therefore these wars have to be "multiple and simultaneous". As was
the case in the Roman Empire, the Project for the New American Century wants to enforce a
planet-wide so-called "Pax Americana", but its means is "Full spectrum dominance". The PNAC report
is a road map to a New Imperial Order, with a high-tech mega-army ruling "an increasingly chaotic
world" with shock and awe interventions and slash and burn techniques[1].
(Accusation) We believe that the PNAC program, put into practice by the Bush War Cabinet, leads
directly to violations of international law, thousands of unnecessary war victims, and the
destabilization of the entire planet in a social, political, and humanitarian respect. It is
heading for an unheard of militarisation of the world. This New American Hegemony is in fact a way
to serve the glory of the oil industry and military industrial complex (with which many PNAC
members and Bush aides are closely linked). This policy threatens world peace in a sustained and
severe way. The 'bill of indictment' may provisionally be phrased as follows: "The Project for the
New American Century and its members, especially PNAC's key figures in the Bush War Cabinet, have
been preaching, planning and committing crimes against international law and against humanity (even
in a legal sense, but at least in an ethical sense)."
Even if PNAC has only been producing discourse and therefore could and will no doubt invoke "free
speech", we believe that their speech acts are performative: it is an intention for action. Such
speech acts are not merely free speech. They are the source of actions. The actions that directly
followed from the PNAC discourse and its translation into "The national Security Strategy of the
United States, signed by president Bush (september 2002), are inadmissible. The most important ones
are listed below:
1) Planning a war without proof of imminent danger to the country involved is considered an 'act of
aggression' under international law. Waging such a war of aggression is a clear violation of the
Charter of the United Nations.
- The doctrine of the "pre-emptive strike" proposed by Paul Wolfowitz in the 1991 Defense
Guidelines is incompatible with international law, which restricts the use of force in self-defense
to situations where a State has been subjected to an armed attack, i.e. an aggression. This
doctrine, officially taken up by President Bush in his speech at West Point Military Academy
(6/1/2002) is a major threat to world peace and a violation of international law.
- The invasion of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom is a major violation of
international law and of the UN Charter.
- Aside from situations of self-defense, the UN Charter determines that States can only resort to
armed force with the consent of the UN Security Council. The Charter has instituted a system of
collective security, which is being blatantly disregarded by the current US administration.
Moreover top administration advisers such as Richard Perle consider it irrelevant, and an obstacle
to be removed.
- So far no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, rendering the entire casus belli a fraud.
2) During the Iraq war international humanitarian law was breached on several occasions, and
repeatedly and grossly violated:
- The use of cluster bombs against civilians can be considered a war crime, as it causes
unnecessary injuries, including those occasioned long after combat has ceased.
- The use of uranium in ammunition and bombs can be considered a completely unnecessary act and a
severe war crime.
- The hunt for non-embedded journalists can be seen as a war waged against the free press and,
therefore, a violation of the right to free speech.
- International law states clearly that it is the duty of the army at war to identify and bury the
soldiers it has killed. The United States and the coalition forces have not complied with this rule.
3) The duties of an occupation force were not (and are still not) respected:
- Not only did the massive bombing wreck the country, the fact that the looting of hospitals went
on for several days proves that the coalition was not interested in putting a stop to it (its
forces exclusively secured the oil fields and the oil Ministry). The total lack of protection of
all hospitals was a breach of the occupying forces' duty to assist the victims of war. We may
consider this severe omission a breach of the laws of war, as international war legislation clearly
states that it is the duty of the occupying country to establish order and security in the occupied
country.
- The permissive policy regarding the looting of all Ministries proves that the coalition is not
really interested in investigating the history of this hideous regime, for it tolerated the
destruction of a significant part of its archives. This constitutes in a sense an attack on Iraq's
collective memory.
- The permissive policy of the US Army and the coalition forces regarding the looting of the
National Museum of Baghdad and of many important sites, may be considered a crime against the
cultural heritage of the country, and, given the prime value of these sites (like Babylon) as one
of the craddles of Civilisation (Western and Eastern), a crime against the cultural heritage of
humanity itself.
- The reconstruction of Iraq is and will be a profitable deal for several American companies:
Halliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, Bechtel. The revenues of Iraqi oil will flow directly back to
American companies (incidentally, most of them being competitors in the oil business). This runs
contrary to the most basic principles of international law, according to which the State(s)
responsible of breaches of international laws or regulations may not take advantage of this fact
and are required to provide compensation for damages resulting from those breaches.
4) The occupation of Iraq by the US and British military forces is a violation of international law.
- The fact that the occupation powers are permanent members of the UN Security Council and will
veto any resolution aimed at ending the occupation, does not change the situation of permanent
violation of international law and of the UN Charter, ratified by both the US and the UK.
5) The 'New American Imperial Sovereignty' is heading for a global 'State of Exception'.
The war in Iraq is not an isolated event, as can be concluded from the content of the PNAC report
and the case of Afghanistan, not to mention the threats against Syria and Iran or the concept of
'punishing' France for its opposition to this war or Belgium for its anti-genocide law. This
'unilateral policy', heading for a hegemony of the entire world as spelled out by the PNAC report
(September 2000), then translated into the official 'Security Report' of President George W. Bush
(September 2002) and put into practice since, will continue to destabilize the planet in a social,
economical, political and humanitarian respect and claim many unnecessary victims.
The rejection of all international law authorities that would be able to control or convict the
citizens of the United States, notably the blatant opposition to the United Nations and the
rejection of the International Criminal Court, prove that the United States are withdrawing all
respect for the international legal order. It seems necessary to us to study and criticize the
'philosophical' (or ideological) foundations of this 'New Imperial Order' in the works of Robert
Kaplan, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington, and others. It is
necessary to expose the foundations of the new concept of "full spectrum dominance"[2].
The change American policy has undergone is dramatic and alarming. The transition from
multilateralism to unilateralism is not innocent. The "benevolent hegemony"[3] Robert Kagan and
William Kristol, founding members of PNAC, were arguing for in 1996, has become 'malevolent'. The
"American exceptionalism" they were advocating is heading towards a 'State of Exception'.
Sovereignty has always been the right to declare the state of exception (according to Carl
Schmitt[4]), and it seems that the new American policy is cumulating this policy of exception:
- Many war prisoners of the Afghan and Iraqi wars are being detained in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), a
location chosen because it is outside American territory. Consequently the Bush administration
claims that the American legislation on the treatment of prisoners does not apply. (The practices
in Guantanamo have been criticized by several Human Rights organizations.)
- The already mentioned doctrine of "Pre-emptive strike";
- The abandoning of the Kyoto agreements on climate control;
- The rejection of the International Criminal Court in The Hague;
- The rejection of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons;
- The Patriot acts I and II that are suspending many basic civil rights;
- The expulsion since 9.11. of thousands of immigrants, who lived in the United states for years;
- The total abandoning of the poor and unemployed (in ghetto's like Skid Row in L.A.) -
all this points clearly to the fact that the "American exceptionalism" is heading towards a
dangerous 'State of Exception' (also within the United States itself).
Conclusion: Why a Brussels Tribunal?
It took years for the opposition to the Vietnam War to develop into a mass movement. The current
situation is different. Even before the start of the Iraq War the American-British invasion was
globally rejected and condemned. The sole aim of the Commission of Inquiry in Brussels, and indeed
of the entire process up to the final Istanbul Tribunal, cannot actually be to bring the unlawful
character of this war under public attention. It has already been largely acknowledged and debated.
What then are the real goals? Why set up this tribunal?
Because it is extremely important for the future of the planet to resist the tendency to present
the current situation as normal, which is exactly what is happening and what the Bush
administration is trying to do.
Because it is important not to accept this "fait accompli" under the heading of "Realpolitik", as
some politicians and journalists in Europe are inclined to do.
Because it is important to make this point explicitly, even if it is already well-known, and to
state "this is a crime" and "this is a violation of international law."
Because it is important to keep up the spirit. Most governments, including the Belgian, are
inclined to give in and to bow to the American pressure. We, the civil society, the people, need to
raise our voice.
Because it is important to defend fundamental human dignity, justice and above all World Peace. The
war in Iraq is only a step, a stage in the attempt to impose a "Pax Americana" through multiple and
simultaneous wars - for more wars are bound to follow. The stronger the resistance is from the
start, the bigger the chances are that we can turn this imperial tide. We are on the brink of
disaster. Breaking the will to resist is the cornerstone of the Bush administration's policy.
Capitulating to this course will only lead to more capricious, frantic and aggressive
interventions. The treaty of Munich that paved the way for the Second World War should be kept in
mind as a serious historical precedent. The most ardent interventionists have already mapped out a
string of preventive interventions: Iran, Syria, North Korea, Columbia, Libya or even China. The
American army is not only stationed but intervening actively in countries all over the planet (not
only in Afghanistan or Kosovo, but also in Columbia and the Philippines, and so on).
The Pax Americana is a New World Order designed in the interest of a handful of American
corporations. Under the banner of 'democracy' and 'freedom' the new global economy appears as a
source of poverty for many countries in the developing world. It can only result in endless
resistance from the have-nots.
The Pax Americana can only endure through discord and, hence, war. In order to mobilize the
necessary political forces the Bush administration stirs up all possible tensions and
contradictions in the world: the opposition between the Western world and Islam, the opposition
between 'New Europe' and 'Old Europe', the opposition between different developing countries. It
also goes to work inside these countries by encouraging leanings such as nationalism, tribalism and
fanaticism. The Bush administration follows more plainly than ever the imperial motto: "divide et
impera" and intensifies or creates potential conflicts all over the world.
To guard the Pax America and impose "full spectrum dominance" the Bush administration
is developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. These warheads should have the capability of
penetrating the armored protection of underground command centers or weapons sites. The project
threatens to blur the line between nuclear and conventional arms. In the hawks' eyes these "usable
nuclear arms" will restore the credibility of US nuclear power. As a result of this policy the
nuclear threshold will be lowered and the risks of a nuclear nightmare will be heightened, even
beyond the most threatening episodes of the Cold War.
In a short statement written for the International Tribunal Initiative of Istanbul John Berger
states: "The records have to be kept and, by definition, the perpetrators, far from keeping
records, try to destroy them. They are killers of the innocent and of memory. The records are
required to inspire still further the mounting opposition to the new global tyranny. The new
tyrants, incomparably over-armed, can win every war - both military and economic. Yet they are
losing the war (this is how they call it) of communication. They are not winning the support of
world public opinion. More and more people are saying NO. Finally this will be the tyranny's
undoing. But after how many more tragedies, invasions and collateral disasters? After how much more
of the new poverty the tyranny engenders? Hence the urgency of keeping records, of remembering, of
assembling the evidence, so that the accusations become unforgettable, and proverbial on every
continent. More and more people are going to say NO, for this is the precondition today for saying
YES to all we are determined to save and everything we love." -John Berger, 18.06.2003, Paris -
Mieussy
Therefore, we conclude that there are urgent and sufficient reasons to hold a hearing
against this New Imperial policy - as a successful outcome of any legal action is highly improbable
- and to investigate both the theory and practice of this policy. That is why we have chosen 'The
Project for the New American Century' as our focal point. We are convinced that it is the duty of
the people of planet Earth to protest against this dangerous, immoral and, in fact, criminal
policy: The People vs. Total War Incorporated.
Contacts
Lieven De Cauter e-mail: lieven.decauter@asro.kuleuven.ac.be
Patrick Deboosere e-mail: patrick.deboosere@vub.ac.be
Annick de Ville (directrice des Halles de Schaerbeek)
Guido Minne (directeur du Beursschouwburg)
Jo Cottenier (StopUsa)
Peter Algoet (Humanistisch verbond)
Ludo De Brabander (Vrede)
Arnaud Ghijs (CNAPD)
Frank Vercruyssen (Theater Groep Stan)
Dirk Adriaensens (SOS Irak) e-mail: dirk.adriaensens@skynet.be
Hana al Bayati (documentariste)
postal adress: Fabienne Aucant, Halles de Schaerbeek, Rue de la Constitution 20, 1030 Brussels
phone +32 2/219 4290 fax +32 2/219 4290 fabienne.aucant@halles.be
Provisional list of supporting organisations
a) Brussels platform
Beursschouwburg
Les Halles
Theater Groep Stan
StopUSA
Vrede
CNAPD (Coordination Nationale d'Action pour la Paix et la Démocratie)
MCP (Mouvement Chrétien pour la Paix)
Humanistisch Verbond
SOS Irak
b) International Iraq Tribunal Network
Action Indict Bush-Blair / Japan
Arab Cause Solidarity Committee / Spain
Asian People's Alliance / Japan
Authors for Peace / Denmark
Bastaguerra / Italy
Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation / UK
Brussels Tribunal : Coalition of Articts, intellectuals, academicians, ngos / Belgium
Center for Economic and Social Rights / US
El Thaller International (Tunis)
European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights
Federacion de Asociaciones de Defensa y Promocion Derechos Humanos (FDDHH)/ Spain
Focus on the Global South
Global Peace and Justice Coalition / Turkey
INLAP / UK
International Association of Democratic Lawyers
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq - Japan
International Peace Bureau
Izmir Barre Association / Turkey
Labour Committee for Peace and Justice - Bay Area / US
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy / US
Middle East Children's Alliance / US
Movement Chretien pour la Paix / Belgium
No to War in Iraq Coalition / Turkey
Not in Our Name Project / US
Nuclear Age Peace Policy / US
Occupation Watch Center / Iraq
Peace Initiative / Turkey
Peace Initiative Turkey (PIT/USA)
Polish Anti-War Committee / Poland
Society Culture of Peace / Germany
SOS Iraq (www.SOSiraq.org) / Belgium - Netherlands
Stop USA / Belgium
Swedish Network Against War / Sweden
Transnational Institute
Traprock Peace Center www.traprockpeace.org (Deerfield, MA-USA)
Violence Against Women in War - Net ( VAWW-Net) / Japan
Women's Security Council / Germany
Independent International Tribunal Working Group
Akin Atalay - Lawyer (Turkey)
Alyn Ware - IALANA
Ayça Çubukçu - PIT/USA (US)
Ayse Berktay - Peace Initiative of Turkey (Turkey)
Barbara Lubin - Middle East Children's Alliance (USA)
Chris Coverdale - lawyer, Legal Action Against War (UK)
Colin Archer - International Peace Bureau (Switzerland)
Corrine Kumar - El Thaller International (India)
Daizo Kutsuzawa - International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq (Japan)
David Cromwell - physicist, oceanograph (UK)
David Krieger - Head of the Nuclear Age Peace Policy (US)
Dr. April Hurley (US)
Eman Ahmad Khammas - Occupation Watch Center (Iraq)
Fabio Marcelli - IADL (Italy)
Gloria Bletter - lawyer, WILPF (US)
Assoc. Prof. Gökçen Alpkaya - Int. Law (Turkey)
Heide Schültz - Women's Security Council (Germany)
Heike Haensel - Society Culture of Peace (Germany)
Henar Corbi (Spain)
Herbert Docena - Focus on the Global South
Hilal Küey - Lawyer, Izmir Barre Association (Turkey)
Hülya Üçpinar - Lawyer, Director of the Human Rights Center at the Izmir Barre Assoc. (Turkey)
Jan Lönn - Swedish Network Against War (Sweden)
John Roberts - INLAP (UK)
Ken Coates - Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation (UK)
Lennox Hinds - IADL (US)
Leo Gabriel - SUDWIND/Austrian Social Forum (Austria)
Leuren Moret - Geologist, expert on radiation (US)
Marinella Correggia - Bastaguerra (Italy)
Mary Lou Greenberg - Not in Our Name (US)
Melek Taylan - Helsinki Citizens Assembly (Turkey)
Munir Chalabi - Iraqi activist
Müge Sökmen - Mechanical Engineer, Publisher (Turkey)
Nikolas Kollestrum (INLAP) UK
Nikos Raptis - civil engineer, writer (Greece)
Paola Manduca - Biologist (Italy)
Prof. Akhiko Kimijama (Japan)
Prof. Akira Maeda (Japan)
Prof. Christian Scherrer (Japan)
Prof. Dennis Brutus (South Africa)
Prof. John Burroughs (US)
Prof. Lieven Decauter - Philospher (Belgium)
Prof. Noam Chomsky (US)
Prof. Patrick Deboosere - Socioloog (Belgium)
Prof. Peter Weiss (US)
Prof. Richard Falk (US)
Seishi Hinada - ICTI (Japan)
Prof. Turgut Tarhanli - Int. Law, Dean, Faculty of Law at Bilgi Univ. (Turkey)
Prof. Zia Mian - Physicist (Pakistan)
Roger Normand - Center for Economic and Social Rights (US)
Saitou Fumiko - Action Indict Bush-Blair (Japan)
Saul Landau (US)
Semih Hiçyilmaz - No to War on Iraq Coalition (Turkey)
Sungur Savran - Economist, Writer, No to War on Iraq Coalition (Turkey)
Susanna Thorbek - Authors for Peace (Denmark)
Tayfun Mater - Sec.Gen. of Chamber of Mining Eng. of Turkey, Global Peace and Justice Coalition
(Turkey)
Thomas Schmidt - European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights
Walden Bello - Focus on the Global South
Wilbert van der Zeijden - TNI (Netherlands)
_______________________________________________
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