[Peace-discuss] New P4P sign suggestions

[Margaret E. Kosal]

At 15:46 2/27/2003 -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>The letter that you quote (addressing "you antiwar protesters and
>politicians"), like the piece from José Ramos-Horta in the NYT on Tuesday,
>may be this year's incubator-baby story -- a bit more sophisticated, and
>perhaps an indication (if they were in fact solicited by supporters of the
>Bush Administration)

No, Carl, I respectfully disagree, particularly as far as the CSM piece 
posted by Kimberlie.  Dismissing the dissonance as "this year's 
incubator-baby story" is insulting to those who have been actively calling 
for (peaceful) interaction on behalf of the Iraqi people - from Pilger to 
Voices in the Wilderness to Amnesty International.

Where were the crowds demonstrating when Clinton was permitting US military 
bombing Iraq?  These are not the easy issues w/which to grapple.  If they 
were easy, they would be boring (like Dubya).  Dismissing them is not going 
to make them go away.

The main differences I observe are (1) intimate connections of this 
administration with oil & (2) horrifying indications w/in this 
administration that a rationalization to use a nuclear bomb is actively 
being sought.

>  of just how worried the Administration is by the
>peace demonstrations (as one would expect them to be).

I dearly hope this is true!  It doesn not have to be an 
either/or.  Absolute binary distributions are very hard to come by.

>No one paid much attention when, say, Soviet dissidents criticized the US
>for Vietnam or our domestic racism -- it was when they turned their
>attention to their own government that something important was said.
>Criticism of the official enemy is easy, and the pro-Saddam element in the
>peace demonstrations is tiny to the point of vanishing.  Why should we
>repeat positions that the Administration is using for propaganda?

Who is advocating this?  Who is stealing from whom?
Blair & Bush are co-opting the humanitarian/human rights arguments because 
they are valid and useful.
That does not lessen the validity of the humanitarian arguments.

 From today's Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/0,6957,178327,00.html 
Under the title of "If not war, then what?"  (Also printed is a response 
from Chomsky and UN resolution 242 is mentioned).

Haifa Zagana:
Of course there are alternatives to war, if we are serious about finding them.

We need, for instance, to enforce the weapons inspectors, and empower them 
to examine other things such as prisons and human rights.

I don't believe that the military threat has been a factor in access for 
the inspectors. But the single most important thing is to lift the 
sanctions. If we want to empower the people of Iraq, to help them regain 
their dignity, that is the only answer.

How can you possibly think about overthrowing the regime or implementing 
democracy when your first thought is how you will feed your children tomorrow?

We have had 12 years of intellectual stagnation under sanctions, students 
unable to get papers, journals, and that has only strengthened the arm of 
the regime against the people.

It makes me angry when they say the Iraqi people are weak, incapable, and 
we are going in to liberate them. I strongly believe that if sanctions were 
lifted, the Iraqi people would be sufficiently empowered to get rid of 
Saddam on their own.

If the west hadn't supplied Saddam's regime with weapons, and then imposed 
these crippling sanctions, we would have done it long ago.

· Iraqi novelist, based in London.

Tariq Ali:
The speed with which a political agenda decided in Washington for its own 
purposes (in this case the overthrow of a regime and the occupation of an 
oil-rich country which sells oil in euros and not dollars) is then imposed 
on Britain may be nothing new, but is still disturbing. The US determines 
its needs, the Murdoch media empire approves, and liberal journalists are 
put on the defensive.

What are "we" to do about Saddam? Who the hell are "we"? And why should 
"we" be in favour of the selective vigilantism determined by US interests 
in the region? The Iraqis need democracy, and neither Saddam nor the US 
will ever give them that.

Democracy in an oil-rich country is a dangerous option for the west (note 
recent attempts to topple Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). If they elect a 
government that challenges the west (as happened in Iran), then what? 
Another regime change.

Saddam was at his worst when he was a staunch ally of the US, unleashed 
first against local communists, Kurds and trade unionists, and subsequently 
against Iran, with the open backing of Reagan's then envoy, Donald 
Rumsfeld, and Britain's Margaret Thatcher.

Today, he is a weakened and enfeebled dictator. Had his people not been so 
devastated by western sanctions, they might well have toppled him by now. 
That is why Blair's late decision to invoke humanity has a false ring.

The notion that Iraq threatens the US, or its favourite Israel, is truth 
only for hardcore believers. They want Iraq, partially for the oil and 
partially to re-map the region. Ariel Sharon is already demanding an 
assault on Iran after the "liberation" of Baghdad.

Namaste,
Margaret