|
the new era of war 2001-03 just peace |
new sections: war and Iraq |
Martin Shaw's column |
|||
|
in place of war, open up Iraq |
opposing war is not enough |
regime change without war 16 February 2003 |
|||
|
Mary Kaldor offers lessons from the peace movement of the 1980s pre-emptive strike illegal it would constitute a crime against humanity, write 43 Australian experts on international law and human rights how many dead Iraqis? Fred Kaplan highlights the problems of guessing about 'collateral damage'. a serious inspections process, not war The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Iraq: What Next? provides a concise outline of the concerns over Iraq’s missile, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities that inspectors are investigating. It addresses the effectiveness of intelligence sharing, site visits, the inspectors’ use of advanced technology, and Iraq’s willingness to cooperate. It argues that a realistic timeframe for inspections is another year for the discovery process, followed by dismantlement and permanent monitoring. Among its conclusions: Far from being exhausted, the inspections process has just begun. Inspections should be pursued without ruling out future use of force. Iraq’s lack of full cooperation is a material breach, but not a casus belli. "Given the immense costs and risks of war, all of which rise sharply without broad international support, inspections should continue until they are obstructed (which should trigger their immediate end, followed by invasion) or succeed." In the meantime, "Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to his aggression." As the report argues, "Disarmament achieved without a war would be an enormous—and enormously popular—achievement." See also 1998: the UNSCOM experience: SIPRI report Bush accentuates nuclear danger reports from a conference on nuclear policy and proliferation organised by the Guardian, the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies & the US Physicians for Social Responsibility. the IR establishment on Iraq from Columbia International Affairs Online, U.S. Policy and Iraq: papers by Robert Jervis, Robert Keohane, John Meirsheimer, Jack Snyder does the US understand its enemy? after Kenya, Paul Rogers on al-Qaida's long-term programme US propaganda leaflets see what they're dropping on Iraq Jürgen Habermas on the threatened war the USA and Iraq 'Not long ago, a generation of young Germans who were liberated from the Nazi regime by American soldiers developed admiration for the political ideals of a nation that soon became the driving force in founding the United Nations and in carrying out the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. As a consequence, classical international law was revolutionized by limiting the sovereignty of nation-states, by abolishing the immunity of state authorities from supranational prosecution and by incorporating unprecedented crimes into the penal code of international jurisdiction. Should this same nation now brush aside the civilizing achievement of legally domesticating the state of nature among belligerent nations?' regime change Salman Rushdie: 'Just in case it had slipped your memory -- and as the antiwar protests grow in size and volume, it easily might have -- there is a strong, even unanswerable case for a "regime change" in Iraq. What's more, it's a case that ought to appeal not just to militaristic Bushie-Blairite hawks but also to lily-livered bleeding-heart liberals; a case, moreover, that ought to unite Western public opinion and all those who care about the brutal oppression of an entire Muslim nation.' a view from Iraq Saddam Hussein has used the complex social-political landscape of Iraq to create a system of rule highly resistant to peaceful change. But an intelligent strategy for a better Iraq does not require a military crusade. a unique case needs an exceptional solution For Iraqi dissident the incomparable nature of his people’s burden makes the forced removal of Saddam Hussein the only ethical solution. ‘Regime change’ from outside is in this case justified and necessary. Blair's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: an argument for peace 'coercive inspections' the Carnegie Endowment's alternative to war indict Saddam the campaign for international justice over the Iraqi leader's crimes why the left can't get Iraq right Michael Bérubé the linkage Iraq and Palestine: two theatres of war Paul Rogers: 'The survivalist logic of the Iraqi regime may bring war closer even than the Americans are planning for. Meanwhile, the covert aim of the Israeli assault – pulverising the nascent Palestinian state – has only steeled its people’s resistance.''who may we bomb?' Barry Buzan, promoter of the 'English School' of IR, argues that in Afghanistan, and more generally, those civilians who support the enemy 'and even in some circumstances, those who acquiesce, are legitimate targets.' Martin Shaw argues that this 'is quite disgraceful'. |
Iraqi oppositionist Faleh A. Jabar argues that 'Iraq's totalitarian system has been a menace to its own people, the region, and the world at large. Leaving the monster in its place is an invitation to future catastrophe. This may sound like an endorsement of the war camp. Not at all. Warmongering is as shortsighted as philanthropic pacifism.' See also Human Right's Watch 1993 report on genocide in Iraq: the Anfal campaign new anti-war UK network of activist scholars of politics and international relations American Academy of Arts and Sciences finds that the political, military, and economic consequences of war with Iraq could be extremely costly to the US. See also Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Crisis in Iraq site The Project on Defense Alternatives has launched War Report. It collects and updates frequently a listing of key articles, analyses, and documents regarding the war in Iraq and the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan. war on the back burner? Dan Plesch: 'Bush may have put an invasion on hold until it can best help his 2004 re-election campaign. The administration would prefer to see change in Iraq by subtler means than 300,000 troops and mass bombing. He does not want to relive his father's experience of winning a war a year too early and finding that come the election the victory was forgotten or, worse, the post-war peace was turning sour. a 'coalition of guilt' Toby Dodge argues that the Iraqi army is tougher than US believes 'The regime has created a "coalition of guilt" that underpins its continued rule with corruption and great fear about what will happen when it is finally toppled.' the ball in Saddam's court Ian Williams dissects the compromise at the UN: 'The ball will be very much in Saddam Hussein's court. The question is whether he will cooperate and disarm, or dissimulate and bring about his own downfall at the hands of the U.S. military.' Also, Tom Barry examines the antecedents of the Bush doctrine. British Stop the War coalition sabotaging the ICC Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Iraq: no wider war appraising the war against Afghanistan Richard Falk: 'Many of us who acknowledged the legitimacy of the Afghanistan War were careful to indicate that the rationale for war did not create a broader mandate. There was neither need nor justification for a wider war.'
|
The majority in the Security Council believe that inspections are working, and like the millions on the streets see no need for war. However the case against the Iraqi regime has as much to do with human rights as weapons. Many Iraqis believe that nothing will change without outside intervention. In the present stalemate, a way forward that avoids war but keeps the pressure on Saddam Hussein would be to recognise this wider agenda as a direct concern of the UN. Extend the successful inspections from weapons (for which Hans Blix sees no need for additional inspectors) to human rights and social conditions. Inspect Iraq's political prisons: demand access to prisoners and interview them without warders present. Inspect Iraq's hospitals and determine the truth about who denies access to life-saving medicines. Given the evidence of gross rights abuses, the Council should establish a special tribunal to investigate and try those responsible. All this will take
time: but it is surely a programme that addresses the legitimate
concerns of Tony Blair. The UN should neither bomb Iraq
nor run away from its crisis. The peace movement should
demand that it intervenes to secure regime change without war. So as with the great nuclear disarmament movements of the 1980s, it is fear that gives the peace case a resonance with a mass public. Of course it is not the motivation of many activists, who are more likely to be opposed to US world power in principle. But it is a healthy concern that politicians would do well to listen to, and in conjunction with Franco-German-Russian reservations, it may be enough to force Bush back (as Blair wants) for a second resolution at the UN. But at that point, there will almost certainly be war, regardless - and with UN authority unless Jacques Chirac shows a surprising depth of resistance. Where will the peace movement go then? Of course it all depends on the course of events: a long, unsuccessful US campaign with many civilian and even Western military casualties could give the movement a more decisive role as happened (but only after several years) over Vietnam. The more probable outcome of a shorter, more successful US war with UN backing will leave the peace movement shouting 'Stop the War' - only to find that Bush does precisely that. Unless a major terrorist attack occurs - which will probably turn popular opinion to anger and revenge and all but kill off peace activism - fear will evaporate and the movement will lose its goal. Bush's gamble could have paid off in an even stronger US hegemony in world politics. Although Bush's 'war on terrorism' is open-ended, even he may feel he has had enough war for one electoral term; the North Korea crisis may be resolved peaceably. (Whether Blair's position will survive the ignominy he currently attracts is less certain.) Once war starts, the real issues will be no longer how to prevent it, but how to respond to its noxious effects. Although another 9/11 cannot be ruled out, the worst effects will almost certainly be on people in Iraq and its region. People will be killed and many more displaced by US bombing. Many may lose their means of subsistence and become vulnerable to famine and disease. Rebel communities may be attacked, and more still displaced, by Saddam Hussein's armies. We should remember the lessons of 1991, and also of the attacks that Milosevic unleashed on the Albanians when NATO bombed Serbia. Saddam may even use his elusive weapons of mass destruction on the West, on internal opposition, or on Israel. The politics of fear need to be replaced by the politics of solidarity. Anti-Americanism will be of little help here (the objections I raised to its predominance in the earlier anti-war movement are still relevant). Once the US is established in Iraq, getting it out will not be the first priority. On the contrary, we will need to demand of the US and its nervous UK ally that they live up to their promises of a better Iraq. This means extensive programmes to care for and protect the victims of the war. It also means rapidly restoring the shattered Iraqi economy, immediately beginning a democratic transition, and establishing proper means to bring Iraq's present rulers to justice. Peace entails justice, indeed, not merely in this sense of criminal responsibility, but in the larger sense of a just political and economic settlement for the people(s) of Iraq. Does the present peace movement have answers to these kinds of questions? Pretty obviously not: its very strength reflects the fact that it is a very broad, and hence unstable, coalition united only by opposition to Bush and Blair. Very probably it will fragment and lose its present influence. But we can learn from this experience, and some at least of this huge coalition could become a force for lasting good in the affairs of Iraq and the world.
|
|
comment on the war and on the views you read on this site - email us your response |