Stop the War
BY SOLEDAD GALIANA
Around the world, hundreds of thousands of people marched last weekend to express their opposition to a more than possible US/British-led war against Iraq and to show their support for the Palestinian people on the second anniversary of the Palestinian Intifada. Up to a half million people demonstrated in the streets of London. Thousands of Egyptians took to the streets in the capital Cairo and the Mediterranean city of Alexandria. Over 100,000 demonstrated in Rome, around 2,000 in Dublin. Demonstrations and protests took place also in the US, Australia and New Zealand.
On Tuesday, opinion polls published in Ireland and Britain showed the strength of popular opposition to the war. The Guardian newspaper's latest poll found that just 33% of British voters now back military action against Iraq, while an MRBI poll for the Irish Times found that 59% of people were opposed to their government backing military action against Iraq, irrregardless of whether or not that country complies with UN resolutions on arms inspections. The 26-County government is currently a member of the UN Security Council. It has been quiet on Iraq but Foreign Minister Brian Cowen has opposed unilateral US action andthat any action should be taken through the UN.
Through these demonstrations, people around the world were saying "No" to a new war that will add new casualties to the long list of Iraqi deaths - at least 100,000 during the Gulf War in 1991. According to UNICEF officials, half a million children have died due to economic sanctions since then that have further destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. However, it remains to be seen if those demonstrations will have any impact on the US and British administrations.
The possible intention of Saddam's government to build and use weapons of mass destruction is once again the repeated refrain used by the British and Americans. But so far, neither government has been able to come with any evidence to substantiate this allegation. On the other hand, Scott Ritter, who spent seven years as a UN arms inspector in Iraq, says that since 1998 "Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed".
So far, Iraq has agreed to allow the return of the UN weapon inspectors - expelled from the country after the Iraqi administration accused one of them of acting as a US spy, an accusation later proven to be true, to the UN's embarrassment. This gesture, however, has been scorned by an eager-to-act US administration.
This stance, replicated by the Labour government in Britain, poses serious doubts about the real reasons behind the threatened war. Is it really world security what they are worried about, or is it the strategic dominance of oil supplies? And what is the role of the arms industry - a powerful influence on the US and British administrations, two of the world's main weapon-producing economies - in these plans for war?
So, while UN weapons inspectors meet Iraqi representatives over their return to Baghdad, the possibility of agreement is being weakened by Bush and Blair's diplomatic offensive aimed at rallying support for their Middle East war. The Bush administration is casting doubt on the inspectors' main requirement: that they will be given freedom to examine any location of their choice, including Saddam's palaces.
Blair and Bush will now focus on convincing Russia, France and China - the other three members of the UN Security Council with the right to veto - to agree to a draconian draft resolution that would set a strict timetable for Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections and authorise force if Baghdad fails to cooperate.
However, the French administration has already expressed strong opposition to any military action that would threaten even further the delicate situation in the Middle East. Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov rejected British and US attempts to link Iraq with al-Qa'ida. Responding to the dossier of evidence published by Blair, Ivanov said Russia was opposed to authorising the use of military force against Saddam Hussein. "There is not definitive proof in the report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Ivanov told a press conference. "This is why Russian is so persistently pushing for the quickest return of international inspectors, so that the inspectors, in line with the UN Security Council resolutions, could answer those allegations."
If Blair's report on Iraq has not impressed the Russians, neither has he managed to unite his own party behind his pro-war drive. Labour's National Executive overwhelmingly supported Blair's intention to support an attack against Iraq prior to securing UN support, but voices of dissent within Labour are being heard. And despise Blair's victory on the Executive, members' anxiety about the issue was underlined on Sunday 29 September when they voted to make Iraq an issue for an emergency motion at the Labour Party conference. A proposed amendment to the NE motion will be tabled calling for no action to be taken outside UN Security Council resolutions.
At home, Bush is also battling a divided public opinion and Congress. Democrat House representatives urged the Republican administration to work closely with the United Nations and to let inspectors resume their work.
Veteran Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy flatly rejected the suggestion that opposition to war in Iraq was unpatriotic. "It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war," he said. "The administration has not made a convincing case that we face an imminent threat to our national security... America should not go to war against Iraq unless or until all other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war."
"You don't start out by putting the gun to their head and saying we are going to shoot you if you blink," said Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott, speaking from Iraq. A Democrat Party delegation was visiting Basra, in Southern Iraq, when US jets raided the city airport for a second time. McDermott, together with David Bonior, Democrat representative of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California, returned to Baghdad aboard an Iraqi Airways plane six hours after the reported attack.
Bonior asked Bush to allow "UN inspectors do their job". He added that Iraqi Foreign minister Naji Sabri and Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz had assured him that the inspectors would enjoy "unrestricted, unfettered" access, though the Iraqis do want their sovereignty respected. "They do not want to be having knocks on the door during prayer and saying 'Open up this building in five minutes," he said. "They want to be treated with some dignity and respect."
These comments were dismissed by the Senate's second ranking republican, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, who said "they both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government".
Bush & Blair's wider Middle East agenda
In an interview with An Phoblacht, Dr Sharam Tomasari, a lecturer in Middle Eastern politics, explains that the war strategy against Iraq that US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair are engaged in is about America pursuing its foreign policy objectives and new military doctrine.
He believes the United States intends to go to war against Iraq regardless of what the UN decides, because ultimately the Americans and British want to establish a neo-colonial hegemony in the Middle East, favouring governments that will protect American and Western interests.
"The worry is that if the United States and its allies topple Saddam Hussein, they will then look at other countries in the region, such as Syria, and declare them as rogue states and target them," he says.
Phoblacht: Why do you think the United States and Britain have decided to target Iraq and push for a war against Saddam Hussein at this time, especially as it is clear that the Iraqi leader has no connections with, nor does he harbour al-Qa'ida forces?
Dr Sharam Tomasari: Iraq has a history of anti-colonial struggle, in particular against the British Empire. The Ba'ath ideology was evolved around a mixture of Arab nationalism, socialism and Islam, with the emphasis on a secular state and in total contradiction to colonialism Islamic fundamentalism. Therefore, the Iraqi state is diametrically opposed to the ideology of al-Qa'ida. The interesting factor here is that the staunchest ally of the US in the region, Saudi Arabia, is the bedrock of this confused view of the world.
There are two factors why the US is targeting Iraq. One is political, which is the uncompromising stance of Iraq against Israel and support for the Palestinian struggle. The other is the economic factor. Iraq holds the world's third largest untapped oil reserves. Given Bush himself is backed by the US oil giants, I think one can see where he is coming from. The British motive, however, is more economic than political. They heavily rely on the balance of trade with the Middle Eastern countries and that enables them to have political influence when needed.
Phoblacht: Most people seem to think that a war against Iraq is imminent. Do you think that is the case, given three members of the UN Security Council, China, Russia and France, seem reluctant to agree to the terms that the United States and Britain are dictating?
Dr Tomasari: Well, Bush's declared policy is clear - that he would go it alone along with support from Britain. The problem for other members of the Security Council and the wider world is the way in which war aims are defined. Under international law, no state has the right to go into a war of aggression with the view of changing a sovereign government. I think even the British realise how unrealistic this aim is. Many states have concerns, for example China and Russia have not the best of records as far as human rights are concerned, and another example is Iran, which has one of the worst human right records. They are heavily involved in the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, with help from Russia and China.
So the problem it poses is the question of whether or where the US is going to war next? For many years in your own country the British government tried to sidestep Sinn Féin, but the reality was different. In Iraq also the reality is different. While the US and the British might not like the regime, in Iraq there is an absence of an opposition force to challenge the Iraqi government after ten years of economic sanctions and attacks against Iraq. So this could be seen as a factor - that the government in Iraq enjoys a kind of popular support - otherwise we would have seen a very strong opposition against the government there. The same rationale also applies to Cuba. Irrespective of what the US or anybody else for that matter claims, there is no internal opposition to the government of Cuba.
Phoblacht: You have a wide knowledge of the Middle East. Based on that, what is the view of the Iraqi people of the possibility of war and how will the other Middle Eastern countries react?
Dr Tomasari: Public opinion in the Arab world post September 11 was very interesting. Many, although condemning the attack on the World Trade Centre, would identify with the reasons for such attack. Given that the attack was not carried out with the most forward-looking of ideologies, this becomes very scary. The frustration in the Middle East, where there is a lot of poverty when the countries are so rich in natural resources, has caused alienation among the populations of that region. Governments are often corrupt and serve their foreign masters.
In Iraq, many have suffered because of sanctions. It is estimated that 1 million Iraqi children have perished in the last ten years. The Iraqi people do blame the United States and the West for this hardship. Although we might not like it, the fact that Saddam Hussein is still ruling Iraq is in itself an indicator of the depth of feeling against the sanctions. I have spoken to people from Iraq; they are angry and afraid of what might happen in the near future, but the anger is directed at the West.
Now, with the Israeli crackdown on the Palestinian Authority and the peace process, I am afraid US policy will have disastrous consequences for the region and the rest of the world.
Phoblacht: The war against the Palestinian people has brought the Middle East to the point of crisis. Surely a United States-led war against Iraq can only add to that crisis? People must be appalled at the hypocrisy of the United States and Britain, who cite the failure of Iraq to obey UN resolutions, yet totally ignore the contempt that the Israelis have shown for resolutions calling on them to withdraw from the Occupied Territories?
Dr Tomasari: This is the problem that many people and even governments in the Middle East are faced with. They see it as the US deliberately refusing to provide a level playing field. Many Arab countries are concerned about the impact of Israeli policy for the whole of the region. It is radicalising and hardening opinions in the Arab countries. In Jordan and Egypt, anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment can result in the destabilising of these countries.
Senior Arab diplomats and statesmen openly accuse the US of double standards. The Gulf War was fought to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, but many Arabs are waiting with patience for the liberation of the Territories occupied by the Israeli forces. Despite numerous resolutions, it seems that those resolutions do not apply to State of Israel and only apply to Iraq.
Phoblacht: What is the view from the Middle East of the relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush and of Blair's total support for the US war strategy?
Dr Tomasari: There is a great deal of uncertainty. What seems clear is that the US has committed itself to an attack against Iraq. The problem here is that Iraq is not Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein is not the Taliban. If and when they execute their military plans, many thousands of innocent civilians, that both Bush and Blair say they are concerned about, will die. To change the Iraqi regime requires a massive military undertaking that can only result in huge numbers of civilian casualties.
What was interesting for me was a comment by an Arab academic who was critical of Tony Blair. He questioned how Blair could on the one hand be taken seriously in relation to the peace process in Ireland when on the other he shows total disregard for the peace of the Middle East.
Cuba ratifies anti-nuclear treaty
THE CUBAN government has ratified a treaty which prevents it from developing nuclear arms, despite long-held domestic reservations about the position of the United States on the issue. The US has failed to conduct significant reductions of its stock-pile of nuclear weapons and maintains an agressive military stance towards Cuba, including the country in its list of states promoting 'international terrorism' in the wake of the 11 September attacks last year.
Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Felipe Pérez, told the 57th session of the UN General Assembly that his country had made the move in a spirit of magnanimity and with the hope of furthering the cause of nuclear disarmament worldwide.
He said: "as a signal of the clear political will of the Cuban Government and its commitment to an effective disarmament process that ensures world peace, our country has decided to adhere to the Treaty of the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In doing so, we reaffirm our hope that all nuclear weapons will be totally eliminated under strict international verification.
"In addition, and despite the fact that the only nuclear power in the Americas [the US] pursues a policy of hostility towards Cuba that does no rule out the use of force, Cuba will also ratify the Treaty for the Prohibition og Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Carribean, known as the Treaty of Tlateloco, that had been signed by our country in 1995."
Cuba has previously criticised the NPT due to what it slated as the treaty's acceptance of an elite "club of countries" which could legitimately possess nuclear weapons.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)
