War crime in Iraq: Vatican

February 28, 2003

March 18, 2003

MILITARY intervention against Iraq would be a crime against peace demanding vengeance before God, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has said.

"War is a crime against peace which cries for vengeance before God," said Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, speaking on Vatican Radio.

He stressed the deeply unjust and immoral nature of war, saying it was condemned by God because civilians were the worst sufferers.

Martino, formerly Vatican permanent representative to the United Nations, strongly denounced the determination of the United States and its allies to disarm Iraq by force.

"Do not reply with a stone to the child who asks for bread," he said. "They are preparing to reply with thousands of bombs to a people that have been asking for bread for the last 12 years."

Stressing the Roman Catholic church would continue to insist on the need and the urgency of peace, he said: "As always, it will be the Good Samaritan who will bind the wounds of a wounded and weakened people."

Pope John Paul II, one of the most prominent opponents of war on Iraq, urged UN Security Council members yesterday to continue negotiations on the disarmament of Iraq and avert a looming military conflict.

"I want to remind UN members and particularly those who make up the Security Council that the use of force is the last resort after having exhausted all peaceful solutions, as stipulated by the UN charter," the Pope told tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

"I lived through World War II and I survived the Second World War. For this reason, I have the duty to say ‘Never again war’. We know that it is impossible to say peace at any price, but we all know how important our responsibility is."

(From correspondents in Vatican City)
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com)

‘Illegal, unwise, immoral’

(A statement from religious leaders in the United States and United Kingdom)
November 26, 2002

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4)

As the calls for military action against Iraq continue
from our two governments, despite the new opening for UN weapons inspections, we are compelled by the prophetic vision of peace to speak a word of caution to our governments and our people. We represent a diversity of Christian communities — from the just war traditions to the pacifist tradition. As leaders of these communities in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is our considered judgement that a pre-emptive war against Iraq, particularly in the current situation would not be justified. Yet we believe Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction; and that alternative courses to war should be diligently pursued.

Let there be no mistake: We regard Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as a real threat to his own people, neighbouring countries, and to the world. His previous use and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is of great concern to us. The question is how to respond to that threat. We believe the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so.

But our nations and the international community must pursue these goals in a manner consistent with moral principles, political wisdom, and international law. As Christians, we seek to be guided by the vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by making war on other nations. It is a long-held Christian principle that all governments and citizens are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

We therefore urge our governments, especially President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, to pursue alternative means to disarm Iraq of its most destructive weapons. Diplomatic cooperation with the United Nations in renewing rigorously effective and thoroughly comprehensive weapons inspections, linked to the gradual lifting of sanctions, could achieve the disarmament of Iraq without the risks and costs of military attack.

We do not believe that pre-emptive war with Iraq is a last resort, could effectively guard against massive civilian casualties, would be waged with adequate international authority, and could predictably create a result proportionate to the cost. And it is not clear that the threat of Saddam Hussein cannot be contained in other, less costly ways. An attack on Iraq could set a precedent for pre-emptive war, further destabilise the Middle East, and fuel more terrorism. We, therefore, do not believe that war with Iraq can be justified under the principle of a "just war," but would be illegal, unwise, and immoral.

Illegal

Whether we oppose all war, or reluctantly accept it only as a last resort, in this case the U.S. government has not presented an adequate justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or directly threatened the United States, nor is it clear that its weapons of mass destruction pose an immediate and urgent threat to neighbouring countries or the world. It has not been credibly implicated in the attacks of September 11. Under international law, including the U.N. Charter, the only circumstance under which individual states may invoke the authority to go to war is in self-defence following an armed attack. In Christian just war doctrine, there are rigorous conditions even for an act of self-defence. Pre-emptive war by one state against another is not permitted by either law or doctrine. For the United States to initiate military action against Iraq without authorisation by the United Nations Security Council would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the foundations of international security. And under our domestic governance, the US Congress and the UK Parliament must also play a key role in authorising any contemplated military action.

Unwise

The potential social and diplomatic consequences of a war against Iraq make it politically unwise. The US and the UK could be acting almost entirely alone. Many nations, including our European allies and most of the Arab world, strongly oppose such a war. To initiate a major war in an area of the world already in great turmoil could destabilise governments and increase political extremism throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would add fuel to the fires of violence that are already consuming the region. It would exacerbate anti-American hatred and produce new recruits for terror attacks against the United States and Israel.

A unilateral war would also undermine the continued political cooperation needed for the international campaign to isolate terrorist networks. The US could very well win a battle against Iraq and lose the campaign against terrorism. The potentially dangerous and highly chaotic aftermath of a war with Iraq would require years of occupation, investment, and a high level of international cooperation — which have yet to be adequately planned or even considered. And the Iraqi people themselves have an important role in creating non-violent resistance within their own country with international support.

Immoral

We are particularly concerned by the potential human costs of war. If the military strategy includes massive air attacks and urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad, tens of thousands of innocent civilians could lose their lives. This alone makes such a military attack morally unacceptable. In addition, the people of Iraq continue to suffer severely from the effects of the Gulf War, the resulting decade of sanctions, and the neglect and oppression of a brutal dictator. Rather than inflicting further suffering on them through a costly war, we should assist in rebuilding their country and alleviating their suffering. We also recognise that in any conflict, the casualties among attacking forces could be very high. This potential suffering in our own societies should also lead to prudent caution.

We reaffirm our religious hope for a world in which "nation shall not lift up sword against nation." We pray that our governments will be guided by moral principles, political wisdom, and legal standards, and will step back from their calls for war.

United States

Philip A. Amerson, president, The Claremont School of Theology.
David Beckmann, president, Bread for the World.
Peter Borgdorff, executive director of ministries, Christian Reformed Church in North America.
Ronald Brugler, president, The Swedenborgian Church.
John A. Buehrens, past president, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
Tony Campolo, professor emeritus, Eastern University.
John Bryson Chane, bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Washington.
Canice Connors, OFM.Conv., president, Conference of Major Superiors of Men .
John P. Crossley,director, School of Religion University of Southern California.
Robert Edgar, general secretary, National Council of Churches.
Joseph A. Fiorenza, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Galveston – Houston.
Jim Forest, secretary, Orthodox Peace Fellowship.
Robert Franklin, president, Interdenominational Theological Center.
Linda C. Fuller, co-founder and president, Habitat for Humanity.
Millard Fuller, founder and president, Habitat for Humanity.
Michael J. Gorman, Ph.D., Dean, The Ecumenical Institute of Theology.
St. Mary’s Seminary & University.
Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, general secretary, Reformed Church in America.
Richard L. Hamm, general minister and president, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada.
Stan Hastey, executive director, The Alliance of Baptists.
Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., bishop, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
President-elect, National Council of Churches.
William C. Imes, president, Bangor Theological Seminary.
Thomas H. Jeavons, general secretary, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
Holly H. Johnson, president, Blanton-Peale Institute of Psychology and Religion.
Norman J. Kansfield, president, New Brunswick Theological Seminary.
Michael Mata, director, Urban Leadership Institute.
Felton Edwin May, bishop, Baltimore-Washington Conference United Methodist Church.
A. Roy Medley, general secretary, American Baptist Churches USA.
John W. Oliver, coordinator, Orthodox Peace Fellowship in North America.
Glenn Palmberg, president, Evangelical Covenant Church.
Robert M. Parham, executive director, Baptist Center for Ethics.
Judy Mills Reimer, general secretary, Church of the Brethren General Board.
David Robinson, national coordinator, Pax Christi USA.
Cheryl J. Sanders, professor of Christian Ethics, Howard University School of Divinity Senior Pastor, Third Street Church of God.
William J. Shaw, president, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
Carole Shinnick, SSND, executive director, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
Ronald G. Sider, president, Evangelicals for Social Action.
Glen Stassen, Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics Fuller Theological Seminary.
Walter F. Sullivan, bishop-president of Pax Christi USA , bishop, Catholic Diocese of Richmond.
John H. Thomas, general minister and president, United Church of Christ.
Joe Volk, executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Jim Wallis, executive director/editor, Sojourners.
Barbara G. Wheeler, president, Auburn Theological Seminary.
Mary Ann Zollmann BVM, president, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

United Kingdom
Peter Price, bishop Of Bath and Wells.
Michael Langrish, bishop of Exeter.
Stephen Venner, bishop of Dover.
Michael Dunelm, bishop of Durham.
Michael Scott-Joynt, bishop of Winchester.
Colin Bennetts, bishop of Coventry.
Keiran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton (RC).
Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester and Bishop to HM Prisons, Church of England.
Jonathan Bailey, bishop of Derby.
John Perry, bishop of Chelmsford.
John Hind, bishop of Chichester.
Tim Stevens, bishop of Leicester
Keith Sutton, bishop of Lichfield.
John Saxbee, bishop of Lincoln.
Anthony Pierce, bishop of Swansea & Brecon.
John Gladwin, bishop of Guilford.
Christopher Herbert, bishop of St. Albans.
John Stewart Davies, bishop of St Asaph.
The Rt Rev’d Dr Barry Morgan, bishop of Llandaff.
Most Rev Andrew Bruce Cameron, bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney.
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Michael Hare Duke, retired bishop of St Andrews.
Maurice Taylor, bishop of Galloway, Scotland (RC).
Alan D McDonald, convener, Church and Nation Committee
Church of Scotland.
Dr Nigel Goring Wright, president of the Baptist Union of Great Britain.
C Rosemary H Castagner, clerk, Ireland Yearly Meeting’s Committee.
Canon Andrew White, coventry Cathedral Reconciliation Centre.
Pat Gaffney, general secretary, Pax Christi UK n

(http://www.sojo.net/action)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Editorial 3

Plea to the Pope

February 28, 2003

Dear Friends,

The world needs a miracle. The Iraqi people need a miracle. There is a new plan to bring about this miracle and we need everyone’s help! We need to ask some very high profile people to go to Baghdad and stay there until the threat of war is withdrawn (meaning the troops leave the Persian Gulf).

Please e-mail, fax, or call Pope John Paul II (even if you’re not Catholic!) and ask him to go to Baghdad on behalf of the innocent Iraqi people who will suffer from a US military attack. Below is a letter from Dr. Helen Caldicott explaining this new anti-war campaign and some sample letters.

Thank you,

Sue Gray
webmaster@rfpeace.org.

An appeal from Dr. Helen Caldicott

I write this appeal for your help as a paediatri
cian, a mother and a grandmother — and I am writing about the lives of tens of thousands of children. Although the current administration has demonstrated it has no reservations about slaughtering up to 500,000 innocents in Iraq, there is one person whose life they absolutely will not risk.

That person is Pope John Paul II. While the Pope has already formally denounced the proposed war, calling it a defeat for humanity, as well as sent his top spokesperson to meet with Saddam Hussein, he now must take a historically unprecedented action of his own and travel to Baghdad.

The Pope’s physical presence in Iraq will act as the ultimate human shield, during which time leaders of the world’s nations can commit themselves to identifying and implementing a peaceful solution to this war that the world’s majority clearly does not support.

To persuade the Holy Father to take this unusual but potent action, he must hear from you and millions of others around the world who have already been inspired to stand up and speak out for peace. A mountain of e-mail, faxes and phone calls are our devices to inspire him. Please understand that your taking just a few minutes right now to communicate with him may ultimately spare the lives of thousands of innocent people who at this moment live in complete terror from the threat of an imminent U.S.-lead military strike on their homeland. So here is what you can do to be a part of this powerful final action to stop the march to war in Iraq.

At the close of the letter, type in your name, city and state—no need to include your address.

Suggested draft of letter:

Your Holiness,

It is out of a sense of great urgency that we are writing this letter. At this very moment the United States of America is on the verge of launching what may be the most cataclysmic war in history, using weapons of mass destruction upon the Iraqi people. Conservative estimates are that such a war will result in the death of 500,000 Iraqis; fifty per cent of their population are less than 15 years of age. It seems clear that, at this time, you are the only person on Earth who can stop this war.

Indeed, your physical presence in Baghdad, will prevent the impending slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human beings, and force the international community to find and implement a peaceful way to prevent this unprecedented, pre–emptive aggression.

We implore your Holiness to travel to Baghdad and to remain there until a peaceful solution to this crisis has been reached. The lives of the people of Iraq rest in your hands as does the fate of the world.

Signed.

(Email of Pope John Paul II:
accreditamenti@pressva.va)

Note: Please pass this original e-mail on to as many people you can so as to assure a critical mass is reached in this action.

Note that as you and others begin sending your letters, faxes and e-mails, there will be a simultaneous effort to alert the media of this action, so as to be sure it is publicly known throughout the world.

Thank you for participating in this formal request of the Pope. We just may stop this war in Iraq – and save these childrens’ lives.

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 7

Stars war with Bush

February 28, 2003

Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon Barbra Streisand and other Hollywood stars speak out against the American administration’s war on Iraq

Dear Friends,

March 17, 2003

The fictional president of television’s The West Wing wants the respect of the American people. Martin Sheen wrote in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times Monday that Hollywood celebrities opposed to the potential war with Iraq are not getting enough respect and are merely being taken to task because of their "celebrity status."

"Although my opinion is not any more valuable or relevant merely because I am an actor, that fact does not render it unimportant," Sheen wrote. "Some have suggested otherwise, trying to denigrate the validity of this opinion and those of my colleagues solely due to our celebrity status. This is insulting not only to us but to other people of conscience who love their country enough to risk its wrath by going against the grain of powerful government policy."

Sheen added, "Whether celebrity or diplomat, cabdriver or student, all deserve a turn at the podium."

The veteran actor and frequent protester’s piece ran next to an opinion piece by a woman whose family fled Iraq 11 years ago. She singled out Sheen, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand as those she says don’t speak for the people of Iraq. Sheen – who formed the activist group Artists United to Win Without War in December – recently claimed that top executives at NBC fear his outspoken opposition to the war will hurt his show, The West Wing.

An NBC spokeswoman, however, responded that network executives have expressed no such concerns. The claim resulted in the Screen Actors Guild recently raising the spectre of the Hollywood Blacklist era of the 1950s, and issued a statement that warned the entertainment industry that it better not punish people who speak out against war with Iraq.

"It is the fundamental right of citizens to express their support or their fears and concerns," the SAG statement read. "While passionate disagreement is to be expected in such a debate, a disturbing trend has arisen in the dialogue."

(http://www.wral.com)

February 6, 2003

Double Oscar winner Dustin Hoffman on Wednes day accused US President George Bush’s administration of "manipulating the grief of the country" post-September 11 to win backing for a possible war with Iraq.

Hoffman, speaking as he picked up the life-time achievement prize at the Empire magazine film awards in central London, added that he believed America’s motives for going to war included power and oil.

He said, "I believe, though I may be wrong because I am no expert, that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil."

Other Hollywood stars who have already attacked President Bush over Iraq include Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon.

But actor Tom Cruise, who starred alongside Hoffman in Rain Man, has come out in support of the US president.

(http://www.channelnewsasia.com)

December 15, 2002

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP): UN inspectors hunted for
weapons of mass destruction at missile plants and nuclear complexes Sunday, while an unusual visitor — Hollywood star Sean Penn — spoke out in Baghdad against a US attack and in support of the Iraqi people caught up in an international crisis. Penn issued his comments at the end of a three-day visit to Iraq which was organised by the Institute for Public Accuracy, a research organisation based in San Francisco, California.

"Simply put, if there is a war or continued sanctions against Iraq, the blood of Americans and Iraqis alike will be on our (American) hands," Penn said at a news conference in the Iraqi capital Sunday.

October 8, 2002

As Washington rattles its sabre at Saddam Hussein,
a constellation of Hollywood megastars has come out to do public battle against President George W Bush’s policy towards Iraq.

In a town with a strong liberal tradition and long history of political activism, there is an increasing rumbling over Iraq coming from some top celebrities — although not all are opposed to war with Baghdad.

However, with their names alone able to generate headlines and huge press coverage, many have chosen to throw their weight into the political debate surrounding a possible US and British led war with Iraq.

Diva Barbra Streisand led the attack on Bush, telling a star-studded audience today that she found his administration "frightening" and slamming its alleged bellicose stance and failure to protect civil rights.

"I find bringing the country to the brink of war unilaterally five weeks before an election questionable — and very, very frightening," the singer and actress told the Democratic party fundraiser in Hollywood.

Streisand is the biggest Tinseltown personality to take aim at Bush’s eagerness to oust Saddam by force, but a growing list of stars is joining the movement.

On Friday, several hundred celebrities and intellectuals published a manifest entitled "Not in our Name" in the Los Angeles Times, a tract which urged Americans to resist their government’s policies.

We "call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world," they wrote.

Among the signatories were JFK movie director Oliver Stone, Gosford Park filmmaker Robert Altman, British-born Terry Gilliam, actress Jane Fonda, Lethal Weapon star Danny Glover and Susan Sarandon, star of Thelma and Louise.

Oscar-winning Sarandon and long-time partner Tim Robbins went even further during the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, publicly voicing their fears about a war with Iraq and saying they were opposed to "military expansion."

"I don’t think that a military expansion of violence is the solution," she said. "No, I don’t think I would want to go to war against Iraq."

Tootsie star Jessica Lange weighed in while in Madrid last week, saying military action on Iraq was "wrong, immoral and basically illegal. "It makes me feel ashamed to come from the United States. It is humiliating."

But while many stars have come out against military action, some have backed it, creating something of an ideological divide in usually superficial Tinseltown.

Superstar Tom Cruise and movie magnate Steven Spielberg backed Bush’s stance during a publicity tour to Italy last month.

"If Bush, as I believe, has reliable information on the fact that Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction, I cannot not support the policies of his government," Spielberg said, adding that Bush’s policies were "solid and rooted in reality."

Cruise also came down on Washington’s side, saying that he believed "Saddam has committed many crimes against humanity and against his own people."

The sudden re-emergence of the strident brand of "star activism" reminiscent of the Vietnam War era has caused some critics to question the competence of Hollywood movie stars and filmmakers to get involved in politics.

But political science professor Sherry Bebitch Jeffe disagreed, saying they were as entitled as anyone else to express themselves.

"Just because a person is a celebrity, he or she does not have to give up his or her first amendment rights, it’s as simple as that," she said.

"I think that actors have always been activists, there’s more attention paid to them," she said, adding that the tradition went back to the 1950s era of the McCarthy anti-communist "witch-hunts" and World War II.

However, the University of Southern California academic warned that stars’ power to influence policy may be more limited than people like Streisand would like to think.

"Hollywood does not have much influence on public opinion, but (Streisand) raises enough money for the Democratic Party that people have to at least listen to what she has to say." (AFP)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 8

What does Hollywood know about the upcoming war with Iraq?

February 28, 2003

February 7, 2003

With the USA about to launch a war against Iraq any day now, what will trigger the war? Obviously, Colin Powell’s revelations before Congress didn’t set in motion an immediate attack. Americans sit and wait for convincing evidence. But maybe Hollywood knows…

I previously reported on Hollywood’s uncanny foreknowledge when production of war films began prior to Sept. 11, 2001. (www.lewrockwell.com Feb. 20 and June 4, 2002) Now there is talk that a TV series called "24" may provide clues to what might set off public sentiment to attack Iraq.

In the script for "24," Kiefer Sutherland plays the part of federal agent Jack Bauer who has been called back into service in a counter terrorism unit because of the threat of a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in Los Angeles. According to the script, a Middle Eastern terrorist cell called the "Second Wave" places the dirty bomb in Los Angeles which would put 2.5 million residents at risk for casualties.

In the TV series, "the President vows to retaliate against an unnamed Middle Eastern country that has harboured the group in much the same fashion that President Bush has done with anyone giving shelter to those behind 9/11." (BBC News, Entertainment Section, Oct. 30, 2002) Mark Armstrong, writing for E! Online News, says the "24" series story line "hits a little bit too close to home for viewers." [E! Online News July 1, 2002]

The TV series has aired in the USA and is scheduled to air in Britain soon. Oddly, the entire series was sponsored on US television by Ford Motor Company, instead of multiple sponsors.

Even if a terrorist organisation had a "dirty nuclear bomb," it wouldn’t produce a mushroom cloud over Los Angeles or any other city. A "dirty bomb" is simply a regular explosive device that disperses radioactive material. So the TV series is inaccurate and spreads inordinate fear. The American Institute of Physics reports that radiation emitted from a "dirty bomb" is likely to be too low to calculate and that the greatest risk from such a weapon is panic. [American Institute of Physics, March 12, 2002] Furthermore, Iraq has no nuclear weapons of fissionable materials according to the UN nuclear inspection agency. [Toronto Sun, Sept. 15, 2002] So don’t look towards Iraq as a possible nuclear terrorist.

Whether Hollywood productions predict reality is of course open for discussion. Certainly Hollywood has been involved in producing war and propaganda films for decades if for nothing else than helping to recruit troops. Of course America didn’t witness the detonation of a "dirty nuclear bomb" at the recent Super Bowl in San Diego, even though this was the central theme in the movie The Sum Of All Fears (Paramount Pictures) based on a Tom Clancy novel.

But maybe Hollywood scripts that contain terrorist threats from foreign groups continue to keep American citizens on edge. There is already criticism that the White House is manufacturing terrorist alerts to keep the issue alive in the minds of voters and help elevate President Bush’s approval ratings. (Capitol Hill Blue, Jan. 3, 2003).

Of course the President hasn’t been waiting for any evidence, or even a "dirty bomb," to go to war. The Washington Post recently revealed that President George W. Bush planned to go to war against Iraq only days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. (Wash. Post Jan. 12, 2003) And why would Iraq sponsor a terrorist attack on the US knowing full well it would prompt horrific retaliation?

Last January, the Los Angeles Times ran a story about the lies that were told to get the US into its first war with Iraq over a decade ago, such as over-exaggerated claims of Iraqi troop strength and stories of Iraqi soldiers yanking new-born babies out of hospital incubators. (Jan. 5, 2003) Television news agencies certainly played a part in disseminating the misinformation leading up to the Gulf War and no American news agency today has ever apologised for airing the false "Iraqi incubator" story. Will the same kind of misinformation be used to get Americans behind this new war effort?

The White House needs something to get the stalled war effort off the ground. Time magazine recently conducted an online poll asking Americans which country, North Korea, Iraq or the USA, posed the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? Out of more than a quarter million votes cast, 83.4% picked the USA as the greatest threat to world peace. (Time magazine, Jan. 22, 2003).

Government sources continue to warn of an impending smallpox terrorist attack. But why wouldn’t a terrorist organisation have released such a terrible bio-weapon before the US had its vaccine ready? The mass vaccination programme promoted by federal authorities would offer little or no protection unless the exact strain of smallpox virus was known ahead of time. The federal government apparently had prior knowledge of the anthrax threat. The White House continues to dodge questions about its foreknowledge of an anthrax threat evidenced by administration of the antibiotic drug CIPRO to White House staff on the same day as the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (World Net Daily, Jan. 11, 2003).

What does the federal government know about the alleged smallpox threat? The strain of anthrax used in US mail envelopes was traced back to the US army labs at Fort Detrick in Maryland, the same place where the only known stores of smallpox virus outside of Russia are housed. To date, US efforts to apprehend the anthrax terrorist appear to have dwindled. If that terrorist had access to bio-weapons at Ft. Detrick in the past, what would stop him now?

(Courtesy Bill Sardi. Sardi is a health journalist who dabbles from time to time in current affairs. His website is www.askbillsardi.com).

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 9

Facing our fears

February 28, 2003

The Bush administration wants us to be afraid, but remain quiet about it. Our power will come not from denying the fear but in confronting, and overcoming, it. So, we must speak of it, not to scare others but to bring us closer together.

March 17, 2003

I am finally ready to admit what for months I have kept hidden: I am terrified. I am more scared than I have ever been in my adult life. For weeks now I have felt a new kind of free-floating terror at what has been unfolding, as the Bush administration has made it clear that nothing would derail its mad rush to war.

Until now, I have not spoken of it. In organising meetings or talks to community groups or rally speeches, I held back. The task was to build the antiwar movement, and I worried that talking too much about my fear might undermine that. People need to feel empowered, hopeful, I told myself; we should be talking about the potential of the movement.

That hasn’t changed. We have to continue to build the movement, which has enormous potential over the long-term to turn this society away from war and profit, toward peace and the needs of people. We cannot abandon our commitment to the people of the world, the work of education and organising that we all must do if we are to make good on that commitment.

But I no longer think we can build such a movement by suppressing or keeping quiet about this fear we feel. In the past few weeks I have seen this fear so clearly in the eyes of my friends, heard it in the nervous comments of strangers, and been surprised by it in the unease with which even many supporters of the war talked.

I knew it when this past weekend my father — a conservative, Republican small-town businessman and World War II-era veteran — tried to convince me that Bush wouldn’t really start a war, that he was bluffing, just being cagey. Even my father was scared of the plans of the man he voted for.

I think people all over the world whose capacity to feel has not been occluded by power or hate are feeling something like this. It is not a fear of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction or even necessarily of this particular war, as frightening as all those things may be. I believe it is a fear of something more difficult to pin down, a fear of the forces that will be unleashed when the United States defies the world and launches a war that — while couched in talk of protecting people from threats — is so obviously about projecting US power to achieve a kind of world domination that was never possible before.

Bush and his advisers proudly announce that they have cast aside any commitment to collective security, real diplomacy, and international law. Will the United Nations survive? Will there be anything left of an international system when Bush and his gang are finished? Will there be any hope for the peaceful settlement of disputes? Of course none of these concepts has ever been fully implemented, and we all know that the international institutions have flaws. But will anyone feel safer in a world in which the law comes only from the blade of the American sword, permanently drawn?

This fear I feel is not just of power-run-amok but of an empire with the most destructive military capacity that has ever existed — an empire with thermobaric bombs and cruise missiles, cluster bombs and nuclear "bunker busters." No matter how hard the government works to try to keep us from seeing the results of those weapons — and no matter how much the news media cooperate in that project — we understand how many civilians could die under the onslaught of these horrific weapons. They can censor the pictures, but not our imaginations.

This fear I feel is not just of the unchecked power of the United States but of the fact that Bush and his advisers seem to think they understand their own power and can control it. It is the arrogance of virtually unlimited power married to lifelong privilege. It is hubris, and in a nuclear world there is no sin that is potentially more deadly.

This is the fear that I feel, that I think so many of us feel. The Bush administration wants us to be afraid, but remain quiet about it. Our power will come not from denying the fear but in confronting, and overcoming, it. So, we must speak of it, not to scare others but to bring us closer together. Our only hope against the fear is in each other, in our organising, in our resistance. And if we can confront our fears, we can confront this empire.

If you feel this fear and aren’t sure that, in the face of it, you can remain involved — or get involved for the first time — in the antiwar movement, all I can say is, "Where else will you go?" If we retreat into our private spaces, thinking we can hide, we will find out quickly that this fear will follow us everywhere.

Our only way out is together, in public, facing not only our fears but the fears that others will project onto us, and inviting them to join us. It will be painful. It will carry with it certain risks. But it is the only way we can hang onto our own humanity.

I am scared, and I need help. We all do. Let us pledge not to let each other down — for our own sake, and for the sake of the world.

(Robert Jensen is a founding member of the Nowar Collective (www.nowarcollective.com), a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 10

Cracks within

February 28, 2003

Statistically insignificant they may be, but the resignations of a few politicians and diplomats in the US, UK and Australia puncture more holes in the dubious claims of the warmongers

Why I had to leave the cabinet

ROBIN COOK

March 19, 2003

I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour’s foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us.

I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

In recent days, France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.

The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not NATO. Not the EU. And now not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet, tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired.

The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a serious threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term — namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the Eighties when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet, it is over 30 years since Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.

I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for Parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support.

(The Guardian, UK)
(The writer is a former British foreign secretary and till March 17 was the leader
of the House of Commons)

Anti-war official rocks Australian govt.

BOB BURTON

March 12, 2003

CANBERRA:The Australian government has been stunned by the resignation of one of its senior intelligence analysts who argues that, based on US and other intelligence information he has seen, there is currently no justification for a war on Iraq.

"I’m convinced a war against Iraq at this time would be wrong. For a start, Iraq does not pose a security threat to the US, or to the UK or Australia, or to any other country, at this point in time," former Office of National Assessments intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie said, announcing his resignation late on Wednesday evening.

"I just don’t believe that a war at this time would be worth the risk,’’ he said.

A critical factor behind Wilkie’s resignation was claims made by US secretary of state Colin Powell to the UN Security Council purporting that a link exists between Al Qaeda and Iraq. "As far as I’m aware there was no hard evidence and there is still no hard evidence that there is any active co-operation between Iraq and Al Qaeda,’’ Wilkie told Australia Broadcasting Corp. (ABC) television.

Three years ago, Wilkie, a 41-year-old career military officer, was seconded to the Office of National Assessments, which prepares briefings for the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet from a wide range of intelligence sources.

Wilkie has worked on global terrorism and transnational issues including Afghanistan and the likely humanitarian consequences of a war on Iraq.

Wilkie describes his resignation as the "biggest decision I think I’ve ever made in my life’’ but felt compelled to act by what he thought is the prospect of a high risk of humanitarian crisis from any US-led attack on Iraq.

"I don’t believe I could stand by any longer and take no action as this coalition marches to war. I think the interests of the thousands of people, perhaps tens or even more, tens of thousands of people or even more who could be injured, displaced or killed in a war, I think their interests are more important,’’ he said.

The director general of the Office of National Assessments, Kim Jones, sought to downplay the significance of Wilkie’s resignation. "The officer concerned was a member of our transnational issues branch. He normally worked on illegal immigration issues. The transnational issues branch does not deal with issues related to Iraq,’’ Jones said, reading from a statement.

Speaking to journalists in Jakarta late Wednesday evening, minister of foreign affairs Alexander Downer, also sought to dismiss Wilkie’s resignation. "Mr Wilkie has come to the view that he doesn’t support the Australian government’s policy, and I think in those circumstances he’s done the honourable thing and resigned.’’

As one of the few ex-military officers that work at the Office of National Assessments, Wilkie was identified as one of the people who would work in the national intelligence watch office if a war in Iraq eventuated. In preparation for that role he had access to all intelligence information flowing into the agency on the topic.

Only hours before Wilkie’s resignation, Prime Minister John Howard sought to justify Australia’s support for the US war on Iraq on the basis of countering groups like Al Qaeda.

"To me, the ultimate nightmare of the modern world is that chemical and biological weapons will get into the hands of terrorists, and believe me, they will use them. They will not care about the cost (of what) they do to the countries against, or the peoples against which they are used,’’ Howard said in Sydney.

Wilkie believes that a war on Iraq may well turn out to be counter-productive. "In fact, a war is the exact course of action most likely to cause Saddam to do exactly what we’re trying to prevent. I believe it’s the course of action that is most likely to cause him to lash out recklessly, to use weapons of mass destruction and to possibly play a terrorism card,’’ he said.

Wilkie hopes that his actions will force Howard to rethink its unquestioning support for a unilateral strike against Iraq. "If my action today and over the next couple of days, can make the Australian government rethink its position, and maybe take a more sensible approach to developing its policy on Iraq, I think it’s been worthwhile,’’ he said.

In the wake of mass rallies in mid-February in which well over half a million citizens publicly demonstrated against the war, Wilkie’s resignation has demonstrated the depth of concern amongst the normally conservative ranks of the intelligence and foreign affairs establishment.

Former Office of National Assessments analyst and now the head of the Global Terrorism Center at Monash University, David Wright Neville, believes there is great concern about Howard’s policy in intelligence and military circles.

’’Speaking to former colleagues, former contacts both in the Office of National Assessments and other elements of the intelligence community, (there) are widespread concerns that are similar to Andrew’s about the direction in which the government is taking us,’’ he said.

With opposition to Australia’s deployment of 2,000 personnel to the Middle East growing, opposition political parties and the peace movement sense that Howard is now becoming electorally very vulnerable.

An opinion poll commissioned by the public relations company that works for the Labour Party and released on Wednesday revealed that 59 per cent of Australians oppose a unilateral attack on Iraq. However, a UN-endorsed attack was supported by 64 per cent of the 1,000 people surveyed.

According to opposition foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, Wilkie’s resignation ‘’torpedoes the credibility’’ of Howard. (Courtesy: IPS)

Second US diplomat resigns

March 10, 2003

A veteran US diplomat resigned today in protest over US policy toward Iraq, becoming the second career foreign service officer to do so in the past month.

John Brown, who joined the State Department in 1981, said he resigned because he could not support Washington’s Iraq policy, which he said was fomenting a massive rise in anti-US sentiment around the world.

In a resignation letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Brown said he agreed with J Brady Kiesling, a diplomat at the US embassy in Athens who quit in February over President George W Bush’s apparent intent on fighting Iraq.

"I am joining my colleague John Brady Kiesling in submitting my resignation from the Foreign Service — effective immediately — because I cannot in good conscience support President Bush’s war plans against Iraq," he said.

"Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force," Brown said in the letter, a copy of which he sent to AFP.

"The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century," he said.

"I joined the Foreign Service because I love our country," Brown said. "Respectfully, Mr Secretary, I am now bringing this calling to a close, with a heavy heart but for the same reason that I embraced it."

Two senior State Department officials confirmed that Powell had received the letter from Brown, who had served at the US embassies in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and Moscow before being assigned to be a diplomat-in-residence at Georgetown University in Washington. n

(Wire Services) (http://www.unitedforpeace.org)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 11

The ‘free press’ myth

February 28, 2003

As always, the ‘patriotic’ mainline American media is an integral part

of the pro-war propaganda machine

IN THE former USSR, people knew that the country’s state-owned newspaper Pravda would peddle Moscow’s line, no matter how outrageous the lies. George W. Bush can’t boast that the Republican Party owns the country’s newspapers, television stations or radio networks. But he can still count on a press that’s nearly as obedient as Pravda.

No matter how many lies George Bush tells about Iraq’s "threat" to the US, the corporate media won’t ask him the hard questions. Bush and his administration know that they can count on the "patriotism" of the press — which will report on the coming war like a local sports reporter rooting for the home team. And Bush — unlike the rulers of the former USSR — won’t even have to issue any orders or appoint any news censors. That’s because the press in the US censors itself.

In May 2002, CBS news anchor Dan Rather acknowledged, "What we are talking about here —whether one wants to recognise it or not, or call it by its proper name or not — is a form of self-censorship. It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole… felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves. And one finds oneself saying: ‘I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it.’"

Of course, Rather said this to Britain’s BBC — and didn’t have the courage to say it at home, where he had been leading the patriotic charge in the media after the attacks of September 11. Predictably, almost no outlet of the US mainstream media reported on Rather’s comments.

No one in Washington had to tell newspapers to bury them – just like no one had to tell the press to ignore reports, published in Britain’s Observer newspaper, that the Bush administration spied on United Nations (UN) Security Council members during the debate on a new resolution to authorise war on Iraq.

And few media outlets have focused on Newsweek magazine’s revelation that Iraqi Gen. Hussein Kamel, a prominent defector, testified in 1995 that Iraq had already been significantly disarmed. Bush and other administration officials have regularly cited Kamel’s testimony as evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.

The fact is that the media will support this war, despite the restrictions that the government will place on their ability to report freely — and despite the administration’s open manipulation of information.

The image presented of the new Gulf War will be totally sanitised. During the US bombardment of Afghanistan, Walter Isaacson, the chief executive of CNN, told his staff that it was "perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan." And during the 1991 Gulf War, the media quickly buried images of the horrific slaughter carried out against retreating soldiers and civilians on the "Highway of Death" at the end of the war.

The media lines up with the government on fundamental matters not because of any conspiracy or backroom deals, but because the media themselves are huge corporations that share the same economic and political interests with the tiny elite that runs the US government. In some cases, they’re the same people.

It’s now common practice for the Big Three networks to put former military officials, politicians and government bureaucrats on the payroll. "The media has simply become a branch of the war effort," the Palestinian author Edward Said wrote recently. "What has entirely disappeared from television is anything remotely resembling a consistently dissenting voice." As if to underline the point, in February, the cable news network MSNBC cancelled Phil Donahue’s show – and announced that it was hiring Republican hack Dick Armey as a commentator.

Current and former government voices dominate the "debate" in the media about war and other questions of foreign policy. "Unnamed government sources," press spokespeople, Pentagon officers, White House officials, and ideologues close to the administration make up most of the "experts" and "reliable sources" that we hear from.

The corporations that dominate the media are getting more and more concentrated. Ben Bagdikian, author of Media Monopoly, estimates that six inter-linked corporations dominate the US media today. NBC is owned by major military contractor General Electric. But even news media that aren’t directly tied to the military-industrial complex have a stake in the system.

That’s because the media are in the business of making profits from selling advertising. Print, television and radio media all make their money by selling audiences to advertisers – and they know that their bottom line will suffer if they pursue stories that might damage advertisers.

The economics of reporting also shapes the news that we see. For example, rather than spend large sums to send an investigative reporter to uncover human rights abuses against detainees being tortured at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, for next to nothing, the media can cover the latest White House press conference denying the crimes.

That means independent media are a crucial source of information that the mainstream media won’t report – or will bury in a sea of pro-war coverage. We need to support independent media efforts where we can and build our own newspapers, like Socialist Worker, that will tell the truth about this war. But we also need to directly challenge the corporate media outlets – to force their hand and shame them into covering the stories that we know they would rather not touch.

After months of downplaying the size of demonstrations against the war on Iraq, major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post were forced to give front-page coverage to the massive February 15 international demonstrations against the war. The main reason was that the participation of more than 10 million people around the world meant the demonstrations were simply too big for editors to bury. But activists also directly targeted National Public Radio, the Times and other elite media — and shamed them into acknowledging that they had ignored the story of earlier protests.

February 15 showed the power of protest to reach millions of people who share our anger about this war – and who will be more likely to join us on the streets at the next demonstration. We can also look to the example of the Vietnam War to see this power. The media backed the brutal war against the people of Vietnam from the moment that the US began to send in its "advisers." But the anti-war movement forced the reality of the war into public consciousness – and pressured the US establishment, including the media, to open up the issue to debate.

Reporters were able to file stories that exposed the brutality of the war and challenged the government’s lies – a process that led millions of people to turn against the Vietnam War, and eventually helped bring it to an end.

Wag the media lapdog

Nothing exposed the Washington press corps as lapdogs as much as its gutless behaviour at George Bush’s White House press conference two weeks ago. Bush got away with mentioning September 11 eight times during the press conference — even though, to date, no one has offered any evidence that there’s any connection between Iraq and the hijackings.

But the media have given Bush a free pass to use September 11 as a pretext for a war against Iraq. "As a bogus rallying cry, ‘Remember 9/11’ ranks with ‘Remember the Maine’ of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964," Nation journalist William Greider recently wrote.

Greider points out that, according to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. And 55 per cent believe that Saddam directly supports Al Qaeda, according to an ABC News poll.

There’s no evidence for either belief. But here’s one question that you won’t hear the media asking: How have we contributed to spreading these myths, which we then report as evidence of people’s support for war?

As veteran journalist Tom Wicker wrote recently, "Bush administration spokesmen have made several cases for waging war against Iraq, and the US press has tended to present all those cases to the public as if they were gospel." We are seeing, Wicker concluded, "an American press that seems sometimes to be playing on the administration team rather than pursuing the necessary search for truth, wherever it may lead."

‘Just tell me where I should line up’

Dan Rather is sometimes pointed out as an example of liberal bias in the media. It’s hard to understand why, though, when you look at what Rather has had to say about the "war on terrorism."

"George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

"Whatever arguments one may or may not have had with George Bush the younger before September 11, he is our commander in chief, he’s the man now. And we need unity, we need steadiness. I’m not preaching about it. We all know this."

"I would willingly die for my country at a moment’s notice and on the command of my president."

The ‘liberal bias’ hoax

Of the many myths about the US media, the two most common are that we have a "free press" and that we have a "liberal" media. In its ads for the aggressively right-wing Fox News Channel, Roger Ailes, the network’s chairman, sums up these two myths in a single quote: "America guarantees a free press… Freedom relies on a fair press."

The implication of Ailes’ idiotic statement is that Fox is providing a right-wing balance against the liberal bias of the mainstream press. But is there a liberal bias?

Nation columnist Eric Alterman recently did a study of newspaper articles and found that since 1992, the word "media" appeared close to the phrase "liberal bias" 469 times. The words "media" and "conservative bias" were linked only 17 times. As Alterman notes, "If people are disposed to believe that the media have a liberal bias, it’s because that’s what the media have been telling them all along."

Likewise, right-wing "watchdog" groups have orchestrated well-financed campaigns to squelch any deviation in the mainstream media. "We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America’s war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush," said L Brent Bozell III, founder of the Media Research Center (MRC). Or, as the MRC’s director of media research Rick Noyes put it: "What we were looking for was home-team sports reporting."

The truth is that the media is far from "liberal"—and far from free. The press is free only for those who own the press — that is, individual billionaires and huge corporations. And those gatekeepers of who can and cannot appear on the news or in the editorial pages overwhelmingly share the assumptions of the tiny elite that runs this country.

Far from liberal, they share a narrow worldview that accepts the "right" of the US military and the free market to dominate people’s lives around the world – and this is what we see reflected in the corporate media. What "debate" we see in the media is overwhelmingly between people who agree on the fundamentals – but occasionally disagree on how best to sell their right-wing agenda.

Why Donahue got canned at MSNBC

Veteran television talk show host Phil Donahue had his show pulled by MSNBC in February. Why? A leaked internal report says that his show presented "a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war."

"He seems to delight in presenting guests who are antiwar, anti-Bush and sceptical of the administration’s motives," the report said. Of course, you won’t see any leaked reports about how notorious right-wingers, such as Bill O’Reilly and Brit Hume at Fox News, consistently present pro-war, pro-Bush voices.

The leaked NBC document describes Donahue as "a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace." In fact, Donahue’s show averaged more than 4,46,000 viewers and was the top-rated show on MSNBC, outperforming Hardball with Chris Matthews.

But NBC is in a race to the bottom with Fox – to see which network can wrap itself in the largest flag. Cutting out Donahue was part of NBC’s strategy for shedding anything that might make it seem like a "liberal" network.

(Socialist Worker, March 19, 2003)
(http://www.zmag.org)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 12

No to war

February 28, 2003

The most powerful state in history has proclaimed that it intends to control the world by force, the dimension in which it reigns supreme. President Bush and his cohorts evidently believe that the means of violence in their hands are so extraordinary that they can dismiss anyone who stands in their way.

The consequences could be catastrophic in Iraq and around the world. The United States may reap a whirlwind of terrorist retaliation – and step up the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and company are committed to an "imperial ambition," as G. John Ikenberry wrote in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs – "a unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor" and in which "no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader, protector and enforcer."

That ambition surely includes much expanded control over Persian Gulf resources and military bases to impose a preferred form of order in the region.

Even before the administration began beating the war drums against Iraq, there were plenty of warnings that US adventurism would lead to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as terror, for deterrence or revenge.

Right now, Washington is teaching the world a dangerous lesson: If you want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible threat. Otherwise we will demolish you.

There is good reason to believe that the war with Iraq is intended, in part, to demonstrate what lies ahead when the empire decides to strike a blow — though "war" is hardly the proper term, given the gross mismatch of forces.

A flood of propaganda warns that if we do not stop Saddam Hussein today he will destroy us tomorrow.

Last October, when Congress granted the president the authority to go to war, it was "to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

But no country in Iraq’s neighbourhood seems overly concerned about Saddam, much as they may hate the murderous tyrant.

Perhaps that is because the neighbours know that Iraq’s people are at the edge of survival. Iraq has become one of the weakest states in the region. As a report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences points out, Iraq’s economy and military expenditures are ‘a fraction of some of its neighbours’.

Indeed, in recent years, countries nearby have sought to reintegrate Iraq into the region, including Iran and Kuwait, both invaded by Iraq.

Saddam benefited from US support through the war with Iran and beyond, up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait. Those responsible are largely back at the helm in Washington today.

President Ronald Reagan and the previous Bush administration provided aid to Saddam, along with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction, back when he was far more dangerous than he is now, and had already committed his worst crimes, like murdering thousands of Kurds with poison gas.

An end to Saddam’s rule would lift a horrible burden from the people of Iraq. There is good reason to believe that he would suffer the fate of Nicolae Ceausescu and other vicious tyrants if Iraqi society were not devastated by harsh sanctions that force the population to rely on Saddam for survival while strengthening him and his clique.

Saddam remains a terrible threat to those within his reach. Today, his reach does not extend beyond his own domains, though it is likely that US aggression could inspire a new generation of terrorists bent on revenge, and might induce Iraq to carry out terrorist actions suspected to be already in place.

Right now Saddam has every reason to keep under tight control any chemical and biological weapons that Iraq may have. He wouldn’t provide such weapons to the Osama bin Ladens of the world, who represent a terrible threat to Saddam himself.

And administration hawks understand that, except as a last resort if attacked, Iraq is highly unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction that it has — and risk instant incineration.

Under attack, however, Iraqi society would collapse, including the controls over the weapons of mass destruction. These could be "privatised," as international security specialist Daniel Benjamin warns, and offered to the huge "market for unconventional weapons, where they will have no trouble finding buyers." That really is "a nightmare scenario," he says.

As for the fate of the people of Iraq in war, no one can predict with any confidence: not the CIA, not Rumsfeld, not those who claim to be experts on Iraq, no one.

But international relief agencies are preparing for the worst.

Studies by respected medical organisations estimate that the death toll could rise to the hundreds of thousands. Confidential UN documents warn that a war could trigger a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale" — including the possibility that 30 per cent of Iraqi children could die from malnutrition.

Today the administration doesn’t seem to be heeding the international relief agency warnings about an attack’s horrendous aftermath.

The potential disasters are among the many reasons why decent human beings do not contemplate the threat or use of violence, whether in personal life or international affairs, unless reasons have been offered that have overwhelming force. And surely nothing remotely like that justification has come forward.

(Courtesy International Tribune; March 17, 2003)(Noam Chomsky is a political activist, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author of the bestseller "9-11." He wrote this article for the New York Times Syndicate).

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9 No. 85, Cover Story 13

1...2,6622,6632,664...2,697 Page 2,663 of 2,697

War crime in Iraq: Vatican

‘Illegal, unwise, immoral’

Plea to the Pope

Stars war with Bush

What does Hollywood know about the upcoming war with Iraq?

Facing our fears

Cracks within

Anti-war official rocks Australian govt.

The ‘free press’ myth

No to war

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT