|
January
10, 2002
Marina Mayakova
Russia's
Top Military Astrologer Predicts More Attacks from OBL
January
9, 2002
David
Vest
The
Super-Burqa
and the Big Tent
ND Jayaprakash
Winnable
Nuclear War?
Rafiq
Kathwari
Kashmir
Will Make Ground Zero Look Like a Bonfire
January
8, 2002
Prudence
Crowther
Sting
Like a B-52
Nelson
Valdés
Al-Qaeda
at Guantanamo Bay
John Chuckman
Dark
Tales from the
Ministry of Truth
Richard
Corn-Revere
Do
We Fear Freedom?
Joan Hoff
The
Nixon You Haven't Heard
January
7, 2002
Lawrence
McGuire
Confusing
Economic Tales About Argentina
Wael Masri
They
Are Taking
Our Rights Away
Philip
Farruggio
Better
Medicine
January
6, 2002
Ralph
Nader
Students
Put the Heat on Foreign Sweatshops
Tariq
Ali
Battleground
Kashmir
January
5, 2002
Mark Schneider
Kifah:
The Movie Star
Israel Killed
Edward
Said
Is
Israel More Secure Now?
January
4, 2002
CG Estabrook
Anti-War
= Anti-Globalization
Jordan
Green
What's
Changed in New York
January
3, 2002
Walt Brasch
Exit
Cheney, Enter Ridge
Mokhiber
and Weissman
The
10 Worst Corporations
of 2001
Robert
Hunter Wade
America's
Empire Rules an Unbalanced World
Shahid
Alam
Is
There an Islamic Problem?
January
2, 2002
Ross Regnart
Patriot
Act Redefines the Mob as "Terrorist Associates"
John Chuckman
The
Republicans' Secret Plan X
David
Vest
Turn,
Turn, Turn
January
1, 2002
Kathy
Kelly
Iraq's
New Year
December
31, 2001
John Absood
An
Alternative to War in Iraq
Ramzi
Kysia
Iraq
Goes Radioactive
December
28, 2001
John Chuckman
Observing
George Bush
Suren
Pillay
Civilian
Bodies
Aaron
Lehmer
Inviting
Future Terrorism
December
27, 2001
Patrick
McNamara
Palestinian
Children Bear Brunt of Mideast Violence
Nelson
Valdés
A
Possible Scenario on the Location of bin Laden
Jensen
and Mahajan
Remember
the Afghan Dead
Philip
Farruggio
A
New Year's Resolution
Ramzi
Kysia
The
People of the Valley
December 26, 2001
John Chuckman
In
Praise of the Unspeakable
Sam Bahour
2002:
Year of the Twos
December 25, 2001
Jennifer Loewenstein
Israel's
Human Rights Record
December 24, 2001
Sam Bahour
It
Happened One Morning
Yair Khilou
Why I Resisted
Being Drafted into the Israeli Army
Michael
Chisari
War
as Diversionary Tactic
Cockburn/St. Clair
Enron
and the Green Seal
A Photographic Journal of Life
in an Afghan Refugee Camp
By Judith Mann
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published Oct. 15, 2001
8-Page Special Issue
War Diary
CIA's Assassination Plan a History of
Torture in US Prisons
bin Laden and Bush
Business Connections
Aisha Ikramuddin on the Hidden Hype
of US Food Bombs
Peter Linebaugh on
Pakistan
Christopher Hitchens' Love for Mrs. Thatcher
Jiang Zemin Tells Bush:
Nuke 'Em
Search
CounterPunch
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
January
10, 2002
Iraq:
There Are Alternatives to a Military Option
By Hans Von Sponeck
In October 1998, the US Congress defined US policy
on Iraq and passed the 'Iraq Liberation Act'. It contains a passage
which confirms that the ultimate objective of the United States
authorities is the removal of Saddam Hussain and his government.
This puts the tug of war between the US Departments of State
and Defence into its real perspective.
With the recent demise of the US Iraq
containment policy the issue is not 'whether' Iraq should be
next on the list but 'how' this can be justified and made palatable
to the governments in the Middle East and to the so-called coalition
partners, particularly in Europe. The American public is not
the problem. The majority either does not know the issues and
therefore does not care or is traumatized by the humiliating
atrocities of 11 September and receptive to the medicine of a
military response.
There can be no disagreement that perpetrators
must be brought to justice. The rhetoric escalation of recent
months by US politicians and their media followers in accusing
Iraq of supporting international terrorism is void of evidence.
Not a single incident can be traced to Iraq from the attacks
on the US embassies in Nairobi and Daresalaam to the 1993 and
2001 World Trade Centre bombings. The anthrax crime is an internal
US affair. US intelligence agencies, moreover, know that Iraq
no longer possesses the weapon systems which would allow the
use of the WMD capacity which still exists in the form of Iraqi
scientists. To admit this, however, would be the death nail to
the entire self-serving US Iraq policy.
The US 'case' for an attack against Iraq
is therefore nowhere convincing, not even in Britain. The list
of those who warn against military action grows day by day. Bundeskanzler
Schroder recently warned in the German Parliament that choosing
new targets in the Middle East would backfire and 'could explode
in our faces'. Leaders in the Middle East among them King Abdullah
of Jordan, Presidents Mubarak and Assad, Dr. Amr Moussa, Secretary-General
of the Arab League, the former Saudi intelligence chief Turki
Ibn Faisal and even the two Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq,
Barzani and Talabani echo this concern. The US authorities can
not ignore these apprehensions. The long struggle against terrorism
can not be won without allies. An attack against Iraq would endanger
fragile partnerships and not contribute to eliminating the causes
of conflict in the Middle East. Quick fixes with military hard-ware
will not produce the civilian soft-ware for stability and peace.
Eleven years of a self-serving US policy
of economic sanctions against Iraq have not removed Saddam Hussein,
the ally of the 1980s, but destroyed a society and caused the
death of thousands, young and old. Evidence of the damage attributable
to sanctions is contained in many reports of reputable international
organizations. To say this is not to overlook human rights violations
carried out by the Iraqi authorities. National lawlessness, however,
is no justification for international lawlessness. The International
Bill of Human Rights and other international law in the case
of Iraq have simply been ignored, creating conditions of double
punishment for innocent civilians.
The question that needs an urgent answer
is what kind of an international road map is required in the
case of Iraq to get things straight? First and foremost, Iraq
must be given the opportunity to show its face where it counts,
the UN Security Council. This will only be possible when the
US displays statesmanship and begins to talk to its adversary.
Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has repeatedly offered
dialogue on all issues. This should no longer be rebuffed. There
is a wealth of intelligence information about Iraq on military
and political issues in the hands of the United Nations to gauge
the sincerity of Iraq's willingness to dialogue. The repeatedly
postponed meetings between the Government of Iraq and the UN
Secretary General which finally took place in New York on 26
February constituted a good beginning. At that time, the Iraqis
placed before Secretary General Annan a comprehensive position
paper on all outstanding issues from missing Kuwaitis to stolen
property, compensation and disarmament. Even if this submission
was defective, it should not have been dismissed by the US/UK
as 'nothing new'. It could have been a useful base-line for talks.
Regrettably, after this first meeting, the UN Secretary General
was muzzled by US /UK insistence that their bilateral policies
had to be sorted out before these multilateral talks could resume.
There has not been another meeting since then. The deadlock with
the resulting exhorbitant human costs thus continues.
The negotiating role King Abdullah of
Jordan had accepted at the March Arab Summit in Amman for similar
reasons has not fared much better. Both UN and Arab League initiatives
should be given a chance. Confidence building measures of this
kind would prepare the ground for 'hard thinking and plain speaking'
at the forthcoming 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut and in the UN Security
Council. In fact, King Abdullah has visited Kuwait. He should
no longer postpone his visit to Baghdad.
Those who argue that this would constitute
a propaganda victory for Saddam Hussein should be reminded that
the resolution of this major international conflict is a pre-condition
for averting a deepening global crisis. They should also understand
that the resolution of this conflict is not about saving political
faces but about saving human lives. The urgency of the moment
is for the international community to end one of the great injustices
of our time.
The oil-for-food programme, the aging
life-line for the civilian population has just been extended
by the UN Security Council for another six months. No agreement
has been reached on improving conditions under which this programme
is implemented. Its severe limitations in terms of funding and
scope means that the civilian population is forced to remain
a hand-out society. People will continue to die prematurely.
Those who live will face more hardship and deprivation. At the
beginning of this year, the mortality rate for Iraqi children
under five, according to UNICEF, had increased by 160% compared
to 1990, the highest increase among the 188 countries UNICEF
had surveyed. Should this alone not be a strong motivating force
for the UN Security Council to intensify efforts to find a political
solution?
Having the removal of Saddam Hussein
as a declared objective, it can not be expected that the United
States will bilaterally be willing to negotiate with Baghdad.
The US, however, also knows that the replacement of governments
can not be the order of business in the multilateral context
of the UN. This presents a difficult dilemma for the Americans.
It could only be overcome if they were to agree to a discussion
of the draft resolution for the resumption of arms inspection
and the lifting of economic sanctions presented by the Russian
Government to the UN Security Council last June. This proposal
foresees the return of arms inspectors to Iraq as demanded by
the Bush administration and the lifting of economic sanctions
after 60 days. The Iraqis have neither accepted nor rejected
this proposal.
Here is an opportunity that presents
a political option to another military confrontation with Iraq.
It must not be missed. Friends and allies of the US and the UK
should not avoid the obligation they have to play their part
and do so with commitment and perseverence. It will not be easy.
This is a call on the European Union which, as an entity, and
through individual member states has so far participated only
half-heartedly in the Iraq discussion. It is also a call on Iraq's
friends, other than Russia, to impress on Iraq that cooperation
with the Russian proposal could be the beginning of a comprehensive
process to normalize its relations with its neighbours, to begin
national reconstruction in exchange for re-accepting arms monitoring
and verification and the continuation of a military embargo on
Iraq, as a potential buyer of armament and on potential exporters
of arms to Iraq.
Such an approach would also be an important
contribution to the wider Middle East Peace Process. Iraq and
Palestine are no longer issues that can be handled separately.
Solving one without the other will mean that peace will not return
to the area. This leads to only one conclusion, the international
community including the United States must accept a multi-pronged
intervention as a first step towards solving the crises in the
Middle East. Dialogue and negotiations, not military confrontation,
should be the basis for this approach.
|