  |
| What have we done? |
The links used in this page are from respected media sources that make their archives freely available. The majority are from the BBC, Guardian, Times, Independent, and Observer. A few are taken from the Daily Mirror, and a couple from Al Jazeera to obtain an Arab perspective.
There was no justification for going to war with Iraq on the 20th March 2003. The UN (United Nations) Inspectors had not completed their work, and despite making slow progress, they were making progress. It may well have been that at the end of the inspection process the international community would have decided to take military action, but we were not at that stage yet and there was no moral case for war. If we did go to war we should have done so for the right reasons. Many people do support war, and their views must be respected, but is this based on an awareness of all the facts in this extremely complex issue? Here are some of the key issues (links to detailed articles are provided):
1) Saddam Hussein is undoubtedly evil and we are better off without him, however, International Law does not allow us to go to war on this basis and many believe that a war that is not sanctioned by the UN will lead to world disorder. A preemptive attack on Iraq has set a dangerous precedent and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. If the world decides that it wishes to address regimes such as that in Iraq, then there must be a consensus to change the mandate of the UN. If this is done then issues in Zimbabwe, Israel, China and North Korea should be higher on the agenda than Iraq. Iraq has been contained for more than 10 years and not threatened any neighbouring countries, the Arab world did not support this war; Iraq is certainly no threat to the US/UK. It is obvious that if Iraq ever did pose a threat, then it could be retaliated against with a mighty force in a very short period of time. We should also remember which countries sold Iraq the materials to build weapons of mass destruction, including the UK, US and France. It is extremely concerning to future world peace when the only major super power (the US) can step outside the UN when it can't get it's way, and initiate a war against the will of the international community (UN).
2) We have not yet been provided with the evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction; indeed, the only evidence that has been provided is of misinformation from our politicians:
- An Iraqi defector (Hussein Kamel ) who was a star witness for the West against Iraq stated that all chemical weapons had been destroyed and "All that remains, he says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches".
- The US provided two satellite images, taken several weeks apart, to provide evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This evidence has been discredited by the UN Inspectors. Experts have labeled a UK intelligence dossier on Iraq as a sham. Is it not bizarre that now the war has started the US claim to be able to use surveillance satellites and electronic eavesdropping tactics to locate Saddam Hussein? Why could they not use this technology to provide evidence of weapons of mass destruction? You would expect movement of these weapons to provide a much larger target to locate, and certainly easier to identify then Saddam Hussein?
- The US/UK provided evidence that Iraq had been trying to import uranium for their nuclear weapons. This evidence was subsequently shown to be falsified. Former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix criticised US "impatience" to go to war with Iraq and suggested Washington had little interest in peaceful disarmament from the outset. A transcript of the very interesting interview with Dr. Hans Blix on the Today Program is available.
3) So much propaganda has been circulated as our politicians attempt to misinform us. Do we know what the truth is anymore? Should we not start to question the morality of politicians when Iraq is spoken of in terms of a political pawn and when countries on the UN can be bought/bullied into supporting war based on financial incentives, and when US politicians blatantly state that France will fall into line so that they can reap the spoils of the aftermath of a war. They may well do, but do we want to be associated with such politicking?
 |
4) At the start of the current crisis it was generally believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps this should have been questioned, where is the conclusive evidence, surely satellite images would not risk the safety of informants, and indeed there must be at least one satellite constantly monitoring Iraq? The discredited evidence presented by Colin Powell of two photographs taken over a period of weeks makes one question whether there really are weapons if this is the best evidence that can be provided. The alleged link between terrorism and Saddam Hussein has been discredited. Has the past decade of sanctions (and enforced suffering of Iraqi people) been an effort to depose Saddam Hussein rather than a belief of the existence of weapons of mass destruction? In the weeks before the war it was obvious that the US/UK had hoped that the threat of war would result in internal revolution within Iraq and that Saddam Hussein would be deposed. Failure of this policy left the US/UK isolated, and this brinkmanship lead to war.
5) Beware of the US motives and arm twisting, "In the conflict over a second resolution that could trigger a war, the 'Middle Six' nations on the UN Security Council face a barrage of bribes, persuasion and blatant threats". Documentary evidence has been found that details American plans to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members.
6) Tony Blair's government did not convince the UK people to support this war, and despite all the spin (propaganda), the UK population is against war with Iraq. It is clear that many people around the world did not support this war, despite intense US/UK lobbying. Once the war started there were protests all over the world against this unjust war. The war has been condemned by the UN, the international community, and by religious leaders.
7) Beware of what you read - much of the UK media is owned by Rupert Murdoch (e.g. The Sun, The Times, Sky Television), and not surprisingly are taking a pro-war stance. The Non-Murdoch press (e.g. The Mirror, The Guardian) have taken a more balanced view. It is also the Murdoch press that is racially slandering the French, as are our politicians. Should we not expect more responsible behaviour from our leaders? Were they so desperate to convince us of their unjust cause?
8) The Iraqi issue is threatening the stability of the global economy. Latest estimates suggest that the war will cost the UK alone in excess of 3 billion pounds (£3,000,000,000). This is money that we will have to pay for in higher taxes, could this not be better spent, perhaps on saving lives rather than destroying them?
9) What right does the US/UK have to impose their values on Iraq? Have we leaned nothing from history, perhaps intellects such as Blair and Bush are blisfully ignorant of our past. In 1957 Jawaharl Nehru (the first Prime Minister of Independent India ) stated "I am alarmed when I see - not only in this country but in other great countries, too - how anxious people are to shape others according to their own image or likeness, and to impose on them their particular way of living. We are welcome to our way of living, but why impose it on others? This applies equally to national and international fields. In fact, there would be more peace in the world if people were to desist from imposing their way of living on other people and countries. I'm not at all sure which is the better way of living, the tribal or our own. In some respect, I am certain theirs is better. Therefore, it is grossly presumptuous on our part to approach them with an air of superiority, to tell them how to behave or what to do and what not to do. There is no point in trying to make of them a second-rate copy of ourselves."
10) The UK Government used France as an excuse for not going for a second resolution. The US/UK initially stated that they would go for the so called moral majority (irrespective of the French veto). When it became clear that Germany, Russia and possibly China would veto, and that they had not won the votes of the so called six waverers, the US/UK decided that they could go to war irrespective and without a vote on a second resolution. This is clearly against international law and the will of the UN (ie. to give Iraq more time).
11) The UN reluctantly accepted Resolution 1441 after bullying/cajoling/unparalleled lobbying by the US/UK. Resolution 1441 was passed at the time because of the concern of unilateral US action. Indeed the wording of Resolution 1441 was finally (and reluctantly) accepted with the text removed that breach would lead to immediate war. This was the sentiment of the resolution. The timetable for Resolution 1441 was set by the US with the intention of a rapid path to war. Action by the US/UK without a second resolution broke International Law. Do we really want to see a breakdown of world order? The UN may not be perfect, but we have to respect its authority. A war against Iraq may have been unavoidable, but we should have given the UN Weapon Inspectors the time they requested to complete their work (they asked for months, not years). If at the end of that period there was evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was not prepared to disarm then that would have been the time to take the difficult decision and go to war. THE US/UK would not wait, and we will always question whether we were justified in slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children. Do you believe this war is justified? Do you want this on your conscience?
If you are
against war why not contact your Representative (US) or Member of Parliament (UK).
Comments/Contributions.
   |
