Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Mike Ryan

  • After the Iraq War: Thinking Ahead

    The battlefield outcome of the Iraq War has produced another military victory for United States forces, reinforcing the outcomes of the Gulf War (1991), the Kosovo War (1999), and the Afghanistan War (2001). But the military outcome in this Iraq War was never in doubt, and any triumphalism seems wildly premature for several reasons. Even in Iraq it is not at all clear at this point whether the sequel to warfare will be a smooth transition to a peaceful and democratic Iraq, a descent into civil war, or an episodic underground resistance consisting of violence against American forces regarded as “occupiers,” not “liberators.” It is too early to tell whether there will be wider adverse regional effects, which could include a spread of war to Syria and possibly Iran, and growing instability in such critical countries as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.

    It is likely that the Palestinians will be even further victimized by the impact of the Iraq War, shifting world attention away from the oppressive tactics that are daily employed by the Israelis, and likely giving Tel Aviv a mandate to continue to refuse a peace process that is fair to both sides. More remotely, yet still well within the horizon of plausibility, is some destabilizing change in the fragile Indo-Pakistan encounter that could easily spiral out of control, producing yet another war between these two antagonists, which would be the first hot war fought between two nuclear weapons states. Already, the evidence of deepening anti-Americanism around the world is reinforcing anxieties about a renewed surge of extremist violence directed at Americans and US interests.

    These risks, while substantial, are conjectural, and may be averted to some extent. What is a virtual certainty at this point is the damage done to international law, the United Nations, and to world order more generally. This damage is particularly serious as it relates to the most significant of all international undertakings, the struggle to regulate recourse to war by a combination of international norms, procedures, and institutional responsibility. What the Bush administration did was to defy this undertaking, setting a precedent for others, and beating a unilateralist path for itself that is intended to free the US Government from these constraints in the future. Such neoconservative hawks as Richard Perle, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, who dominate policymaking in the Bush administration, have never made a secret of their contempt for international law and the United Nations.

    Turn Toward International Lawlessness

    This turn toward international lawlessness in US foreign policy is particularly destructive of world order because the United States, as the world’s most powerful state, sets the rules of the game followed by other states. It is hardly surprising, yet revealing, that the Indian Foreign Minister, Yashwant Sinha, has pointed out that India has “a much better case to go for preemptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq.” Washington would lack all credibility if it objected to recourse to preemptive war by India against Pakistan. In this sense, the diplomatic costs of unilateralism could turn out to be immense.
    But beyond this, there is at risk the whole American tradition of leading the struggle for the rule of law in world politics that goes back to the world order idealism of Woodrow Wilson in the aftermath of World War I. It was the United States, despite some ebb and flow of national sentiments, that has until recently maintained its role as the most consistent champion of a framework of legal constraints to the use of force in international affairs. It was the US Government that took the initiative, along with France, to produce the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 that outlawed recourse to war except in instances of self-defense and established the legal foundation for treating aggressive war as a crime against peace. It was on this basis that German and Japanese leaders were punished after World War II at the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials. And it was the United States that was the architect of the UN Charter that prohibited all uses of international force that could not be justified as instances of self-defense against a prior armed attack. True, it was also the US, and especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that insisted on the veto being given to the leading countries in 1945, ensuring that the UN could not pretend to control the vagaries of geopolitics. In this sense, we must not overstate the ambition of the UN, nor overlook the long record of leading countries pursuing their strategic interests outside the Organization. Both the US and the Soviet Union during the four decades of the Cold War consistently used force without bothering to uphold the constraints of the UN Charter or prevailing views of international law.

    Some commentators were hopeful that the end of the Cold War would reestablish the sort of consensus among leading states that existed during the anti-fascist struggle in World War II. These observers interpreted the support for the Gulf War as grounds for optimism, showing that the permanent members of the Security Council could agree, and that the international community could act collectively to reverse the effects of aggression, in that instance restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. The Kosovo War, undertaken without UN authorization, set the stage for the Bush Doctrine of Preemption, although it did have the regional backing of NATO and did seem necessary to prevent a repetition of the ordeal of ethnic cleansing that had occurred just four years earlier in Bosnia. In a sense, this level of agreement within the UN was generally supportive of the initial American response to the September 11 attacks, acquiescing in the initiation of the Afghanistan War.

    Iraq War a Breaking Point

    Recourse to war against Iraq was a breaking point, with neither a supposed humanitarian emergency (Kosovo) nor an alleged defensive necessity (Afghanistan) being present. In retrospect, this loosening of UN restraints on the use of force in both of these contested instances undoubtedly paved the way for a frontal assault on the UN approach to warmaking during the Iraq debate. Even so, the US Government, despite using all of its diplomatic muscle, could not persuade a majority of the Security Council, much less France, China, and Russia, that recourse to war against Iraq was justified. At the same time, given that war has ensued, the emancipation of the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime seems like a positive step provided that a new form of dictatorship does not ensue and that Iraq recovers its political independence without enduring civil war or a prolonged, and obviously already resented, American military occupation. But granting this benefit is not meant to suggest that the Iraq War was justified, or that its effect is after all good for the UN, the region, and the world.

    Some respected commentators, most notably the Dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, Anne-Marie Slaughter, have tried to turn an illegal war into an argument for UN reform. Slaughter proposes a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing force if three conditions are met: (1) weapons of mass destruction are present or imminent; (2) the target country has a deplorable human rights record; (3) the target country has displayed an aggressive intent. In effect, this would retroactively convert the Bush Doctrine into UN Law, and would provide a spurious legal foundation for wars against such sundry countries as Syria, Iran, China, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, and many others!

    We disagree with Slaughter’s proposal. Our review of the effects of the Iraq War suggests to us an opposite priority. Instead of attempting to reformulate the definition of illegal war under the UN Charter, the international community needs to reiterate its confidence in UN authority in matters of peace and security and in the Charter framework of legal constraint. It is our responsibility as citizens of a democracy to insist that our own government adheres to international law in its foreign policy. Only the rejection of the Bush Doctrine of Preemption as dangerous and arrogant, as well as illegal and damaging to the UN and world order, can bring hope that the peoples of the world can avoid the terrifying and obscene prospect of a condition of perpetual war. This prospect now casts a dark and ominous cloud over our human future.

  • Chavez Stamp a Labor of Love

    It has been a whirlwind week for Latino activist Jack Nava, one that will culminate today after a mile-long march in honor of the late labor leader Cesar Chavez.

    At a small park in downtown Oxnard, the Ventura resident plans to recount his part in an eight-year campaign to persuade the U.S. Postal Service to issue a commemorative stamp featuring the United Farm Workers union co-founder.

    He will tell of helping to collect more than 25,000 signatures for the cause, circulating a homemade petition at college campuses, civil rights marches and other community events.

    And he will talk about swelling with pride last week at the ceremony he attended in downtown Los Angeles at which the 37-cent stamp was released to the public.

    “A lot of hard work went into this,” said the 65-year-old retired barber, who stooped in the fields long before the UFW helped secure such conveniences as toilets and drinking water for farm workers.

    “I didn’t read about Cesar Chavez in a book; I lived it and I know what he went through,” Nava said. “I thought he was a great man and I wanted to do something to help everybody remember him.”

    Unveiled in September, the stamp depicts a smiling Chavez against a backdrop of vineyards, symbolic of the strikes and boycotts Chavez organized to gain better working conditions for farm workers.

    The postal service receives tens of thousands of requests each year for commemorative stamps, but only a fraction make the cut. More than 75 million Chavez stamps were printed following a nationwide campaign spearheaded by the Glendale-based Cesar E. Chavez Foundation.

    Foundation spokeswoman Annie Brown said it was supporters such as Nava who made the idea a reality.

    “It wasn’t one person in particular responsible for pushing this through, but I think Jack Nava’s efforts are representative of what we’ve seen across the country,” Brown said. “What we find particularly encouraging is that 10 years after Cesar’s passing, people are still moved by his legacy to want to carry on and do these things.”

    Nava said he was first moved to do his part at a parade in East Los Angeles shortly after Chavez’s death in 1993. He marched in the parade holding a homemade sign asking whether there was any interest in a Chavez stamp.

    The positive reaction spurred his signature-gathering campaign.

    “I was one of the first to sign,” said Denis O’Leary, an El Rio schoolteacher and spokesman for the Cesar Chavez Celebration Committee. “It has been his mission to get the stamp. I give Jack all of the credit in the world.”

    In albums and portfolios, Nava has documented the drive with letters, photos and resolutions supporting the effort. Among Nava’s most precious documents is a 1995 letter from the postal service — sent in response to a letter of his — informing him that a Chavez stamp was under consideration.

    Nava continued gathering signatures and support until word came last year that the postal service would be issuing the stamp.

    “Man, I really couldn’t believe it,” said Nava, who spoke Friday about the effort to community leaders in Oxnard.

    “After all that work, after all of those times of having doors slammed in my face, it finally paid off.”

  • Facing the Failures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Regime

    Each year the future of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) regime becomes more uncertain. In the past year alone:

    • North Korea has become the first country ever to withdraw from the treaty.

    • There has been virtually no progress and considerable regression on the thirteen practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed to at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

    • The US has reasserted policies of nuclear weapons use that undermine the negative security assurances promised to non-nuclear weapon states parties (NNWS) to the NPT in 1978 and again at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.

    • The doctrine of preemption, pursued by the United States and adopted by other states with nuclear weapons, threatens to accelerate nuclear weapons proliferation in the face of the threat of aggressive use of force.

    Bilateral policies of the nuclear weapon states parties (NWS) to the NPT are increasingly integrating those nuclear weapons states outside of the NPT regime: India, Pakistan and Israel’s legitimate nuclear powers, through the elimination of sanctions and technology exchanges.

    The NPT regime obligations are having less and less success in restraining the irresponsible behavior of nations, especially the treaty’s NWS, and the United States in particular. As NWS move further away from their obligations under the treaty, they are simultaneously weakening incentives for non-nuclear weapon state parties to the treaty to remain within the NPT regime. If such regressions continue, they will inevitably lead to an abandonment of disarmament goals and the gradual lack of interest by non-nuclear weapons states parties to remain within the regime’s boundaries. It is time for members of the NPT regime to issue a clear statement outlining how the treaty is being undermined and by whom.

    The NPT 13 Practical Steps Towards Disarmament Ignored

    When the United States ambassador stated at the 2002 NPT Review Conference Preparatory Committee that Washington no longer supported many of the conclusions from the 2000 NPT Review Conference he was clearly alluding to the 13 Practical Steps to achieve complete disarmament under Article VI of the treaty. In the past year not only has no progress been made in fulfilling these steps but NWS, the United States in particular, have pursued policies that demonstrate significant regression from fulfillment of their Article VI obligations.

    In the past year there have been no further ratifications of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by nuclear capable states, including NWS parties to the NPT. There has been no progress in moving towards a fissile material treaty. The principles of irreversibility and verification have been undermined by the United States and Russia in the Moscow Treaty, which lays out reversible offensive reductions without providing for any verification methods. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) and the START II arms reduction efforts have been entirely abandoned as has progress towards START III. There has been no effort to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, and in fact the United States is conducting studies on new nuclear weapon designs. The only area where some progress in meeting the 13 Practical Steps has been made is that some states submitted reports with regard to their Article VI obligations at the 2002 PrepCom, a process that is still being resisted by many NWS, including the United States.

    At the NPT’s inception, disarmament obligations under Article VI played a key role in convincing NNWS that it was in their best interest to sign the treaty, though it restricted their ability to develop nuclear weapons. As these disarmament obligations continue to be ignored by the NWS, they eliminate a significant incentive for NNWS to keep their side of the bargain.

    Negative Security Assurances Undermined

    The US has reiterated its policy to use “overwhelming force” against chemical or biological attacks. This policy was reiterated in the recent US National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction issued in December 2002, which states, “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including through resort to all of our options to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.”

    Such policies undermine the negative security assurances promised by the United States in 1978 and reaffirmed at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. These assurances are supposed to reassure NNWS that they need not worry about becoming the target of a nuclear weapons attack. Though the United States has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological weapon attack for some years, the continued emphasis on this first strike policy undermines non-proliferation goals. When the United States, despite its overwhelming conventional military superiority, takes up a policy that requires nuclear weapons to carry out a strike against a potential chemical or biological weapons threat, other states are likely to conclude that nuclear weapons are also necessary for their protection.

    In addition, as the United States continues to fund studies for new tactical weapons designs, such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penatrator, it further erodes the confidence building effect of the negative security assurances. These new nuclear weapon designs are not strategic, to be used to deter a nuclear strike upon the United States, but would most likely be used against the chemical or biological facilities or in other tactical battlefield maneuvers in a first strike, most likely against a NNWS. By eroding its own negative security assurances, the United States is diminishing another important incentive for NNWS to remain within the NPT regime.

    Preemption Doctrine Pursued

    The United States government is pursuing a doctrine of preemptive use of force, both in policy and military action, which ultimately threatens to undermine non-proliferation goals. The Bush administration’s National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction states: “U.S. military forces and appropriate civilian agencies must have the capability to defend against WMD-armed adversaries, including in appropriate cases through preemptive measures. This requires capabilities to detect and destroy an adversary’s WMD assets before these weapons are used.”

    This US preemption doctrine, which was drafted largely in response to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 and which was used in justifying the recent invasion of Iraq, is likely to have serious negative effects on the NPT regime.

    First, it is setting a dangerous precedent for other nuclear powers to justify using aggressive preventive force to settle international disputes. Some countries have already begun echoing the new US doctrine as a possible approach to solving long-standing regional conflicts. Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha stated recently, “There were three reasons which drove the Anglo-US forces to attack Iraq possession of weapons of mass destruction, export of terrorism and an absence of democracy all of which exist in Pakistan.” On April 11, 2003, Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes said he endorsed Sinha’s recent comments that India had “a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq.” Such a doctrine of preemption pursued by India towards Pakistan is extremely dangerous, particularly given Pakistan’s conventional weakness. In the face of an Indian policy of preemption, Pakistan is likely to approach its own nuclear arsenal with an even higher alert status, bringing these two countries a step closer to intentional or accidental nuclear war, as well as accelerate the regional arms race.

    Second, the US policy of preemption is heightening the level of threat felt by potential nuclear weapons states by adding to the perceived need to possess nuclear weapons in order to ward off an aggressive offensive attack. Instead of warning or discouraging nuclear threshold states such as Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear arsenals, the lesson that these countries are most likely to learn from the Iraq example is that they must accelerate their nuclear weapons programs in order avoid to the fate of the Ba’th regime.

    Israel, India and Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenals Accepted

    In addition to the many regressions from fulfilling obligations under the NPT, NWS policies toward countries with nuclear arsenals outside of the NPT regime are also having a damaging effect on the treaty. Through their evolving bilateral policies, NWS parties to the NPT are increasingly integrating Israel, India and Pakistan into the international community as legitimate nuclear powers outside of the NPT regime, undermining incentives for NNWS to remain within the treaty.

    There has long been a double standard in calling for the adherence to UN resolutions relevant to the elimination of nuclear weapons within the Middle East that puts little pressure on Israel to eliminate its arsenal. While NWS have put increased pressure on countries such as Iraq and Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, Israel has never faced significant consequences for having a nuclear arsenal of some 200 weapons outside of the NPT regime. In fact, by continuing to aid Israel in developing its missile defense technology, the United States is helping Israel create a protective shield from which it may, at some point, be able to launch a nuclear weapon, without perceiving itself to be vulnerable to a reciprocal missile strike. Not only is Israel developing this potentially destabilizing anti-missile technology, but it is also considering selling this technology, if it is given US approval, to India, another nuclear power that is not a member of the NPT regime.

    The United States lifted sanctions against the sale of dual-use technologies to Pakistan in 2001 in order to gain Pakistan’s cooperation in the post-September 11 war on terror. Such sanctions against India, which were partially lifted when India also became part of the US-led “coalition against terrorism” in 2001, were repealed in their entirety in February 2003. The United States Congress is also examining ways to expand the co-operative non-proliferation efforts from states of the former Soviet Union to include countries such as India, aiding them in advancing their nuclear security technology and protocol.

    Reports from a summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in December 2002 also indicated that negotiations are moving forward for India to lease at least one Russian-made Akula-11 class nuclear-powered submarine, capable of carrying a payload of nuclear cruise missiles. Though the head of India’s navy, Admiral Madhvendra Singh, refused to confirm or deny assertions concerning the possible lease, if such a lease is undertaken it would significantly alter the balance of nuclear capability between India and Pakistan. Prior to the summit, Russia announced its intention to allow India to become an associated member of the United Nuclear Research Institute, one of the top nuclear research institutes in Russia. India was previously denied access to the facilities of this prestigious institute, where nearly half of all Russian nuclear advances have occurred, because it is not a member of the NPT. But India’s NPT status is a factor that appears to be of decreasing concern to the Russian government when considering weapons, science and technology exchanges.

    The increasing transfer of dual-use and missile defense technology to Israel, Pakistan and India continues despite the fact that these countries are not restrained by the NPT regulations from sharing this technology with NNWS, even in the case of Pakistan, a country that likely aided North Korea in developing its uranium-based nuclear weapons program. Such policies clearly undermine the goals of the NPT, sending NNWS a clear message: remaining outside of the NPT regime has many benefits and few costs.

    A Time To Speak

    The NPT was to be the cornerstone for disarmament, arms control and the peaceful prevention of the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, a role that the treaty is clearly failing to fulfill. It is no longer fruitful to wait and hope that the political will appears to make the NPT a workable and effective regime. It is time, instead, to realize how and why the regime is not working and what countries bear responsibility for the treaty’s ineffectiveness. The NNWS members of the NPT should unite in motioning for a type of censure, a statement that clearly lays out the reasons for the NPT’s failures holding specific countries responsible for their part in the regime’s degradation. Such a motion would not pass the NPT PrepCom’s procedure of consensus, but it would send a strong message that the majority of NPT members are not complacent in the face of continuing disregard for treaty obligations by the NWS.

    In particular, the United States’ persistent role in undermining the goals of the NPT should be clearly outlined by the other parties to the treaty. If the United States is not going to take its obligations under the NPT seriously, which it shows no intention of doing in either the near or distant future, and if the United States continues to pursue policies that directly undermine the treaty regime, then this behavior must be recognized and forthrightly condemned by the other members of NPT regime. Such a statement is not likely to be effective in changing US policy it could possibly affect the sentiment of the American public. Given that the NPT regime is hardly benefiting from US symbolic membership, there is little to lose by members of the NPT formally voicing a strong opposition to the United States’ many transgressions.

    As the United States government is becoming more and more frank in its disregard for multilateral diplomatic solutions to security issues, so must the international community be frank in its rejection of the aggressive and dangerous policies of the United States that threaten to draw the world into an unending arms race and a state of perpetual war.
    * David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and can be contacted at dkrieger@napf.org. He is the co-author of Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age (Middle way Press, 2002) and editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capri Press, 2003).

    Devon Chaffee is the Research and Advocacy Coordinator of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and can be contacted at advocacy@napf.org.

  • Transcript of the speech given by actor Tim Robbins to the National Press Club

    TIM ROBBINS: Thank you. And thanks for the invitation. I had originally been asked here to talk about the war and our current political situation, but I have instead chosen to hijack this opportunity and talk about baseball and show business. (Laughter.) Just kidding. Sort of.

    I can’t tell you how moved I have been at the overwhelming support I have received from newspapers throughout the country in these past few days. I hold no illusions that all of these journalists agree with me on my views against the war. While the journalists’ outrage at the cancellation of our appearance in Cooperstown is not about my views, it is about my right to express these views. I am extremely grateful that there are those of you out there still with a fierce belief in constitutionally guaranteed rights. We need you, the press, now more than ever. This is a crucial moment for all of us.

    For all of the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11, there was a brief period afterward where I held a great hope, in the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children’s terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all this, I held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of it.

    I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat versus Republican, white versus black, or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse. I imagined our leaders going on television telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero, we can’t, but there is work that is needed to be done all over America.

    Our help is needed at community centers to tutor children, to teach them to read. Our work is needed at old-age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed; in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots to baseball fields. I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9/11, a new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us.

    Like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn. And then came the speech: You are either with us or against us. And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior.

    In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.

    This past weekend, Susan and I and the three kids went to Florida for a family reunion of sorts. Amidst the alcohol and the dancing, sugar-rushing children, there was, of course, talk of the war. And the most frightening thing about the weekend was the amount of times we were thanked for speaking out against the war because that individual speaking thought it unsafe to do so in their own community, in their own life. Keep talking, they said; I haven’t been able to open my mouth.

    A relative tells me that a history teacher tells his 11- year-old son, my nephew, that Susan Sarandon is endangering the troops by her opposition to the war. Another teacher in a different school asks our niece if we are coming to the school play. They’re not welcome here, said the molder of young minds.

    Another relative tells me of a school board decision to cancel a civics event that was proposing to have a moment of silence for those who have died in the war because the students were including dead Iraqi civilians in their silent prayer.

    A teacher in another nephew’s school is fired for wearing a T- shirt with a peace sign on it. And a friend of the family tells of listening to the radio down South as the talk radio host calls for the murder of a prominent anti-war activist. Death threats have appeared on other prominent anti-war activists’ doorsteps for their views.

    Relatives of ours have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. And my 13-year-old boy, who has done nothing to anybody, has recently been embarrassed and humiliated by a sadistic creep who writes — or, rather, scratches his column with his fingernails in dirt.

    Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers, and by their fair and balanced electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. (Laughter.) Apologies to Gore Vidal. (Applause.)

    Two weeks ago, the United Way canceled Susan’s appearance at a conference on women’s leadership. And both of us last week were told that both we and the First Amendment were not welcome at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

    A famous middle-aged rock-and-roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war, only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. “They promote our concert appearances,” he said. “They own most of the stations that play our music. I can’t come out against this war.”

    And here in Washington, Helen Thomas finds herself banished to the back of the room and uncalled on after asking Ari Fleischer whether our showing prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay on television violated the Geneva Convention.

    A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.

    Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear.

    I am sick of hearing about Hollywood being against this war. Hollywood’s heavy hitters, the real power brokers and cover-of-the- magazine stars, have been largely silent on this issue. But Hollywood, the concept, has always been a popular target.

    I remember when the Columbine High School shootings happened. President Clinton criticized Hollywood for contributing to this terrible tragedy — this, as we were dropping bombs over Kosovo. Could the violent actions of our leaders contribute somewhat to the violent fantasies of our teenagers?

    Or is it all just Hollywood and rock and roll?

    I remember reading at the time that one of the shooters had tried to enlist to fight the real war a week before he acted out his war in real life at Columbine. I talked about this in the press at the time. And curiously, no one accused me of being unpatriotic for criticizing Clinton. In fact, the same radio patriots that call us traitors today engaged in daily personal attacks on their president during the war in Kosovo.

    Today, prominent politicians who have decried violence in movies — the “Blame Hollywooders,” if you will — recently voted to give our current president the power to unleash real violence in our current war. They want us to stop the fictional violence but are okay with the real kind.

  • Over 60 People Dead After US Bombs Iraqi Neighborhood in Hilla

    The London Independent is reporting that over 60 people, mostly civilians, have now died since the US bombed an impoverished Iraqi neighborhood in the town of Hilla, south of Baghdad. Hundreds of people are wounded.

    The London Guardian reports unedited TV footage from the Babylon hospital showed horrifically injured bodies heaped into pick-up trucks. Relatives of the dead accompanied them for burial. Bed after bed of injured women and children were pictured along with large pools of blood on the floor of the hospital.

    An Edinburgh-trained doctor at the hospital Nazim al-Adali, told the Guardian: “All of these are due to the American bombing to the civilian homes. He said there were not any army vehicles or tanks in the area.

    And Robert Fisk writes in today’s Independent:

    “The wounds are vicious and deep, a rash of scarlet spots on the back and thighs or face, the shards of shrapnel from the cluster bombs buried an inch or more in the flesh. The wards of the Hillah teaching hospital are proof that something illegal ­ something quite outside the Geneva Conventions ­ occurred in the villages around the city once known as Babylon.

    “The wailing children, the young women with breast and leg wounds, the 10 patients upon whom doctors had to perform brain surgery to remove metal from their heads, talk of the days and nights when the explosives fell “like grapes” from the sky.”

    Agence France Press correspondent Nayla Razzouk reported seeing cluster bomblets all over the neighborhood, but the Pentagon denied using cluster bombs on Hillah. However, the Pentagon has just admitted U.S. forces are using cluster bombs elsewhere in Iraq.

    Amnesty International yesterday condemned the Hilla bombing and U.S. use of cluster bombs. The human rights group warned, “The use of cluster bombs in an attack on a civilian area of al-Hilla constitutes an indiscriminate attack and a grave violation of international humanitarian law.”

  • Iraq Peace Team Reports on Civilian Causalities

    On March 22, Stewart Vriesinga and Wade Hudson toured a residential neighborhood about two blocks west of 14 July Bridge.Street, between Amar Bin Yasir Street and Jamiaa Street. They drove by an eight-to-twelve-foot-deep crater in the middle of a wide, divided street that connected these latter two streets. Traffic in the westerly direction was blocked. They saw large gardens on both sides of this crater. No building was within eyesight of the crater. Mr. Mohammed, IPT’s principal driver, said that the gardens were not public parks, but private gardens associated with private homes, one of which is owned by an uncle of his. Around the corner on Jamiaa street, many smaller homes had had all of their front windows blown out, presumably by a blast from the bomb that created the crater.

    Although this incident does not suggest either the strong possibility of civilian injuries or major damage to civilian infrastructure, it does illustrate once again that some bombs either do not hit their intended target or are directed to non-military targets.

    On March 22, April Hurley, Zehira Houfani, and Robert Turcotte saw, around the corner from a street with buildings that appeared to be governmental offices, a whole block of mixed residential-commercial units with almost all of their windows knocked out.

    On March 23, several IPT members, including Doug Johnson, Robert Turcotte, and Jooneed Jeeroburkhan went to the Alyarmouk hospital. This university teaching hospital, one of the largest and most modern in Iraq, is one of three medical centers prepared by the authorities to receive victims of the American attack; the two others are Al Mansur and Al Kindi hospitals. Many foreign doctors and surgeons, Americans included, are in Bagdad to offer their services to these hospitals in the war context.

    One of the patients was Rahab Wedad Mohammad, age 25,who had just come out of surgery under general anesthesia. Her right cheek was swollen and her right forearm was heavily bandaged. According to the lady doctor, she had severed tendons which they had to sew back, together with nerves and blood vessels, in the women’s section of the hospital.

    According to answers to our questions, Rahab was at her home, in the esidential district of Hayy Jamiya, when a bomb hit nearby. It was Saturday night, on the 3rd day of US bombing, and she was hit by shrapnel that severed the tendons on her right arm.

    Zaha Seheil lay quietly on a bed opposite. She is six years old. The doctor said that she was hit in the back, suffering spinal injury that has made her paraplegic. In the men’s section, Rusul Salim Abbas, 10 years old, had been hit by shrapnel in the chest and on the right hand. That was on Friday night, when the bombing was the heaviest for four hours continuously. <He went to close the door when he was hit, says Salim, his father, seated on the edge of his bed.

    Salah Mehdi, aged 33, was walking on the street Saturday night in the residential district of Amariya when a missile exploded nearby. <I just saw a huge fireball and I lost consciousness, he says with difficulty. He had been hit by shrapnel in the stomach, on the right hand and on the right ear.

    On the next bed, Omar`Ali, 12 years old, was one of 12 members of his family injured Friday night in the residential district of Al Shorta when a bomb hit near their house. There also also Majid Mahmoud, aged 57 and father of two, injured the very first night of bombing, and Hussein Jassim Fleh, aged 36 and father of a young daughter, injured Saturday night in the back, and on both arms and legs.

    Was the shrapnel from US missiles and bombs, or from falling Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery? Given the delicate hospital conditions in which these visits were made, and the lack of expert ballistics evidence, it is difficult to tell what actually caused these injuries, and scores of others in hospitals across the country,. <Whatever the origin of the shrapnel, Bush must bear full responsibility because he chose to impose this war on Iraq. These people would not have been injured otherwise, commented an Iraqi TV reporter filming the wounded.

    Members of the delegation were able to take photos of some of the injuries.

    On March 24, several IPT members were taken on a tour of sites that have been bombed recently. These sites included one entire block in the Karadat Miryam district that included three- and four-floor buildings with commercial storefronts on the ground floor and residential dwellings on the upper floors. No military or governmental sites were noticed nearby. Almost all of the windows and frames and the iron gates that covered windows in these buildings had been knocked out on all floors. At least some injuries likely resulted from the tremendous blast(s) that caused this extensive damage

    On March 24, an IPT team went to a home that had been hit by what appeared to be a missile. The house was a 2-story home in a residential neighborhood. The weapon came through the roof and landed in a second-floor room that appeared to be a bedroom. There was what seemed to be a picture on the wall of some female pop star. The team was unable to meet any of the family who were in the home at the time of the attack; they are now staying with family members. A brother of the owner gave us an account, which was recorded in Arabic and will be translated later. He said the weapon hit about 7:30pm on Saturday, March 22, as the family was eating dinner, or getting ready for dinner. There were no serious injuries even though there were 8 people in the home at the time.

  • Nine Letters from Iraqi High School Students

    The following letters were sent to the Foundation in the weeks preceding the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The letters were collected by the Iraq Peace Team (IPT), an initiative of Voices in the Wilderness that is remaining in Baghdad for the remainder of the war.

    Al-Adamia Secondary School for Girls – Baghdad

    March 3, 2003

    Dear Friends,

    We love you and want to see you and we hope all the world live in peace and love each other like the flowers in one garden in heaven. Please urge your government to let us live in peace.

    Best wishes,
    Somiea, Anfal, & Yasamin (we are 18 years old)

    My name is Rasha. I’m 18 years old. I want to say that I love the world and I love peace. I don’t want war. Why do you want to kill the smiles on our faces? We want to learn and live in peace. I want to be a dentist, so how could I make that if the war happened? We are a peaceful people. We love peace. We love American people, so why do you want to kill us? I pray for the God to avoid us the war, and I hope for whole the world the peace and love. I want to be friends and keep in touch with you. Let us spread love among us.

    With all the best,
    Rasha Ali Abdul-Raheem, age 18
    Al-Mustafa Secondary School for Girls – Al-Amal City, Baghdad
    March 8, 2003

    Dear Friends,

    I’m Hind Salaam. I want to tell you that I only dream for the future. I want to be a doctor after I end the preparatory school, because I love to help people and I hate the death. But I don’t understand why America insist on bombing Iraq people. We love the people of America although Bush want to kill us, because we know that you didn’t hate Iraqi people. And I want you do your dreams.

    Hind Salaam, age 17

     

    Qataiba Secondary School for Boys – Saddam City, Baghdad
    March 9th, 2003

    We love Iraq as we love our parents, and we love the people of the world. I wish that I can keep in touch with you. Please help us. I have many dreams to the future.

    Ahmed Camas

     

    Al-Adamia Secondary School for Girls – Baghdad
    March 10th, 2003

    Under the threatening of the American government of every day, we live and continue our daily life. We go to school, to work, visiting each other, but still we have the hope of getting over this crisis. God will help us and save our country from this war. If war will arise the coming few days, I might not be able to continue writing my own diary. We don’t know what is going to happen… We might die .. and maybe we are living our last days in life. I hope that everyone who reads my diary remember me and know that there was an Iraqi girl who had many dreams in her life, but war has destroyed all her dreams and her dreams will never come true.

    Thuraya El-Kaissi, age 17

     

    Al-Adamia Secondary School for Girls – Baghdad
    March 11th, 2003

    They were talking in TV about the war. Now we couldn’t do anything, just pray for God to save us and all Iraqi people. And I wished that we all live in peace, because if there was a war they will destroyed all our dreams. So please be with us in our case. Because we are human like any others and we have all rights be live in peace.
    Thank you.

    Lubna Saad, age 17

     

    Al-Adamia Secondary School for Girls – Baghdad
    March 15th, 2003

    I started watching the t.v. and the daily news and this news all about the same – about America’s threat and this threat and this war is injustice .. I don’t know if I could stay wrote this letters because maybe my life is too short and the responsible is America .. am just a young girl, am just 17 year old, and am not afraid from America or the death cause my fate is not in the hands of America but in the hands of God .. and if I didn’t die in these days I will always hate the American Government.

    Sarab El-Anne, age 17

     
    Qataiba Secondary School for Boys – Saddam City,Baghdad
    March 18, 2003

    In the Name of God, Most Merciful, Most Compassionate
    We thank you for your help and sympathy, and we thank you for your feelings, because we feel for any student that says inside your heart, for any American student that says, “Stop the war.” We apologize now, for all the people in America, and we do not hate you.

    Ali Mehson Rahim, 17 years old
    Imad Ali Said, 18 years old
    Kadham Jawad Taher, 18 years old
    Ahmed Hashim, 17 year old

  • UC Students Assert: Regents Accountable if U.S. Launches Nuclear Attack on Iraq

    Oakland- Students representing five University of California campus peace groups, which are members of the Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California, will hold a press conference to demand that the UC Regents do everything in their power to uphold international law and disarm Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories. Students had planned to bring their demands to the Regents at their quarterly meeting; however the UC Regents cancelled their meeting because of the impending war. The student press conference will now be held at the UC Regents Headquarters on Thursday March 20, 9 AM, at 1111 Franklin St., Downtown Oakland.

    “If the United States declares an illegal war on Iraq, the possibility of the U.S. launching a nuclear attack rises dangerously. Since it is UC scientists designing these nuclear weapons, the Regents are accountable for a potential use of these weapons, that could plunge the world into a nuclear war and obliterate the taboo that has prevented the use of nuclear weapons since the U.S. bombed Japan over 50 years ago,” says UC Santa Cruz student Emily Hell.

    Sophia Santiago, a UC Berkeley student, expressed her concern for the important international agreements to which the US is party: “The UC Regents as managers should be holding the labs accountable; they should ensure that the labs are complying fully with the [nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT is an extremely critical document, especially with respect to an imminent attack on Iraq in which the labs’ work will make more probable the use of nuclear weapons.”

    Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories design, modify and monitor nuclear weapons. UC has managed the operation of the labs under contracts with the Department of Energy for more than 50 years. Hundreds of undergraduates, graduate students and professors from the Universities are involved in cooperative research with the laboratories. Recently, both Livermore and Los Alamos were allocated $15 million to study the development of a new nuclear weapon: the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

    Michael Cox, student at UC Los Angeles, describes how the UC managed labs violate international law and jeopardize global security, “Not only is the research and development of nuclear weapons like the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator illegal, immoral, and a complete waste of resources, this work could be in preparation for the deployment of nuclear weapons on Iraq and the other 6 nations listed in the Nuclear Posture review. The United states is belligerently hypocritical in its proliferation of WMD and irresponsible in its position of world leadership.”

    According to UC Berkeley student Valerie Kao, the central critique of the UC Regents management of the National Laboratories must address the Regents systematic failure to bring the two labs into compliance with international law. “UC management could be criticized on the sole basis of its track record, having failed to protect whistleblowers and to hold stronger accountability with Lab administration. However, the real issue is the labs’ role in reviving the arms race and preventing real steps toward international disarmament, as required by international law.”

    The Coalition to Demilitarize the University of California has partnered with local community organizations including the Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, Tri-Valley CAREs in Livermore, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara.

    CONTACT:
    Tara Dorabji: (925) 443-7148 Tri-Valley CAREs
    Michael Coffey: (805) 452-1166, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Valerie Kao: (510) 841-8365, UC Berkeley student
    Michael Cox: (818) 399-0349, UC Los Angeles student

  • Another US Diplomat Resigns in Protest

    The following is the text of Mary Wright’s letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wright is the third state department official to resign in protest of the US war on Iraq and other aspects of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

    U.S. Embassy
    Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
    March 19, 2003

    Secretary of State Colin Powell
    US Department of State
    Washington, DC 20521

    Dear Secretary Powell:
    When I last saw you in Kabul in January, 2002 you arrived to officially open the US Embassy that I had helped reestablish in December, 2001 as the first political officer. At that time I could not have imagined that I would be writing a year later to resign from the Foreign Service because of US policies. All my adult life I have been in service to the United States. I have been a diplomat for fifteen years and the Deputy Chief of Mission in our Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan (briefly) and Mongolia. I have also had assignments in Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Grenada and Nicaragua. I received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as Charge d’Affaires during the evacuation of Sierra Leone in 1997. I was 26 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and participated in civil reconstruction projects after military operations in Grenada, Panama and Somalia. I attained the rank of Colonel during my military service.

    This is the only time in my many years serving America that I have felt I cannot represent the policies of an Administration of the United States. I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and curtailment of civil liberties in the U.S. itself. I believe the Administration’s policies are making the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place. I feel obligated morally and professionally to set out my very deep and firm concerns on these policies and to resign from government service as I cannot defend or implement them.

    I hope you will bear with my explanation of why I must resign. After thirty years of service to my country, my decision to resign is a huge step and I want to be clear in my reasons why I must do so.

    * I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Iraq.

    I wrote this letter five weeks ago and held it hoping that the Administration would not go to war against Iraq at this time without United Nations Security Council agreement. I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

    There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator and has done incredible damage to the Iraqi people and others of the region. I totally support the international community’s demand that Saddam’s regime destroy weapons of mass destruction.

    However, I believe we should not use US military force without UNSC agreement to ensure compliance. In our press for military action now, we have created deep chasms in the international community and in important international organizations. Our policies have alienated many of our allies and created ill will in much of the world.

    Countries of the world supported America’s action in Afghanistan as a response to the September 11 Al Qaida attacks on America. Since then, America has lost the incredible sympathy of most of the world because of our policy toward Iraq. Much of the world considers our statements about Iraq as arrogant, untruthful and masking a hidden agenda. Leaders of moderate Moslem/Arab countries warn us about predicable outrage and anger of the youth of their countries if America enters an Arab country with the purpose of attacking Moslems/Arabs, not defending them. Attacking the Saddam regime in Iraq now is very different than expelling the same regime from Kuwait, as we did ten years ago.

    I strongly believe the probable response of many Arabs of the region and Moslems of the world if the US enters Iraq without UNSC agreement will result in actions extraordinarily dangerous to America and Americans. Military action now without UNSC agreement is much more dangerous for America and the world than allowing the UN weapons inspections to proceed and subsequently taking UNSC authorized action if warranted.

    I firmly believe the probability of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction is low, as he knows that using those weapons will trigger an immediate, strong and justified international response. There will be no question of action against Saddam in that case. I strongly disagree with the use of a “preemptive attack” against Iraq and believe that this preemptive attack policy will be used against us and provide justification for individuals and groups to “preemptively attack” America and American citizens.

    The international military build-up is providing pressure on the regime that is resulting in a slow, but steady disclosure of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). We should give the weapons inspectors time to do their job. We should not give extremist Moslems/ Arabs a further cause to hate America, or give moderate Moslems a reason to join the extremists. Additionally, we must reevaluate keeping our military forces in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Their presence on the Islamic “holy soil” of Saudi Arabia will be an anti-American rally cry for Moslems as long as the US military remains and a strong reason, in their opinion, for actions against the US government and American citizens.

    Although I strongly believe the time in not yet right for military action in Iraq, as a soldier who has been in several military operations, I hope General Franks, US and coalition forces can accomplish the missions they will be ordered do without loss of civilian or military life and without destruction of the Iraqi peoples’ homes and livelihood. I strongly urge the Department of State to attempt again to stop the policy that is leading us to military action in Iraq without UNSC agreement. Timing is everything and this is not yet the time for military action.

    * I disagree with the Administration’s lack of effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Likewise, I cannot support the lack of effort by the Administration to use its influence to resurrect the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As Palestinian suicide bombers kill Israelis and Israeli military operations kill Palestinians and destroy Palestinian towns and cities, the Administration has done little to end the violence. We must exert our considerable financial influence on the Israelis to stop destroying cities and on the Palestinians to curb its youth suicide bombers. I hope the Administration’s long-needed “Roadmap for Peace” will have the human resources and political capital needed to finally make some progress toward peace.

    * I disagree with the Administration’s lack of policy on North Korea

    Additionally, I cannot support the Administration’s position on North Korea. With weapons, bombs and missiles, the risks that North Korea poses are too great to ignore. I strongly believe the Administration’s lack of substantive discussion, dialogue and engagement over the last two years has jeopardized security on the peninsula and the region. The situation with North Korea is dangerous for us to continue to neglect.

    * I disagree with the Administration’s policies on Unnecessary Curtailment of Rights in America.

    Further, I cannot support the Administration’s unnecessary curtailment of civil rights following September 11. The investigation of those suspected of ties with terrorist organizations is critical but the legal system of America for 200 years has been based on standards that provide protections for persons during the investigation period. Solitary confinement without access to legal counsel cuts the heart out of the legal foundation on which our country stands. Additionally, I believe the Administration’s secrecy in the judicial process has created an atmosphere of fear to speak out against the gutting of the protections on which America was built and the protections we encourage other countries to provide to their citizens.

    Resignation

    I have served my country for almost thirty years in the some of the most isolated and dangerous parts of the world. I want to continue to serve America. However, I do not believe in the policies of this Administration and cannot defend or implement them. It is with heavy heart that I must end my service to America and therefore resign due to the Administration’s policies.

    Mr. Secretary, to end on a personal note, under your leadership, we have made great progress in improving the organization and administration of the Foreign Service and the Department of State. I want to thank you for your extraordinary efforts to that end. I hate to leave the Foreign Service, and I wish you and our colleagues well.

    Very Respectfully,
    Mary A. Wright, FO-01
    Deputy Chief of Mission
    US Embassy
    Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

  • Letters from Iraqi High School Students

    The following letters were sent to the Foundation by Ramzi Kysia, an Arab American peace activist and writer who has worked in Iraq for six months. The letters came from al-Adamia Secondary School for Girls, which is located in Baghdad and which has 700 students, ages 15-20 years old, and 48 teachers and staff. Al-Aadamieh is one of the best public schools in Baghdad, with consistently high test scores. Forty-three students from this class wrote letters on March 3, 2003.

    Ms. Salwa al-Sharbati, the principal of al-Aadamieh since 1978, stated, “When you have deep culture, deep history, it’s like a motive to push you to do anything – you’ll be ready for anything… The embargo itself is a challenge to us. Really, you have a lack in everything: chalk, desks, books, computers… We have another problem, that the students catch new diseases, especially cancers. This is affecting girls even more. They catch cancer of the breast and other disease.” Five out of 700 girls at this high school have cancer.

     

    Dear American Student,

    My name is Naba’a Riad. I’m 18 years old. I say to you, How are you and want to you best wishes. At first all I want or all I wish is to be a doctor in the future and all the morning I hope this wish came true. I have a friend in my school who everyone carried their wishes. We want to live in peace. So how these wishes came true if you threaten us. Please let us live in peace and to be your friend.

    With my best wishes,
    Naba’a Riad

    [drawing of a heart and flower] let this flower grow up.

     

    Dear American Students,

    My name is Thuraya El-Kaissi. I am in fifth class. I hope that we will see each other and talk about our dreams and hopes and our future … I am really hope that, inshallah.

    We love American people but the government they hate us and want to done this war on us.

    I hope that you will send me your photos and letters to me and my friends in our school … all my friends want your addresses and photos … and any things about you all. What do you want from us? Ok!? See you soon, and keep in touch.

    Your Friend,
    Thuraya El-Kaissi

    Note: I am 17 years old. How old you are?!
    Note: I love the band:- N’Sync and (Anthony Hopkins)

     

    Dear American Student,

    I am Zainab from Baghdad. I’m 18 years old. I’m very happy to sent you this brief letter, and I hope to everybody good life and they become what they want. And I like to tell you what my desire is to be (doctor).

    Goodbye,
    Zainab Kies
    The Bird of Peace [drawing of a bird with a flower in its beak]

     

    Dear American Student,

    I am Sara … I live in Baghdad and I want to live in peace here … and I am 17 years old.

    So I don’t know what I say. I am very sad and I am very confused. I like you to understand me what I want to say, and you have to forgive me because my English language is not good … but I hope you understand my pain … Just my tear could describe my pain … I love you very very much because you want to help Iraqi children … I want to be your friend … I’m so sorry again for my English language is bad … I’m so sorry.

    Yours,
    Sara Amer

    [drawing of a flower] This flower is for you

     

    For my dear friends in the world,

    I am very happy for your letters sent to my school, and your opinion about the Iraqi people, and I hope to live in peace and I hope to live in calm life in my country, and I’m thank you with my love for you.

    My name is Baidaa Suad, 18 years old, and goodbye with my love.

     

    Dear America Students,

    I send this message to any one of you to know us (Iraqi pupil) as it should be! I really glad to make a friendship with the U.S.A. student.

    My name is Sarab and I’m 17 years old and I have no mother because she died in cancer last year… So I think this friendship will help me to get out from this sadness that I’m gonna through… I hope I met someone of you face to face and to still friends forever… What I hope is our problems solve… In fact I really love American people from all my heart. I swear it’s true… I wish I can visit America and see you and you have to promise me that we will be friends forever and ever.

    I like dogs and I have one. It’s german shepherd dog, his name is Bone… Tell me what you like, like I do…

    I love Backstreet Boys, specially (A.J.)

    I feel we’ll contact with each other so in the second time tell me what you like to know you better.

    Yours,
    Sarab

    Friendship forever [inside a heart]. Keep in touch and don’t forget me…
    your friend, Sarab Taha El-Anne

     

    Dear Friends in U.S.,

    My name is Hiba Monther. I would like to tell you that I want to be like any people in the world. Well, I live with my family and from my house watch T.V. and read many books about the nature. Write to me and tell me about your feeling about this world. And I want to tell you that every night when I saw the moon and I feel that I am one of the stars in the sky.

    Best wishes to you and your family,
    Hiba Monther, 17 years old.

    Hello also from Hiba’s friend Rokoya (who doesn’t know English very well).

     

    Dear U.S.A. children,

    I am Safa Emad Jihad Al-Rawi from Baghdad and my age is eighteen years old. I want to tell you that I’m very happy to send you this letter and I want you to know that Iraqi children want to speak with you about their life and their school and they live in very normal live and we love American people with all of threatenings of war on Iraq. We love you always and want to live in peace with all the world because the Iraqi people love peace for them and for other countries in the world.

    Yours,
    Safa Al-Rawi

     

    Dear Friends,

    I am student in sixth stage, secondary school for girls. I want living with peace in the world. I will be a doctor in the future, and I very like of them before the end. I hope the Peace of Iraq and America.

    Zianab Munther, 18 years old.

     

    Dear American Student,

    My name is Rasha. I’m 18 years old. I want to say that I love the world and I love peace. I don’t want war. Why do you want to kill the smiles on our faces? We want to learn and live in peace. I want to be a dentist, so how could I make that if the war happened? We are a peaceful people. We love peace. We love American people, so why do you want to kill us? I pray for the God to avoid us the war, and I hope for whole the world the peace and love. I want to be friends and keep in touch with you. Let us spread love among us.

    With all the best,
    Rasha Ali Abdul-Raheem

     

    Dear Friends,

    My name is Haneen Hamid. I have 18 years old. I want to thank you. I want to be a doctor.

    Thank you,
    Haneen Hamid

     

    Dear American Student,

    My name is Summer. We love you people America. I am 18 years old. I don’t want war. We want peace. We want to learn. I love you. We want to succeed in our examinations. I want to be friends with you. So as love you because you love us.

    With my best wishes,
    Summer Mohammed

     

    Dear Friends,

    We are a group of 4 girls. We love the people of the world. We want to live in Peace.

    I, Reem, I want to be a doctor. I, Aseel, I want to be a doctor. I, Halla, I want to be a doctor. I, Hadel, I want to be a doctor. I wish that I can visit U.S.A.

    Good Luck,
    Reem, 18 years old.
    Aseel, 20 years old.
    Halla, 19 years old.
    Hadel, 20 years old.
    We are love the people U.S.A. We hope go to U.S.A to meet to people and explain my feeling to you. Our hobbies listening the music and swimming. We hope becoming engineers. We are 18 years old. Our names Mary and Daniah.

     

    Dear U.S.A. student,

    We are friends, and we like them. We have two arms are peace and success. We know our feeling toward our country and we thank our feeling. Thank you and goodbye.

    Huda Shakoor, 18 years old.

     

    Hi!

    I send them my best wishes and I hope them the success and all the happiness to them and to them families.

    Your close friends,
    Wasnaa & Hanan

    Call me please! We are 18 years old.

     

    Dear U.S.A. children,

    Hi. I’m from Baghdad. My name is Saba. I want to tell you I am very happy to speak with you. You can understand me. I hope to learn and I hope to live in peace.

    Yours,
    Saba Ihsan, I am 18 years old.

     

    Dear pupil of America,

    .. We are Sara and Meas .. We are two pupils in Iraq .. We hope to live in peace .. and we want to learn only .. We love the people in America but we are against Bush.

    Best wishes,
    Sara and Meas

    We are 17 years old. Thank you for your solidarity.

     

    Dear American People:

    Thank you very much to meeting’s. I love you the best people. My name is Kother. 18 years old. I am pupil. I want to live in peace. Do you think the Iraqi people not good? I refused all the war in the world. I love you peace.

    Best Wishes,
    K.I.H.

     

    Dear U.S.A. Student,

    We are friends, and I love for love. This we are one that called for peace and no for war. Thanks for your feeling.

    Raghed Salah Al-Deen, 18 years old.

     

    Dear U.S.A. student,

    I like your situation with us because together we have one aim – that we want peace and refuse the war in my country. I like to express my feeling towards America people – we love them but we hate America government, and in the end I thank you.

    Yours,
    Marwa Ali, 18 years old

     

    A letter for America’s students,

    I’m Saja Waad. I love to say hello to all one who is my age. I’m 17 years old, and I’m Muslim and I’m love peace. I have friends in Palestine and Jordan and I love to have another in other country because I love communication with other people in all of the world. I hope you can understand me what I want to say. This idea very beautiful that we be friends. I really wish I have internet to talk with some friends in the world. My wish is to be a doctor in the future. Can you tell me your wish when you send a letter to me? I will be very proud if this idea will be successful.

    With all my love,
    Saja Waad Ali Al-Rubeay, 17 years.

    Olive branch is a symbol of peace [drawing of an olive branch] we love peace

     

    To Friends in U.S.A.,

    I love people but I hate to the government (U.S.A.), and we love to be friend in school U.S.A. I hope to meet the people and I hope you can come to Iraq and visit us.

    Thank you,
    Hadeel Esam, 18 years old.

     

    Dear American Student,

    My name is Duha. I’m 18 years old. I love people America. I don’t want war. We want peace. I hope to live in peace. I’m very love pupil America and I want to see somebody and I want to say for somebody pupil America. I want to be in touch with you always. I hope to love for me so as you love me for love you.

    Duha Ali

     

    Dear Friend in U.S.A.,

    My name is Surowr. I love you for people America. I wish to visit America and I help to people America and I wish Doctor to help the children for people.

    Thank you,
    Surowr Muhammad, 20 years old.

     

    Dear American people,

    I would like to tell you that I love the American students. I want to tell you everything about the education in Iraq. We are proud of ourselves and we don’t want war against our country. If you visit Iraq you saw that the Iraqi people are kindness and generosity. We hope to do this really to know your comment about us, how we are brave.

    Finally, just we want that we live in peace and succeed in our examinations without war, and Iraq will be victorious.

    note: I’m 18 years old.

    Yours,
    Marwa Hashim

     

    Al-A’adhmia Secondary School for Girls
    Baghdad, Iraq
    March 3, 2003

    Dear American Student,

    I am 17 years old. I want to tell you that everybody in Iraq love everybody in the world. Only my wish is to continue my studies.

    Yours,
    Meelad

     

    Dear Friends,

    We love you and want to see you and we hope all the world live in peace and love each other like the flowers in one garden in heaven. Please urge your government to let us live in peace.

    Best wishes,

    Somiea, Anfal, & Yasamin
    we are 18 years old

     

    Dear American Student,

    I am 17 years old. I have beautiful family and we all want to live in peace, and I want to continue my study in the future. I wish to be an engineer.

    Your Friend,
    Even

     

    Dear America’s children,

    My name is Muna Khalid. I love America’s people and children. I want to live in safety and the other people in Iraq. Iraqi people love America’s people because the Iraqi people love peace.

    We love the world.

     

    Dear American Students,

    All the Iraqi people love American people … but we hate the war.

    My name is Noor – 18 years old.

    Thank you. Best wishes.
    Noor

     
    Dear America’s Students! –

    My name is Rasha. I have (19) years old. I hope to live in safety. I hope to a good study. I want to thank you about your feeling. You are good people.

    Best wishes,
    Rasha

     

    Dear America’s students,

    My name is Israa Adel. I am from Iraq. I have 19 years old. In the beginning I want to thank you about your feeling. So in the first I want to talk about my wishes. I want to be a doctor and I hope that my God help me.

    I love all the world.

    Israa Adel

    “The name of God”

     

    For All American people,

    I’m Marwa. I’m 18 years old. I’m in sixth lesson. I have my dreams .. I hope to finish my studies. I want to be a doctor. I hope to learn more than that .. I have a large number of friends and I hope to find more. Do you like to be my friend? I love all who love the peace. I love all who love the Iraqi people .. If you want to be my friend then tell me when we meet ..

    Your friend,
    Marwa

    [drawing of a heart and flower]
    “We live in one world”
    Love destroy the war

     

    Dear pupils in U.S.,

    I am Lubna Saad. I am seventeen years old. I am student in Al-Aadamya Secondary School for girls. I live near the school and I love watching TV, and specially the movies. I hope I will be a lawyer in the future and to travel to America and I want to told you something – when I get out my house in the night I saw the moon and I believe that all the people in the world would see it even in different times. So I wish that we all live in peace and visit each other. Thank you.

    Lubna Saad