Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: Iraq

  • A Modest Proposal: Giving Bush and Blair a Deadline

    There comes a time when the prevarications and faulty logic of official policy become so extreme that only satire can shed light on the truth. We have reached such a point with respect to the warmongering of the United States and Britain in relation to Iraq’s alleged possession of a threatening stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

    George Bush and Tony Blair are trying to impose a deadline of March 17th, just days away, for Saddam Hussein to prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction. If Bush and Blair succeed in getting the support of the UN Security Council for this, they are prepared to proceed to war. From their pronouncements, they seem determined to proceed to war even without Security Council approval.

    But how can Hussein prove that he doesn’t have something? What would the proof be that something doesn’t exist? If he were asked to prove that he has something, he could simply provide it and that would be the proof. To prove that he doesn’t have something, however, is far more problematic. You can’t just say, “Here is what I don’t have.”

    Perhaps it is reasonable within the context of the continuing UN inspections to seek a fuller accounting of the stocks of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq claims to have destroyed in the early 1990s. Iraq may be in a position to give a more complete accounting or an explanation of whatever gaps exist in its record-keeping. Once this has been done, then to continue pressing Iraq to prove a negative is a deliberate ploy to make the inspection alternative to war fail.

    So what is Hussein to do? He has let the UN inspectors into his country. He has opened his palaces to the inspectors. He has been destroying missiles that are just marginally over the permitted range. He has allowed U-2 overflights of Iraq. He has permitted Iraqi scientists to be interrogated by inspectors in circumstances that protect the confidentiality of the communications. Each time that Iraq does more to cooperate with the inspectors, it is dismissed by Bush and Blair as insufficient, as some sort of insidious trick.

    It seems an utter impossibility under these circumstances that Hussein could prove his case to the satisfaction of Bush and Blair in a few days time, or ever, for that matter. It seems increasingly clear that the last thing that Bush and Blair seek is for Hussein to prove his case convincingly.

    Given the mindset of Bush and Blair and the impossible task they have given to Hussein to prove a negative, it seems apparent that they are simply setting a deadline to get on with the war they seek for a series of undisclosed reasons. If the Security Council supports such a deadline, they will be giving the UN stamp of approval to this criminal form of lunacy. Setting a deadline to go to war when the weapons inspections are succeeding, as Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei agree they are, amounts to setting a timebomb under the United Nations itself.

    We would like to offer our own modest proposal. Why not set a deadline for Bush and Blair to demonstrate conclusively that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction? Surely if such weaponry exists and could be found by means of war, it can be demonstrated to exist by peaceful means. Surely, the vast intelligence efforts devoted to Iraq over the course of the past decade, bolstered by defectors and by interviews with Iraqi scientists and engineers, would have established the existence of such weaponry if it exists.

    This proposal does not contain the logical fallacy of demanding the proof of a negative. If the US and Britain cannot prove that Saddam is hiding weapons of mass destruction, then the United Nations should immediately remove its sanctions on Iraq, sanctions that have caused terrible suffering and death to the Iraqi people for more than ten years. The US and Britain should also drop their intrusions of Iraqi sovereignty that have included almost daily bombings. Such a course would make far more sense than accepting the Bush/Blair proposal. To be fair we propose to give Washington and London until the end of March to prove this positive!

    The burden of proof should be on those who propose the use of force, not on those who oppose it. Most members of the Security Council understand this. If Bush and Blair do not meet this burden of proof within a reasonable time period, their calls and planning for war should cease.

    The UN inspections in Iraq can and should continue, and in fact they should be used as a model for inspecting all countries that have or are suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, including the five permanent members of the Security Council. This would be an important step in moving the world toward transparency and recognition that weapons of mass destruction are not suitable instruments in the hands of the leaders of any country, including those presided over by Bush and Blair. If we want to remove the menace of weapons of mass destruction, we need to establish a reliable regime of prohibition that applies to all countries and does not single out a few non-western states.
    * Richard Falk is chairman and David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. They are co-editors of The Iraq Crisis and International Law.

  • Thank You, Dear President Bush

    Thank you, President Bush;

    For creating an atmosphere proper to develop again the perils and Apocalyptic Doomsday of the Cold War.

    For taking decisions unilaterally or coaxing other countries to accept aggression instead of diplomacy.

    For dividing the nation and bringing feuds, bias and hatred among our citizens.

    For saying that your administration disregards the opinion of the world like you did with world opinion opposed to war against Iraq.

    For alienating billions of people worldwide who see the US as the a bully nation that acts for the sake of its own interests only.

    For leaving me speechless when trying to explain to my sobbing young daughter why humans are acting like cavemen in what you have called “the First War of the 21st Century.”

    For letting us know that the use of “tactical nuclear weapons” are possible and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be reenacted again.

    For bringing xenophobia to the “land of the free.”

    For making us act like imperialists who still want to rule the world.

    Thank you, thank you so much!
    *Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Text of Resignation Letter from the Second U.S. Diplomat to Resign in Protest

    John H. Brown, a Princeton PhD, joined the Foreign Service in 1981 and has served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and, most recently, Moscow. A senior member of the Foreign Service since 1997, he has focused his diplomatic work on press and cultural affairs. Under a State Department program, he has, up to now, been an Associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University, where he was assigned in August 2001. He resigned in protest of the Bush administration’s war against Iraq. The text of his resignation letter is as follows:

    To: Secretary of State Colin Powell

    March 10, 2003

    Dear Mr. Secretary:

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

    The president has failed:

    –To explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time;

    –To lay out the full ramifications of this war, including the extent of innocent civilian casualties;

    –To specify the economic costs of the war for ordinary Americans;

    –To clarify how the war would help rid the world of terror;

    –To take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration.

    Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president’s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century.

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

    Sincerely,

    John H. Brown
    Foreign Service Officer

  • Wake America from Its Bloodless Trance

    America has two options to disarm and contain Iraq. One option war involves killing people. The other option more and tougher inspections does not.

    Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war if high numbers of casualties result, haven’t heard enough about the deaths that are sure to be caused by the war option. That’s why I created a television advertisement, featuring hip-hop artist Russell Simmons, that includes video footage of actual war of wounded civilians and of American soldiers dragging the bodies of their comrades out of harm’s way.

    I think most of you would want to see my advertisement and decide for yourself whether you agree with an aging ice cream guy or think I am crazy, misinformed, stoned, stupid, or much worse.

    Unfortunately, most of you will never see my anti-war commercial. Why? Because the major network news outlets refused to accept it, claiming that the imagery was too graphic. Trouble is, the imagery in my ad was far less graphic than what you see on prime time entertainment shows, like “ER” or even on mayhem-crazed local TV news shows.

    So what’s the real reason that the TV networks rejected my ad?

    Ironically, linking death to war seems to be taboo at a time when the connection should be on the top of our minds. Few in the major media are talking about casualties in the Iraq war, and it seems our nation does not want to confront the reality that the war will result in casualties, anywhere from a few thousand dead and wounded (itself a horrific number) to tens of thousands, according to international experts. Let’s be clear that’s thousands of dead or wounded people, at a minimum.

    Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is doing little or nothing to break us out of our bloodless trance about the war. It has not released official information about expected causalities, although surely this information has been developed by the White House. Congress isn’t demanding this information.

    In the real world, outside of Washington DC, citizens seem to be expecting war without death, partly because the topic isn’t on TV and partly because recent wars have been presented to us as death-free which they were not, of course.

    Thousands of innocent Iraqis died in the last war not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who died in the war’s aftermath due to its impact on water, electricity, medical care, and more.

    Even wars like the one in Afghanistan, which had fewer civilian deaths, cause soldiers to die. And soldiers, it needs to be said, are people too, often innocently caught in political turmoil outside their control, whose lives have value. Their deaths leave families and friends grieving forever.

    So, it’s an inexcusable omission for the Bush Administration to sell the Iraq war to us and the international community without acknowledging its human toll, not only on our soldiers but on the Iraqis.

    It’s really an outrageous situation, which we have come to accept as normal fare in the war business. But it actually represents deceptive spin at its ugliest. Talking about war without addressing casualties is like discussing the benefits of nuclear power and ignoring nuclear waste. The two go hand-in-hand.

    To break through the denial, my ad depicted dead and wounded people, both soldiers and civilians. And that’s precisely why the networks should air it. More debate about the war’s potential casualties would help our nation make an informed decision about Iraq.

    But network TV executives don’t think you should see our commercial.

    We hope they will reconsider their decision. Until they do, you can see our ad at Win Without War.

    And, even if you don’t want to see our anti-war commercial, ask the President and your representatives in Congress to spell out all the potential consequences of the Iraq war before America invades.
    *Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s, is president of TrueMajority.org, which enables citizens to fax their members of Congress about critical issues like the Iraq war. His views do not reflect those of Ben and Jerry’s Homemade, Inc. Cause Communications www.causecommunications.com

  • Just War — Or A Just War?

    Originally published in the New York Times

    Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

    As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

    For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

    The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

    The war’s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in “collateral damage.” Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

    Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein’s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

    The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

    The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

    What about America’s world standing if we don’t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq’s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.
    *Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

  • An Open Letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell: Now is the Time to Resign in Protest

    An Open Letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell: Now is the Time to Resign in Protest

    Dear Secretary Powell:

    Your country has never needed you more than it needs you now.

    As a soldier, you know the pain and suffering that war brings. You also know that war brings consequences that may be uncontrollable.

    The consequences of the war that is being threatened against Iraq have not been well considered. It is predictable, though, that among the consequences will be the undermining of the security of the people of the United States by increasing the terrorism directed at our country and its citizens.

    Wars do not bring peace and, as you know, they must never be undertaken without legitimacy, support and a belief in the absolute necessity of sacrificing lives for a transcending purpose.

    A war against Iraq lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the world and has failed to get the support of key US allies. Never before in history have so many people raised their voices in protest to a threatened war.

    These protests, including those from longtime and staunch US allies, come from all sectors of society and from all parts of the world.

    Despite the inducements we have offered and the threats we have made, few of our allies support the US push for war.

    The Bush administration has failed to make the case for a war against Iraq, and proceeding to war will drive a terrible wedge through our nation.

    Resolution 1441 does not authorize war against Iraq. Should the United States proceed to war against Iraq the United States will be acting illegally, in violation of the United Nations Charter and Article VI(2) of the United States Constitution.

    With every report by Chief UN Weapons Inspector Hans Blix of increased cooperation and disarmament by Iraq, the Bush administration has obstinately become more belligerent in its threats of war.

    In a war against Iraq there can be no victory nor glory for our military. We will kill and maim the innocent. We will cut short the lives of our youth and theirs. We will have illegally exercised the rule of force over the force of law.

    This need not be. But when the government of the most powerful nation in the world dismisses the protests of its own citizens and will not listen to its allies or follow the dictates of international law, few options remain.

    You are in a position to influence the course of events. You are respected by the American people and throughout the world as a voice of reason, temperance and experience.

    We urge you to follow your conscience and resign your office in protest of this war.

    The American people will rally behind you, and an illegal and immoral war can be stopped before it begins.

    Please act with the urgency that the current situation demands.
    David Krieger
    President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

     

    If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at: letters@napf.org
    (Please include the name of the article in the subject line)
    Readers Comments

    Wow! After listening to President Bush’s speech last night, I began to think about the possibility that Colin Powell resign in protest. What a hero he would be in my eyes and, I believe, in the eyes of the majority of the American public, if he were to make such a statement. Secretary Powell, please be a warrior, true to the highest ideals of your calling, and resign in protest. I’m behind you all the way!

    –Jeannine, Oklahoma

    Great letter! I fully understand why it is pointless to address a letter to Bush himself: he is beyond reasoning! This raises an even bigger question: is it right to have system in place where the US president can decide all by himself to start a war, with all the unforeseeable consequences that might follow?

    –Regards, Michel, USA

    Bush’s inadequacy was never more apparent than in this last hour, as everyone in the room seemed to realize. Can we or the U.N. do nothing? He’s made it clear he will not be bound by the U.N. No one asks the big question: When does the evil we inflict surpass anything that has been
    done to us?

    –David, USA

  • When Oprah Says No To War…

    On September 19, 2000, Danny Muller and Andrew Mandell, both of Voices in the Wilderness, went to the Oprah show. Her guest that day was presidential hopeful George W. Bush. They had come to ask important, unscripted questions and to find out if our future 43rd President would toe the same line on the Iraq issue as the administrations of his father and Bill Clinton.

    Other Voices in the Wilderness members handed out roses to the other audience members before they were seated in remembrance of the 5,000 Iraqi children who die each month due to sanctions.

    We didn’t see those roses on television, however, because before each audience member could enter the studio, they had to hand over their rose.

    Halfway through the show, impatient for the canned question period from the audience, Mr. Muller stood up and asked Bush, “Mr. Bush, would you continue the Democrats’ policy of bombing and sanctions that kill 5,000 children a month in Iraq?”

    The show immediately cut to commercial.

    Mr. Mandell then stood and asked what the children of Iraq could expect. Bush stared directly at him. Both Muller and Mandell were escorted out of the audience for their acts of conscience.

    More than two years later, the children of Iraq know what to expect.

    Bombs.

    For many Americans, Iraq had disappeared from the map since the last Gulf War. The economic embargo remained in place, routine bombings dotted the landscape, and Iraqis suffered in silence.

    In September 2001, Thomas Nagy, a professor at George Washington University, released a report detailing the U.S. government’s foreknowledge of the devastating effects of sanctions and the impacts of the Gulf War on civilian infrastructure. The document, published in The Progressive, outlined the outcomes of impure water and insufficient sanitation on the most vulnerable members of society: the children. He cites the Geneva Convention as precedent for why these actions are illegal and punishable under international law.

    As history repeats, a country considerably less prepared is bracing for another invasion.

    “There will be no safe place in Baghdad,” the U.S. Department of Defense declares. Only now the country is dependent on the U.N. programs which keep the cycle of food and humanitarian goods in motion. Were that to be interrupted, there will be major problems for the Iraqi people.

    The pipeline for humanitarian goods for Iraqi civilians is potentially jeopardized by an invasion. In the event of a massive conflict, who will take responsibility for the unfulfilled contracts for humanitarian goods? Governments and private companies enter into contracts under the current conditions the Oil for Food Programme and the current Iraqi regime, but if a major war occurs, the agreements to fill orders for wheat and rice, or to transport those goods into Iraq, may fall through.

    This would mean that the people of Iraq would be forced to buy their food at market prices. Currently they pay the equivalent of $.12 for their monthly ration which includes rice, lentils, baby formula and flour. The market price is $3.50 and the international price is $8.50. Most Iraqis have a monthly salary equivalent to $2-4 USD. Even government employees only make an average salary amounting to $12 USD. Iraqis could not afford to pay the market or international prices for food, and thus the alternative is starvation if the food basket under the Oil for Food Programme were interrupted due to war.

    Mr. Mandell and Mr. Muller doubtfully could have predicted the catastrophic global events which have transpired since their appearance on the Oprah show. The events of September 11th changed the face of modern geopolitics, of civil liberties and of human interaction.

    But rather than recognizing the human capacity to transcend hateful acts of extraordinary desperation, our leaders have called for retributive justice smeared across a global canvas. Afghanistan was not enough revenge. The detainees at Camp X-Ray were not enough. Peaceful Tomorrows, a group comprised of the families and loved ones of those killed on September 11th, calling for an end to war has not been enough. The unprecedented international dissent and the street protests in nearly every country have not been enough.

    Unfortunately, short of Oprah taking a stand against the war or adding Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Peace Is Every Step” to her book club list, those with something to gain from waging this war will continue to do so at the expense of those who have everything to lose.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. This piece also appears at http://www.electroniciraq.net.

  • Three Blind Mice

    I sat next to seventh grader Amina and ninth grader Samara on the Royal Jordanian flight from Baghdad to Amman a week ago. These two young girls are fleeing Iraq with their family, as are millions of other Iraqis, for neighboring Jordan. Syria is inundated with Iraqi refugees; the girls’ father estimated around four million.

    “Iraqis right now are like this,” describes Samara. “It’s like putting mice in a jar and shaking it up and then letting the mice run loose. That is Iraq. That is how the people are.”

    Disoriented. Chaotic. Dazed. Quaking.

    But on the surface you’d never know. In Baghdad for an international student gathering, I had the opportunity to walk around the city to restaurants, strolling and taking stock of the fragile situation. Old men sat outside cafes playing chess, drinking Iraqi chai, or sweet tea. Young men worked to clean out and repair building facades. Boys washed cars and peddled cigarettes. Women and children walked to and from the markets, and kids went to school. Life on the surface appears normal.

    But the two girls, Amina and Samara, are correct. Their metaphor accurately depicts Iraq at this moment. People are recalling the first Gulf War, thinking of all that was destroyed and the enduring catastrophic sanctions which have left their country largely unrepaired. The people of Iraq are considerably less prepared and certainly less healthy than they were twelve years ago.

    Iraq’s medical infrastructure provided for preventative medicine for all members of society. Children in 1990 had all their inoculations and an infrastructure which provided them with clean water and adequate nutrition. Today, due to the sporadic functioning of electrical plants, refrigerated vaccinations ruin, and crucial medical supplies like x-ray film and bloodbags are hard to come by. A centrifuge waited on hold in Amman, banned by the Sanctions Committee 661.

    UNICEF and the World Food Programme have been trying to prepare the country for a U.S.-led invasion. These agencies, along with every other United Nations agency dealing with children, agriculture, health, welfare, education and nutrition, have reported on the devastating effects of the sanctions, and now they are bracing for a humanitarian crisis resulting from a massive attack. UNICEF worries most about the people having access to clean water post-invasion. In 1991, civilian infrastructure like water and sewage treatment facilities were targeted, as were roads and bridges. UNICEF is working around the clock to distribute humanitarian goods all over the country so that in the case of damaged transportation routes, the people will have access to vital sustenance.

    They are getting unprecedented cooperation from the Government of Iraq in importing and distributing necessary goods, like high protein biscuits and F100, a therapeutic food/medicine which helps to recover body weight and fluid in cases of severe dehydration and malnutrition. These two particular items had been unimportable for over two years.

    While major media networks are reporting that as a tactic of war, Saddam intends to starve his people, the humanitarian agencies dealing with food distribution are reporting the exact opposite. Already, UNICEF is distributing the food rations for June and July, and they were given the authority six months ago to begin distributing rations in two months’ supply at the urgence of the Government of Iraq. In essence, the government and the United Nations agencies are working in concert to ensure that in the case of war, the people would not be unprepared.

    Many U.N. agencies are also working with the local Iraqi staff to complete post-conflict assessments. UNICEF has been training teachers how to diagnose students with severe trauma and where to refer them for further in-depth care. Schools are also a crucial part of the post-conflict plan for supporting the children of Iraq whose age demographics comprise half of the country, and UNICEF believes it will be very important to have a functioning educational infrastructure so that students can resume some normalcy as quickly as possible after a major attack.

    But what will that normalcy look like?

    How can life be normal for a four-year-old who has experience the “shock and awe” of 800 bombs falling on his city in just two days? Even if school restarts, even if there is a commitment from the United States to rebuild Iraq, how could we ever undo the damage done to the children of Iraq who have no control over their leader, his policies or the past grievances of the Iraqi government.

    The internationally supported alternative weapons inspections should be given ample time to work. The aforementioned student gathering is another means for creating spaces for peace: dialogue. Young people separated by warring governments need the space to know each other as people, not as enemy nations.

    War is not liberation. Bombs do not bring peace.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Back to the Security Council: The Bush Administration Remains Eager for War

    Back to the Security Council: The Bush Administration Remains Eager for War

    US polling indicates that only a third of the American public would support a war against Iraq without United Nations approval, while a large majority would support such a war with UN backing.

    Most likely on the basis of these polls, the Bush administration has now gone back to the UN Security Council with another resolution seeking war against Iraq. The resolution, co-sponsored by the UK and Spain, is a call to war under Chapter VII, which contains the use of force provisions of the United Nations Charter.

    In essence, the resolution is an attempt to turn some details of the reporting requirements under Resolution 1441, and a dispute over the actual range of a short-range Iraqi missile, into an authorization to bomb the Iraqis, remove Saddam Hussein from power and occupy Iraq. The resolution concludes that “Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002).”

    An alternative proposal has been submitted to the Security Council by France, Germany and Russia, which calls for more in-depth and reinforced inspections. It finds that “the conditions for using force against Iraq are not fulfilled,” and that “inspections have just reached their full pace…are functioning without hindrance…[and] have already produced results.”

    The two proposals offer vastly different alternative outcomes. The US/UK/Spain resolution is an authorization for US military action against Iraq. The French/German/Russian proposal seeks to maintain the peace and achieve “the verifiable disarmament of Iraq.”

    The world awaits the result of the Security Council’s decision, which is likely to come in the next two weeks. If nine of the fifteen members of the Security Council vote for the US resolution and none of the permanent members of the Council exercises its veto power, the United States will set loose the dogs of war on Iraq.

    Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all seem so eager to get on with the war they have been anticipating and working toward for years. They will undoubtedly be doing everything within their power, and probably much that is beyond their actual authority, to coerce other members of the Security Council to vote for their resolution.

    Not since Vietnam have US leaders been so eager to prosecute a war where someone else’s children will die and be used to kill the children of another nation. If they “succeed” in getting the votes in the Security Council, we will again witness the awesome power of the US military machine that consumes half the money Congress votes to spend each year.

    Even if the Bush administration fails to get the necessary votes in the Security Council, it is still possible that it will follow through with its threats to proceed to war with a “coalition of the willing.” This would dramatically divide the US population, wreak havoc on the system of international law that has existed since World War II, and undoubtedly increase the hatred and violence directed against the United States and its citizens.

    A US-led war against Iraq would be a tragedy not only for the people of Iraq, but for the world. The greatest tragedy, however, may be that at this pivotal moment in world history, the US should have leadership that is so militaristic and myopic, missing an extraordinary opportunity to fight for justice and democracy by working with the international community instead of against it.

    It has never been more important for the American people to wake up, stand up and act to exercise their combined “veto power” on the threatened actions of this war-hungry and dangerous administration by stating an unequivocal and resounding No to the proposed war.
    *David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).

  • Greetings from Baghdad

    Dear all,

    Greetings from Baghdad. We are having a really inspiring time talking to students from around the world who are motivated and who have gathered here to show solidarity with Iraqi students. There are hundreds of students from all over the world who are working in so many ways in their own communities to shed light on the continuing problems in Iraq due to sanctions as well as working to oppose the current rush to war. The Belgians organized a “5k run for peace” today which went well. We have had the opportunity to talk about last weekend’s marches and their global impact. It is encouraging to see such organization and concern among students worldwide.

    The students’ big message here: war is not liberation. Bombs do not bring freedom but rather death and misery. We also must continue to make the global interconnections between war and education – what gets spent on war does not get spent on education. This message from the students is clear and strong.

    The Iraqi people are in good spirits in general here. We see them repairing building facades, washing their cars, going to and from work and the mosque, and playing checkers and socializing in cafes. It is quite clear that a war would be devastating, though. As always we have been met with the graciousness and hospitality by friends and strangers. People are forthcoming with their stories and their personal messages, for which i am tremendously grateful. one student shared his experiences living in a state of continuous war since 1980 and the impact it has had on his life perspective, on his family. Still, with the tremendous sorrow wars have brought, he does not have hatred in his heart but rather a constructive perspective that does not hold individuals accountable for events beyond their control. In short, he does not hate you or me, a sentiment I have encountered time and time again in this country.

    Thank you for your continued good work and support. See you all soon!

    Peace,
    Leah
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.