Archive

Archive for August, 2005

The Solution Out Of Iraq

August 6, 2005 5 comments

The media and a handful of politicians have started hinting at the need for withdrawl but the debate is narrowly focused on whether we can win or not; the larger issues go untouched. For example: the legitimacy for being there, the result of a continued presence and the effect on what will happen once we do leave.

There is a thin veil that supporters of the war/occupation use to argue for continued American presence in Iraq: we are concerned about the welfare of Iraqi’s and if we leave the violence will get worse.
The most severe problems of this mentality are the paternalistic, narcissistic and racist assertions that only American violence can bring a peaceful solution. This is not a new phenomena but rather an old trait that goes back centuries.

First, as the CIA and military officials have already noted, the insurgency is in response to and feeds off of our presence. Leaving would remove a big part of the problem.

Second, those who preach concern of Iraqi welfare while advocating our war/occupation are disingenuous. Those who are truly concerned about Iraqi’s were opposed to Saddam’s rule, the sanctions, our war, occupation and understand that other alternatives were available and still are.
Honestly, most supporters of the war are victims to the prevailing American concept/propaganda of the world and our role in it.

Third, the argument for continued military presence is really a cover for the desire to win, prevail and have peace at only America’s terms. Such one-sided non-sense is not going over well for Iraqi’s. That is why I am bringing up a solution that should be pushed if we are truly and sincerely concerned about righting our wrongs, the welfare of our soldiers and the people of Iraq:

1) The US and the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” must announce a cease fire and leave ASAP.

2) Bush, Blair and their regimes must be held accountable for war crimes and punished. Saddam Hussein and his regime should be turned over to be tried at the International Criminal Court and not the sham trial constructed by the U.S.

3) The US and UK (possibly other members of the “Coalition of the Willing”) need to pay reparations to Iraq.

4) The US and UK governments must abstain from forthcoming resolutions regarding Iraq and the Security Council (UNSC) members must not interfere politically, economically or militarily in Iraq’s affairs. Resolutions need to be passed to A) condemn the war and occupation B) set up a clearly defined and acceptable UN peace keeping force C) pass a resolution that creates a human rights monitoring system to ensure fundamental human rights are being upheld D) disband the illegitimate government that was created during the occupation and set up a UN sanctioned electoral monitoring system that would work to ensure free and fair elections and E) establish a UN sanctioned system to mediate any internal political disputes.

5) In reference to the political mediation the insurgency should be given the option of immunity in exchange for them to disarm, disband, disburse and/or join the political process in a non-violent forum.

There is no guarantee that it would work but rushing to use illegal violence is suspect.

Remember, the war was illegal and Iraqi’s have a legal right to resist our occupation regardless of what labels we put on them (i.e Baathist, Islamic Extremist, Nationalist Secularist, etc.)

Chapter 7; Article 51 of the UN Charter states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Chapter 7; Article 39 states:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The UN Charter makes clear that unilateral acts of aggression are prohibited but nothing impairs the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.”

What further implicates Bush as a criminal is the United States Constitution; Article VI; Clause 2 states: “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” In other words the UN Charter and other formal agreements (aka treaties) signed by the United States government are the “supreme law of the land.”
I must also stress that this is not said in an effort to condone the actions of insurgents or any particular party. The point is to highlight that our actions are illegal and resisting our occupation is legal. If we are concerned about the insurgency then we must acknowledge the simple physics rule that for every action there is a reaction and we must be concerned about our actions, especially when acknowledging that it was our war and occupation that provoked and has continued to spark the insurgency. Addressing the root should be the goal. Focusing on a reaction will not solve the problem.

The goal here is to resolve the conflict and to end the violence.

Already the supporters of the war are making cries that leaving would cause more insecurity and that the “terrorists” would take over Iraq.

First and most importantly is the narrowing of thought when accepting the prevailing definition of “terrorism.” As previously discussed throughout this blog, I have mentioned that “terrorism” is a tactic we too, the U.S., have used. The point here is how loosely the word is used. Terrorism – in the prevailing context – is the violence of our enemies.
The term originally meant the violence of government but now means the violence against government. By most textbook defintions terrorism is the unlawful use of violence, intimidation or coercion against people or property generally for political, religious or ideological purposes. We also definitely used violence against people and property for political, ideological and as some of our own generals have admitted, religious purposes.
And by definition anyone who participates in an act of terrorism is a “terrorist.” This is something US and UK soldiers should consider before particpating in our war/occupation. Kevin Benderman is one of many who already have.

That being said the U.S. attack on Iraq was simply an act of terrorism. It was a clear violation of the UN Charter and UN Security Council Resolution 1441. UNSC 1441 clearly stated: “The Security Council…decides to remain seized of the matter.” Our unilateral attack that violated the UN Charter and Resolution 1441 was not the only violation. We also violated 1441 by not sharing all of our intelligence with UMOVIC and IAEA which 1441 explicitly called for:

Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. [emphasis added]

UNMOVIC and IAEA did give a report on 3/7/2003 to the Security Council. It was to be their final report.

Hans Blix:

at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
….

During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.
….
Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs.
el Baradei:

One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question.

Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program.
….

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no
evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in
Iraq.

The U.S. also illegally spied on Security Council members to see how the would vote on a resolution authorizing force. We know about this because Katherine Gunn blew the whistle and leaked an email highlighting the espionage. When it became apparent that the vote would not pass the US and UK withdrew the resolution and attacked without authorization.

No WMD were found.

Also, it is not for Americans to decide the future of another country. The claim, however, is speculation and a disingenuous tactic to justify our aggresion; we assume the worst.
But, to back up my claim that we violated 1441 by not sharing all relevant information with the inspectors I direct you to Collin Powell in his speech to the Security Council on 02/05/2003:”I cannot tell you everything that we know, but what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.”The U.S. and U.K are responsible for alot of crimes against Iraq and others. There is not enough room to touch on that in this post alone, but this blog and the resources available on the left column are a good source of information. Serious people will note the history of Western Imperialism and the shift in geo-politics after World War 2 to an American Empire.

When and if the time comes that these truths can be recognized for what they are, solving the Iraq conflict will be simple. However, time is against us and the people of Iraq.

This is not about sympathy for Saddam Hussein, “terrorists” or “anti-Americanism.” I would like to see Saddam Hussein held accountable for his crimes in a fair judicial system, I would love to see terrorism as a tactic done away with and I see nothing unpatriotic or treasonist about an American utilizing their constitutional rights to participate in shaping our democracy to one that seeks a form of government that respects basic human rights and international law. We should not be sending young men and women off to die for lies and such horrific crimes. We should not be putting the people of Iraq through such turmoil.

To summarize, there is a solution out of this bloody conflict. We must accept responsibility for our actions, hold our leaders accountable, leave Iraq, abstain from involvement except through reparations and allow Iraqi’s to decide their own fate. It is that simple.

My personal opinion on what would be the most rational course to take to solve any internal disputes is for Iraqi’s to push for a UN peace keeping force – perferably from neutral, Arab and/or Muslim states and based on any conditions set by Iraq. The point here is to address the security situation with forces that have not played a destabilizing role in Iraq’s past and who would show more cultural awareness. Since the insurgency came from the occupation it is not unreasonable to make a concession that shows Iraq’s desire for mutual peace and security. Giving the insurgency the option of disarming, disbanding, disbursing and/or joining the political process would be just as important as ending the occupation.

Setting up an electoral commission to supervise and evaluate free and fair elections would clearly help in materializing an election free from inappropriate external and internal influences.

Allowing Human Rights groups, the Red Cross and other relevant organizations to witness and/or participate would be another testimony to the legitimacy of such an attempt to resolve the conflict and would help set an example of what democracy should be about: massive social participation in determing our fate. And if help is needed from foreigners it should be set on conditions, sincere and without ill-intentions.

It is up to us Americans to decide: continuation of policies connected to a corrupt system that is within our control but leaves us as mere bucolic spectators; or change where we recognize the skeleton’s in our closet and take a sincere step to address them via social, political and economic participation. There are still plenty of non-violent and civil disobedient measures for us to take (the name of a 1970 movie comes to mind: Suppose They Gave A War And Nobody Came?)

Hint: Maybe soldiers should refuse to serve unlawful orders and maybe workers should refuse to build and distribute the weapons and materials used for the crime. Basically, Americans should shut down the war machine!

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Saddam Hussein’s Sham Trial To Begin In October

August 1, 2005 4 comments

So on the day Iraq votes to ratify the constitution Saddam Hussein’s trial will begin. The American created trial has already discredited itself with the fact that the US government created it and has helped shape the legal structure of it. To make matters worse Saddam will not be allowed to “give us his rhetorics and his speeches on his nonsense. We are going to concentrate on the criminal side of it.” Clearly, Iraq’s national security adviser is saying:

The trial is fixed to prevent any mention of American and Western support of his regime.

The trial will focus on Saddam’s “criminal side” and exclude the political, economic and military side of Western support that directly helped make the crimes possible.

This should make us all outraged. Not only was the war and occupation sold on a bunch of lies, been chaotically violent and bloody, but Saddam will not even get true justice and his accomplices will go unpunished. To add inslut to injury, Foreign Policy magazine recently published an article giving publicly announcing advice to Iraq’s Prime Minister to “erase the American footprint.”

Prosecuting Saddam Hussein
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3120

Official: Saddam Trial to Start in Oct.
http://news.yahoo.com/i/736;_ylt=AkBCflHlekYdg4ymnv.lR9VvaA8F;_ylu=X3oD
MTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Categories: Uncategorized