As he makes the rounds promoting his memoir and attempting to distance himself from the failures of the Iraq occupation, Paul Bremer consistently offers the same excuse. “I have to say I was surprised by … how run down the economy was,” he told NPR’s Terry Gross in January. “I found a situation that was quite a bit more difficult… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (46)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe issue of “acting in good faith” seems to be the core of the sanctions debate. Clearly neither side excersized good faith in negotiating: for Saddam it was a tool to gain greater sympathy and control of his populace through broad nationalist appeals, while for the US it was a convenient, politically safe holding pattern that promised the temporary containment of the Ba’athist Regime in Baghdad. Neither side could long sustain his position based on the sanctions arrangements!
Clearly, the sanctions hurt the Iraqi people more than the Ba’athist elite and Saddam. This really didn’t bother the US political elite since ultimately the Iraq people and their society were as much a target of sanctions and the US empire as were the Ba’athists and their leader. The utter de-industrialization of Iraqi society, the destruction and decay of its modern infrastructure, and the denuding and impovershment of its skilled and well endowed middle classes left Iraq society open in the post-invasion aftermath to US imperialist conquest, restructuring, and outright pillage. The “reconstruction” effort, which has had very little developmental or humanitarian effect, has been almost 100% focused on the oil industry which has been protected, rebuilt, and operational at full or near full capacity since mid-2003. Billions were committed to this effort as well as to the US corporate takeover of almost every aspect of the Iraqi economy over the last three years. Like sanctions, this story is also well known.
A small bit of research will show that the 100 Bremer Orders, named for the US official interviewed by Terry Gross of NPR, opened up ALL aspects of the Iraqi economy to foreign takeover including the vital Port of Umm Qasr in the south, to the many thousands of seed varieties produced by generations of Iraqi grain farmers and now coveted by such agribusiness giants as Monsanto through the extreme and intrusive patenting laws enacted by Bremer and the now defunct CPA. Even the new Iraqi currency was minted by De Le Rue, a subsidiary of the Carlisle Group!
The further denationalization of Iraqi society and government through its new constitution which allows for regionalization by a popular referendum is an old British colonail divide and rule tactic and is rightly resisted by the Sunni militias and others. US imperial manipulation of current Iraqi society to US corporate advantage for the purposes of globalizing Iraq society through US corporate control is the real purpose of the war. Such will be financed by lush oil revenues which will issue from an Iraqi oil industry now divided into the North oil company in Kurdistan and the South oil campany in the Shi’ite South through lon-term production sharing arrangements with US oil majors. The entire imperial take-over process, however, began with the emasculation of Iraqi society through destructive international UN sanctions.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 6, 2006 at 11:28 AM Christopher Hayes has done a commendable job of identifying the real factors at work in Iraq during the period between the hostilities. A good example is his pointing out that the FAO child death rates, as detailed in the journal Lancet, were flawed. In fact, child mortality figures improved in Kurdistan, where the Kurds were under the protection of the UN, and the Oil-for-Food benefits went directly to the Kurdish people, as opposed to being squandered by Saddam.
M. Hayes, having gotten some of the facts more or less correct while neglecting others, then fails in his analysis of those facts, as leftists are wont to do.
But the sanctions also caused widespread misery and death.
Ummm, no.
The sanctions, as detailed in the seventeen UNSC Resolutions, required Saddam to do three things: stop making aggressive war, stop terrorizing the Iraqi people, and identify and surrender his WMD. Surely these are commendable goals. Saddam was specifically forbidden to move or destroy WMD except under UN supervision. The fact that the WMD are not in Iraq (they probably went to Syria and Lebanon, and could be in Russia by now) automatically means that Saddam was in violation of the sanctions. Not to mention his ongoing murder of Iraqi civilians, attacks on UN forces, and threats against Kuwait.
Humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people in 1991 required a partial lifting of the embargo, allowing a limited amount of oil to be sold for food and medicine for the Iraqi populace. (UN Resolution 712, September 19, 1991.) Saddam refused the terms of Resolution 712, and the embargo continued. In 1996, Saddam finally agreed to the UN Oil-for-Food Program, and funds for food and medicine became available in 1997.
http://www. pbs.org/ frontlineworld/ stories/iraq/ sanctions.html
http://www. un.org/ News/ossg/ iraq.htm
So, immediately after Gulf I, Iraq was offered the opportunity to sell oil for food and medicine. Saddam refused. When Saddam finally agreed to Oil-for-Food, five years later, he immediately transformed it into the world’s biggest scam, with the eager and able assistance of the UN leadership, France, Russia, and many other countries. Oil money that was intended for the well being of the people of Iraq instead went to Saddam’s weapons, Saddam’s golden palaces, Mad Jacques Chirac’s campaign funds, and Vladimir Putins’s political party.
Did sanctions successfully disarm Saddam Hussein “non-violently” as many now say, or did they create a humanitarian abomination of epic proportions?
Or: did they do both?
Or, did they do neither? Neither is the correct answer. The final Duelfer report on the WMD specifically stated that Saddam had kept his WMD knowledge and infrastructure intact against the day that he could resume weapons production. Intelligence now being recovered from Saddam’s files indicates that he kept working on WMD, and Iraqi Ba’athist authorities have detailed how the WMD were shipped to Syria by air under the pretense of flood relief. And the “humanitarian abomination” was the direct result of Saddam’s initial refusal to accept humanitarian relief and, when Oil-for-Food was finally accepted, Saddam stole much of the money for weapons, palaces, bribes, kickbacks, and extortion payments.
Continue ...
Posted by scorp on Mar 6, 2006 at 9:46 PM Leftists, when confronted with a murderer, typically waste time trying to evaluate and understand the murderer, and try to blame the dead bodies on anyone or anything except the person who pulled the trigger. So I suppose it should come as no surprise that M. Hayes questions if the UN sanctions would “create a humanitarian abomination of epic proportions”. This is nonsense, of course. Saddam was a humanitarian abomination, a mass murderer, a rapist, a thief, and started two aggressive wars, besides depriving the Iraqi people of food and medicine. That should not be too difficult to understand, unless you are a leftist.
Saddam “caused widespread misery and death” by misusing the Oil-for-Food program, just as he started the Iran-Iraq War (one million dead), the Kuwait War, and executed 300,000 - 400,000 Iraqis found in mass graves in Iraq after he was deposed.
Posted by scorp on Mar 6, 2006 at 9:46 PM All aspects of weapons trade, whether conventional or non-conventional, would be suitable to forbid from a government or rebel group that is a threat to its neighbors and/or fellow citizens. I mean, not a single thing connected to any aspect of killing technology. Spare parts for aircraft, military vehicle tires, ammunition, cartridge belts, gun oil, etc etc, absolutely anything in that vein.
Even aside from questions of sanctions against offensive powers, the trade in weapons, most especially the run-of-the-mill conventional arms that no one seems concerned about any more (but that are the main tools used by murderous and internationally dangerous powers), ought to be examined, both from a moral and a practical standpoint.
As though morality and practicality were high priorities in statecraft! The evidence does not suggest it.
The obvious thing needed for this approach to succeed, of course, would be the hardest thing to achieve. That would be seamless international backing of the embargo, instead of what is more likely: some few countries would refuse to traffic weapons to the offending power, while others would see an opportunity to feather their own nests by becoming the alternate suppliers. This in spite of the likelihood that the weapons sold to those powers could very well be stockpiled and turned against those who sold them in the first place, when sanctions are judged to have failed and the military option put into play.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 6, 2006 at 11:32 PM The question of morality might look different if a slightly broader perspective was taken.
I remember examining some of the better data available on this before the beginning of the Irak war. What I remember is:
1) Oil-for-Food worked: yes, it did enrich Saddam and pay for a few more palaces, but child mortality started dropping after it took full effect. The real question that I’ve seen nobody answer (or ask) is how those post-1996 statistics compare with the current child mortality in Iraq, post-invasion. Or is it that nobody is even able to gather such data in the current context?
2) as seen from sub-Saharan Africa, the “tragedy” of child mortality in sanctions-afflicted Irak was rather relative: as I recall it, there were one or two (or more?) African countries that were part of the UN Security Council voting on invasion-authorizing resolution in early 2003 and these countries had child mortality rates on par with the Irak child mortality peak in the sanctions era. Or worse. (In fact, I think the numbers were so poorly known for these country that the numbers available were far less precise than those for Iraq.)
While this does not change the questionable morality of sanctions, it points to where some of the West’s moral indignation should look from time to time.
Posted by J-Lo on Mar 7, 2006 at 12:27 AM Scorp, you are wrong on ALL counts. The U.S. misappropriation of reconstruction aid for Iraq makes the Oil-for-Food Scandal look like chump change. And worse, there is no call by “rightists” to hold meaningful investigations to determine the extent of the cronyism and corruption perpetrated by the Coalitional Provisional Authority. The U.S. and U.K. had veto authority over ALL Oil-for-Food contracts and vetoed ZERO. Duelfer was a Bush-appointee, who in his final report made it completely clear that Saddam had ended his WMD programs in 1991 and had not been reconstituted at any point. Gauging intent and ability is a subjective conclusion. There was never any chance that the embargo on military goods would ever be lifted, thus ensuring that Iraq would not redevelop WMDs.
Those mass murders committed by Saddam occured in the 1980s predominantly and after the first Gulf War. A significant proportion of these atrocities happened when the Iraq was a major U.S. ally. Tell me Scorp, did it bother you at the time when Saddam’s atrocities occured? Did you ever do anything about it? Are you appalled by the 35,000+ Iraqi deaths since the invasion? It is incontrovertible fact that Hussein had no WMDs since 1991, so how could he have transported them? What evidence do you have of such shipments? The governing elite in Syria is Shiite, the type of Muslim Saddam persecuted. Why would they accept Iraqi WMD to help Hussein?
Posted by Liberal on Mar 7, 2006 at 6:45 PM Scorp, your claim that leftists accomodate mass murderers is false. Even if it were true, at least leftists do not create alliances with and send military aid to such tyrants, the same cannot be said of “rightists.”
If by leftists, you mean Democratic presidents, it is true that ALL presidents have made unsavory alliances with dictators ostensibly to curtail the greater threat of communism. But if you mean that liberal PEOPLE desire to coddle tyrants, you are full of shit.
Please be careful when you classify the left to avoid making an arse of yourself.
Posted by Liberal on Mar 7, 2006 at 7:13 PM Scorp,
The sanctions clearly succeeded in disarming Saddam (there is no real reason to ASSUME the WMDs are outside Iraq) though they did so at an enormous cost as per many independant investigations of humanitarian conditions during the twelve years they were in place.
The Kurdish story is interesting because the US used the no-fly zones to begin the momentum toward the regional dismemberment of Iraq. This was a geostrategic game, not a humanitarian one. The Kurds suffered enormously under the sanctions regime more because of the many failed CIA inspired attempts at a Kurdistan based insurrection/coup against the Ba’athist Regime. Many Kurdish lives were lost in these attempts and in one case the Iraqi army actually sided with one peshmerga faction against the other (Barzani against Talabani). Having been betrayed by the US once in the mid-1970s over the Algiers Agreement with Iran at the cost of many Kurdish lives the Kurds were now once again bearing the brunt of ill fated US proxy wars in the Persian Gulf.
Relief supplies in the late 1990s may have been better at reaching the Kurds than others further south. The fact is that in the first place Saddam’s intransigence was due to US insistance on regime change regardless of Iraq cooperation and compliance with the UN (which by all accounts was substantial-certainly greater than Israel’s) and secondly, the Oil for Food scandal was not only about the corruption of Saddam but also the US which held almost $9 billion in OFF money at the time of the invasion for which it never was called to account. Further, the 661 committee, comprised significantly of the US and UK, which oversaw the stringent trade transactions over the entire period approved of everything that went through largely because western allied Jordan and Turkey needed cheap fuel. In addition there are billions in unaccounted for reconstruction aid. There is plenty of hypocracy everywhere but why be on a high horse when the OFF program actually helped many innocent Iraqis and only became the red herring it became because the right-wingers hate the UN and Kofi Annan?
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 7, 2006 at 11:52 PM Liberal,
I do not believe that the ruling Syrians are Shi’tes. Assad, both Hafiz and Bashir are Alawites-an ancient biblical sect which speaks both Arabic and Assyrian (a language probably similar to aramaic) and practice eastern orthodox Christianity not Islam. Your point about Syrian hostility to Iraq making it unlikely that the Syrians would help Saddam hide WMDs from the US/UK Coalition and the UN Security Council is well taken. Those who make such allegations are far to impressed with the self-serving and self interested claims of former high level Ba’athist defectors who are filled with post war opportunism and are probably looking for favors of various kinds. To bad the Americans are in such a selfish mode these days!
By the way it is also quite proper for you to distinguish between leftists, that is to say between liberals and radicals. They really seem to hate each other. There is a real wall of separation between liberals and Marxists (as you hinted at in your apologia of Democratic US Presidents who favored rightist dictators when facing the “threat of Communism") There is no such wall between conservatism and fascism. Fascism is conservatism in profound crisis. Come to think of it, as the Frankfurt School Philosopher Herbert Marcuse once noted, the liberal state is pregnant with the fascist one and is only awaiting the midwife of capitalist crisis. what do you think!?
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 8, 2006 at 12:16 AM Cabdriverinchicago, I find your comments to be very informative and grounded in fact. Kudos to you.
The basis for my claim that the ruling elites in Syria are Shiite came from a roundtable discussion with various Middle East scholars that was printed in the Nation last summer. Juan Cole, with whom I am sure you are familiar, stated that Syria was governed by Shiites, which he used to undermine the U.S. government’s accusation that Syria was aiding and abetting foreign insurgents in Iraq.
Of course, I could be wrong, but there still is no evidence that I have seen that indicates Syria received shipments of WMD since the Duelfer report concluded that Iraq had no active WMD programs after 1991.
Posted by Liberal on Mar 8, 2006 at 11:07 AM Cabdriver, I was not apologizing for Democratic presidents who made alliances with right-wing dictators, I was just trying to point out that Republicans did the same thing, and with MUCH greater zeal. Reagan’s Central America policies should be evidence enough of that, not to mention the expanded ties the Bush II regime has sought with Indonesia and Pakistan. I desire to have a president that desires the value of human life, and is not willing to sacrifice it in order to maintain the American corporate hegemony.
Posted by Liberal on Mar 8, 2006 at 11:11 AM Pardon the irregular wording of the last sentence in my previous post. I meant to say that I want a president that values human life, and is not willing to sacrifice it in order to maintain American corporate and military hegemony.
Posted by Liberal on Mar 8, 2006 at 11:12 AM 1/2
This was a pretty good article but I have a problem with the way the central issue was framed, as if there was ever much of a difficult ‘moral choice’ about the sanctions. The obvious reality is that the sanctions were reprehensible, immoral and completely unnecessary, and were never intended to contain Hussein. The sanctions acheived exactly what they were designed to achieve: the destruction of Iraqi civil society and the maintenance of Hussein as an iron-fisted ruler/guarantor of regional “stability” (i.e., the prevention of the very situation the moronic Bush has since brought about over there).
It is helpful I think in this situation to consider briefly Iraq’s history over the last 40 years. Since 1963 it has been highly influenced by US policy, and has gone through several distinct phases:
1) 1963-1979: The US sponsors the rise of the Ba’athists as a means to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East and build up the “Arab facade” system of regional dominance it inherited from the British.
2) 1979-1990: The US backs Saddam Hussein in his long war with Iran (Gulf War I) over the Shatt al Arab waterway as a means of keeping both Iraq and Iran from becoming too powerful.
3) 1990-2003: The US apparently tricks Hussein into war with Kuwait and then launches a war (Gulf War II) to remove him from that country, followed by over a decade of incredibly brutal sanctions against Iraq’s civilians.
4) 2003-Present: The US invades Iraq in order to shore up its hegemony over the Middle East in the face of a rising Iran and potential global strategic competitors (Gulf War III).
Each of these phases has produced hardship, misery and casualties amongst the Iraqi population (and others). Basically, the four phases can be characterized as 1) The US oppresses Iraqis, with the help of the Ba’athists and Hussein (unknown numbers dead); 2) The US murders Iraqis and Iranians, through its proxy Hussein (while selling weapons to the Iranians at the same time; maybe a million killed); 3) The US kills Iraqis directly (maybe a million dead between the 1991 war, the sanctions and the continuing, murderous illegal air strikes made against Iraq during this period); and 4) the US accelerates its murder of Iraqis, this time through overt military force and occupation (probably hundreds of thousands dead so far).
Over the 1979-2003 period (phases 2 and 3), the US is also complicit in Hussein’s notorious oppression of “his own people,” including Halabja, the crushing of the “Marsh Arabs” and the Kurds in 1991, etc. Basically there isn’t a crime in this entire period that the US isn’t directly in the middle of. That it sometimes had the help of Hussein when it committed these crimes hardly exonerates them. It is specious and grossly ignorant to pretend the deaths Hussein directly ordered are somehow separable from American policy in general during this entire period. Saddam Hussein was nothing without US support, and likely wouldn’t have lasted long had the US not desired it. The 2 million or more who have been killed over the past 27 years in Iraq (you do the math) are first and foremost victims of US policy: sometimes with Hussein’s support, sometimes without it, but always victims of “American interests.”
Posted by Graeme on Mar 8, 2006 at 8:39 PM 2/2
Case in point, the sanctions: the 350,000, half million, million or whatever the figure is (as if it makes much difference) died in order to help make Hussein stronger and Iraq weaker. WMD never, ever had anything to do with it. The UN verified that the vast majority of his weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s; furthermore, every other country in the region also had WMD, so that can’t be the reason.
Of course he would have re-started his program once the inspections ended; every one of his neighbours had highly advanced WMD programs, why shouldn’t he? Don’t tell me aggression against other states is the reason. If it doesn’t apply to Israel or Indonesia or the US itself why the hell does it apply to Iraq?
Genuine concern over WMD should produce several pretty specific policies: regional disarmament (200 nukes in Israel, anyone?); limited *specifically* military sanctions, if necessary; and most obviously, stop giving dictators the stuff. Does everybody forget how Hussein got the weapons in the first place? It’s not like he could just go down to the local 7-11 to pick up some anthrax. He never, ever would have been any kind of a WMD threat without compliant Western corporations and governments. If you don’t want to give him WMD, just don’t. It’s hardly rocket science.
The same lesson applies with dictators like Hussein in general. I am so sick and tired of the “war or nothing” argument, which is given a slightly different form in this article ("war or sanctions or nothing"): there is a whole UNIVERSE of potential non-violent, non-destructive approaches an immensely powerful state like the US could have pursued in “dealing” with Hussein. The first that comes to mind is simply adopting policies unlikely to make him stronger (i.e., no sanctions). The second is stop supporting him (no weapons, diplomatic cover, etc.). Third is the aforementioned region-wide disarmament, under which all states are given both incentives and pressure to abandon their WMD programs. Support for democratic opposition groups is another. Encouraging social reforms through economic incentives is another. It isn’t particularly difficult to go on.
Honestly, simply not supporting him would have been an extremely effective place to start. Hussein without the US would have been like Ceauşescu without the USSR: he would have been strung up very quickly, or, if he was very lucky, perhaps escaped to dishonour in Switzerland or something. Whatever. There is hardly a dictator around the world these days without US support, and the reason is obvious: people don’t like dictators. This is why short of massive outside support by foreign powers, most dictators don’t last long.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 8, 2006 at 8:41 PM sanctions are murder in iraq and served the industrial military by reducing the autonomy and strenghth of iraq to such a degree that they thought one last murder spree and they would own it. i’m horrified at the death toll that is acceptable for gaining empire. our morons are incapable of learning and to call their actions moral is patently absurd. it is not even in that dialectic. they don’t decide sanctions, or pillaging and conquering , murder and theft, on some moral abacus. since there is no more oil to find they want those fields they do not give a damn what saddam did nor what they did. they are there for the oil. they have come to take the country. they same for iran. these plans have been spelled out by our regime for 13 years. this is their end-game. first we take back opium production in afghanistan, then we take the oil of iraq, then the oil of iran and with israel and saudi arabia own the world of oil. which will only give them fuel to destroy the rest of us.
doug shaeffer
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 9, 2006 at 6:33 AM While we were working in the last week to raise sufficient funds to place the full page newspaper ad in the San Francisco Chronicle before March 18, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (the city council) voted by a 7-3 margin to support the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The resolution calls on the Democratic delegation from the city to move for impeachment. The timing of the ad couldn’t be better. Similar resolutions are being offered in city councils around the country. The people must use all avenues to pursue this growing nationwide grassroots movement.
We need to urgently raise $15,000 to finish paying for the next full page newspaper ad. Click here to make a donation today. Each time the ad appears, the impeachment message reaches hundreds of thousands of new people. Many become active volunteers and supporters, and in turn help reach other people in their community, neighborhood and work place. Click here to help to help pay for the upcoming ad in the San Francisco Chronicle.
The impeachment campaign is in full swing
Just last week tens of thousands of people participated in the People’s Impeachment Lobby by sending letters to their Congressional Representatives.
Last Thursday, New York City’s historic Town Hall Theatre in Times Square filled up with people supporting impeachment. The event was sponsored by Harper’s magazine. Many of those in attendance took the ImpeachBush.org/VoteToImpeach.org petitions home with them promising to collect signatures in the coming weeks.
Radio personality Garrison Keillor has just released an article entitled “Impeach Bush.” and actor Richard Dreyfuss called for impeachment, while speaking before the National Press Club in Washington.
28 members of US Congress have now signed on to H Res 635, including US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the original co-sponsor. The current 28 total co-sponsors are Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).
Everyone who has been active with ImpeachBush.org/VoteToImpeach.org as a volunteer, activist or donor should be proud. When this movement started, we were confronted by the naysayers who said it couldn’t be done. Bush was tall in the saddle back then. The people who have made this movement come alive didn’t persevere because the issue was “popular.” People have sacrificed to make this movement happen because it is critically important. There was too much at stake to remain passive.We receive letters from people all over the country and they breathe of confidence and conviction. Elderly people and those on fixed income send messages and moving stories, sometimes with a donation of a single dollar bill. A one dollar or five dollar donation from someone on a fixed income can be as great a sacrifice as a larger donation from someone who makes a decent salary or has savings. This a true people’s movement and it can only succeed by everyone showing their support. Click here to help the movement grow.
-All of us at ImpeachBush/VoteToImpeach.org
Please see below for the SF Chronicle story on the Impeachment resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by brian28 on Mar 9, 2006 at 9:49 AM Published on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 by the San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco Supervisors Ask Lawmakers to Impeach Bush
by Edward Epstein, Charlie GoodyearSan Francisco’s supervisors jumped into national politics Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the city’s Democratic congressional delegation to seek the impeachment of President Bush for failing to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and engaging in other activities the board sees as transgressions.
The supervisors, in voting 7-3 for the resolution, made it likely that San Francisco again will become grist for radio and TV talk shows. The city has appeared in the national media spotlight recently for voters’ passage in November of a nonbinding measure banning military recruiters from public high schools and for Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval’s recent comment on a Fox News show that the United States doesn’t need a military.
Supervisor Chris Daly, one of the most progressive members of the board, sponsored the resolution, which also calls for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Daly said the measure is justified in light of the administration’s case for and handling of the war in Iraq, the federal government’s inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and recent revelations about a domestic wiretapping program."I think the case is clear, and I think it’s appropriate for us to weigh in,” Daly said.
face it bush and cheney are screw ups, bush 34% cheney 18% approval ratings. They are dead in the water,embarisment to the u.s. and promoted hatred towards americans through out the world.
Even the neo-cons are having a hard time defending the boy king.
Bush is the fastest lam-duck president in history and in charge of everything. The only thing keeping his politics alive are noe-cons trying to prop him up to keep alive in nov. and more and more rebulicans are tuning their back on bush.
Posted by brian28 on Mar 9, 2006 at 9:49 AM The sanctions killed 500,000 (innocent) Iraqi children. Madeline Albright thought this was “worth it.” I’ll leave it to souless Republicans to agree with her while quoting Jesus and cheering on the next genocide.
Posted by opeluboy on Mar 9, 2006 at 8:17 PM Let’s get back to basics here. The goal here is to basically, make other people be nice to their own people and keep them from getting WMD’s and blowing up themselves and the rest of the world, without going to war constantly because going to war could, ultimately cause us to blow ourselves up and possibly (probably) the rest of the world anyway, right?
In the case of the Iraqui’s, sanctions didn’t work for two reasons. The sanctions were targeting the wrong people or things and, after the misery the sactions imposed FINALLY made it up the ladder to where they were working, they weren’t honored in good faith (and to think I’ve said I LOVE Clinton! LOL).
Personally, I think it is necessary to find a way to make sanctions work. I don’t want anyone to blow up the world through war and ignoring the problem will surely come to that end.
I think “Smart Sanctions” are a good idea. Sanction the things that are the most dangerous (weapons) and the things the country values. The problem with the Iraqui sanctions is that they were not hurting or depriving Sadam of something he valued - they were only hurting human life AND serving to keep him in power.
Also, it seems the goal of this saction changed with the US adminstration? At first we wanted to make Sadam be nice to his people and give up his WMD’s....Even though it took a LOONNNGGG time (too long in my opinion for reasons I’ve stated earlier - not sanctioning the effective things) Sadam was beginning to comply. However, by the time he began to comply, Clinton was in office and said, “Well, no, we’ve changed our minds...now we want Sadam out!”
I think it IS possible to sanction for a regime change if that is the key to that country’s problems. but, especially in this case, other things should be sanctioned. Sanction the things that make that leader powerful. In this case, we were sanctioning things that were making the leader more powerful.
In a nutshell, I do think sanctioning is the answer (until we can get everyone to remember their kindergarten lessons and be nice to each other!) But each case should be handled individually. The goals and objectives should be spelled out clearly in the beginning and adhered to, the appropriate goods should be sanctioned to achieve the ultimate goal based on that country’s values and assets and both parties should operate in good faith.
Now that I’ve finished solving all the world’s problems - I’m going to get my kids and live through 30 minutes of “He stole my yo-yo!"/ “She pulled my hair!” :-)
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 10, 2006 at 1:47 PM you must be speaking of sanctions placed by a new race of decent people. these sanctions were never intended to"make saddam nice”. in fact, we ensured that saddam would not be nice by giving him the very weapons of mass destruction we use for a smokescreen later, along with chemical and biological.ask why? the sanctions were purely to destroy a people and a country we were always intending to steal. wake up. we are not peacemakers. we are predators. this was all spelled out distinctly in documents cheney and co. wrote during the reign of bush 1.
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 10, 2006 at 3:35 PM I was basing my “Be Nice” comments on this statement in the article:
sanctions seem the only viable means of deterring regimes that seek nuclear weapons or engage in gross human rights violations.
And addressing sanctions vs. war in general for achieving the above goals, using the Iraqi situation as an example, as the article was.
You wrote:
the sanctions were purely to destroy a people and a country we were always intending to steal.
This is a very valid point, and perhaps I do need to “wake up” as you say, but I think you are generalizing when you say that:
we are not peacemakers. we are predators.
WE are not all predators...Cheney/Bush & Co. may be predators as are others...be WE are not all predators...And if WE continue to allow the “predators” to dominate our actions, then we are all doomed.
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 10, 2006 at 3:56 PM “The sanctions killed 500,000 (innocent) Iraqi children. Madeline Albright thought this was “worth it.” I’ll leave it to souless Republicans to agree with her while quoting Jesus and cheering on the next genocide.”
Exactly, though even this oft-cited statistic sometimes annoys me. 500,000 was the figure estimated by the UN for children under 5 killed by the sanctions from 1990-1995. It doesn’t include children over 5 or adults in that same period, nor does it include deaths in all age groups from 1996-2003. While the mortality rates undoubtedly dropped during the Oil-for-Food era, it’s not like they ever approached the rates of the (relatively very low by regional standards) pre-sanctions period. What researchers term “excess deaths” still undoubtedly continued during this time. The Iraqi government under Hussein claimed that the true total was closer to 2 million. I have my doubts about that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was in the high hundreds of thousands at least.
Add to the that the continuing, long-lasting effect of sanctions (which weren’t even lifted during the first stages of the most recent war and have probably only since been dropped to allow US corporations unfettered access to what is left of Iraq’s economy) in Iraq over the past 3 years (decaying infrastructure, lack of clean drinking water etc.), which have only been exacerbated by the war, plus all the violent deaths (direct, those caused by the insurgency which the war triggered, those causes by wildly accelerated crime rates the war brought about, those caused by continuing lack of access to health services due to all of the above, etc.), and the true figures are probably staggering.
Everyone knows about Iraq Body Count’s oft-cited 30,000 estimate (likely very low by their own admission) and The Lancet’s 100,000 figure but Counterpunch recently estimated the real number of war dead could be as high as 580,000 or more already. Then there are the estimated 250,000 Iraqis killed during the 1991 war. I’ve already mentioned US complicity and responsibility for all of the deaths caused by Hussein and the Ba’athists going back more than 40 years. And we wonder why they hate us?
Posted by Graeme on Mar 10, 2006 at 6:37 PM “The goal here is to basically, make other people be nice to their own people and keep them from getting WMD’s and blowing up themselves and the rest of the world, without going to war...sanctions didn’t work for two reasons. The sanctions were targeting the wrong people or things and, after the misery the sactions imposed FINALLY made it up the ladder to where they were working, they weren’t honored in good faith…
I must say I rather disagree with your analysis BlueButterfly. The *stated* goal of the sanctions may have been to disarm Saddam Hussein but we know that can’t have been the real reason. They didn’t “take a long time to work” in this sense because he destroyed all of his usable WMD stock within a few months of the 1991 war, as the UN quickly discovered.
If we want to “make other people be nice to their own people and keep them from getting WMD” all we have to do is not give them WMD and weapons/diplomatic support to massacre their own civilians in the first place. All of this “crisis” over Iraq was really manufactured, in my opinion. We frequently heard of the “threat” Hussein posed to the West but this was laughed at in the Middle East. Israel wasn’t afraid of him. The Saudis weren’t afraid of him. Kuwait wasn’t afraid of him. But Americans were. Why is that? By 2003 Iraq’s conventional military forces were smaller than Kuwait’s. Hussein’s entire WMD program had been disassembled, as they key defector Hussein Kamel (Saddam’s son-in-law) verified in 1995.
Pundits routinely say something to the effect of “Saddam would have had to be dealt with sooner or later,” but why? The only time he was ever a threat was when he was a US client. What would he have done by himself, drown his neigbours in oil? He couldn’t get weapons without the US Congress. He couldn’t build a WMD program without American and European corporations. He couldn’t invade anybody without US support. So why all the fear? Why did he have to be “dealt with” at all? Over the same approximate time period as our fascination with “Saddam the devil” in the West Indonesia accelerated its campaign of genocide in East Timor (and started another in West Papua), 4.5 million people died in the Congo, 400,000 in Darfur and many more in dozens of other places. None of these even rated a tiny fraction of the big bad Saddam threat. Are we supposed to take this seriously?
The other thing pundits say is “you would still have Saddam in power!” but this is as logical a sentiment as arguing in favour of Operation Barbarossa had that campaing resulted in Stalin’s death, merely for that reason. Besides, there were many other ways of removing Hussein from power. As I said, up until the late 90s at least the US was interested in supporting him, not removing him.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 10, 2006 at 6:56 PM This is why I disagree so strenuously with this statement:
“sanctions seem the only viable means of deterring regimes that seek nuclear weapons or engage in gross human rights violations.”
The reality is that sanctions are usually just another weapon of the powerful against the powerless. They may be “nicer” than thermobaric bombs or white phosphorous but are no less deadly. They weren’t “viable” in Iraq because as noted above they didn’t succeed in disarming Hussein (or succeeded very quickly and then were left in place anyway, as disarming him clearly was never their real goal); “deterring” is a rather misleading term here. “Not allowing” regimes to acquire WMD programs or engage in gross human rights violations is a much more accurate formulation. I’m not saying “zero” countries on earth will ever be able to carry out illegal behaviour and acquire WMD no matter what the US does, but the odds for peace are certainly greatly increased if it controls those states within its own realm of influence (which is huge).
As far as that goes even “rogue” states like Iran and North Korea or those under Chinese influence (Burma, Vietnam) are largely influenced by US actions, which often base their policy in reaction to the behaviour of “the world’s only superpower.” As the current Iraq War debacle has pretty plainly proven, the lesson is clear: if you want to be attacked, lie, dissemble and obfuscate about the extent of your already-defunct WMD programs; if you want to be left alone, actually develop them. Prospects for peace under such an arrangement are less than good, to say the least.
One thing I do agree with you on: “we” (i.e., the people of the United States and other Western countries) aren’t predators. I imagine by “we” dougshaeffer meant “every US administration in living memory.” The people and the government are certainly very different entities. I find most Americans to be pretty nice and decent people, if perhaps criminally underinformed (I’m not American myself). Their governments are another matter.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 10, 2006 at 7:17 PM Graeme-
If the sanctions worked so quickly, why were they still going on eight years after they began? Is it because we changed our goals from disarming Hussein to dethroning him?
You say - “he destroyed all of his usable WMD stock within a few months of the 1991 war, as the UN quickly discovered. “
Why didn’t anyone tell us? This writer says: “Hussein was so intent on deceiving the weapons inspectors that he refused to acknowledge he had been disarmed”
And from what this article states, the sanctions had gone on eight years before Sadam began to comply, but when he saw that with every concession, no sanction was being lifted AND Clinton wanted him out of power, he saw no use in complying any longer.
But effectively, we’ve “ economically strangle him and then he won’t cry uncle so we cut off his head.”
“That is what happened,” says Lopez. “But it didn’t have to.”
And that is what I believe is the point of this article and what we should be discussing. Not past history regarding two bull-headed regiemes...but the future of sanctions vs. war.
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 10, 2006 at 7:26 PM “If the sanctions worked so quickly, why were they still going on eight years after they began? Is it because we changed our goals from disarming Hussein to dethroning him?”
They were still going on because disarming him wasn’t their goal. The goal was to rely on an “iron-fisted ruler” (Tom Friedman’s words) in Iraq who could keep the potential tinderbox of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds from igniting. This later changed to outright removal, yes, but only as the Neocons started to influence policy more and US imperial ambitions expanded.
“Why didn’t anyone tell us? This writer says: “Hussein was so intent on deceiving the weapons inspectors that he refused to acknowledge he had been disarmed””
It was in the news. Read Hussein Kamel’s testimony from 1995. Read anything Scott Ritter has written on the topic.
Saddam Hussein *did* refuse to fully disclose the remaining extent of his WMD programs (in reality almost nothing), but is this surprising? Look at a map. He has nuclear-armed Israel ("virtually an offshore US military base,” as Chomsky often refers to it) on one side and potentially nuclear-armed Shiite Iran on the other, with well-armed US clients Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states right next door, and nuclear-armed Russia not far off. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria weren’t allies. Would it really make a lot of sense for him to yell out to the world “I’m sitting on half of the world’s proven oil supplies (a tremendous source of global power and wealth) and I’m essentially defenseless! Come and get it!”? Implying that he at least had a few old usable Scuds and some mustard gas hidden somewhere was about the only deterrent he had left.
“And from what this article states, the sanctions had gone on eight years before Sadam began to comply, but when he saw that with every concession, no sanction was being lifted AND Clinton wanted him out of power, he saw no use in complying any longer.”
This is another error in the article. Hussein refused to let the inspectors back in because they had been infiltrated by American spies. It took 8 years to *completely, totally verify* that every last speck of ricin had been disposed of, but UNSCOM essentially concluded that 90% of Hussein’s known WMD stock had been eliminated by at the latest the mid-90s (if nothing else because the shelf life of the stuff had expired by then). Clinton’s rhetoric certainly didn’t help; Hussein had no reason to even go along with the charade after that, but eventually he agreed, perhaps hoping that the optics would make for good global PR. In reality there is probably nothing he could have done to ever satisfiy the US: it was bent on war, and that was it. Indeed, Bush was probably frustrated by the lack of believable pretext Hussein gave him, but went ahead anyway.
““That is what happened,” says Lopez. “But it didn’t have to.””
But this is my point: it was designed to happen this way from the outset. Saying “it didn’t have to” is fantasy. Of course it didn’t have to, but the sanctions didn’t have to happen at all (at least to anywhere near the extent they were employed).
“...what we should be discussing [is n]ot past history ...but the future of sanctions vs. war.”
But this is a false choice. It’s like asking whether you want to be executed with a bullet to the head or starved to death over several days. My argument is that neither are usually necessary, and the kind of sanctions visited upon Iraq never are. There are all kinds of other policy options we should consider (even if we conclude anything has to “be done” about a given situation at all) before we ever start thinking about sanctions or war, some of which I have already mentioned. Reducing the issue to “sanctions vs. war” is like going to your doctor with a chest cough and him instantly asking you whether you would prefer chemotherapy or amputation.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 10, 2006 at 7:56 PM “This is why I disagree so strenuously with this statement: “
You seem to be disagreeing so strenuosly you are contradicting yourself. First you say that the sanctions worked quickly and now you say, “They weren’t “viable” in Iraq because as noted above they didn’t succeed in disarming Hussein (or succeeded very quickly and then were left in place anyway, as disarming him clearly was never their real goal)” From what I am reading here tonight, they did succeed but he lied about not having them AND the US decided they wanted him out, (the goal was changed in midstream) so the sanctions continued.
I understand that you are upset, for I agree that, “every US administration in living memory.” has acted as predators, and, “ most Americans to be pretty nice and decent people, if perhaps criminally underinformed”.
I, for one, am working to change the the “Criminally Uninformed” part(just to give you a little hope for the future of the human race) :-)
And I agree with this statement here:
“no matter what the US does, but the odds for peace are certainly greatly increased if it controls those states within its own realm of influence” in regards to human rights violations. WMD’s can potentially effect us and everyone else on this continually shrinking planet...so I feel that US and UN intervention is warranted in that respect. Human rights violations are bordering on “none of our business”. As long as America accepts immigrants and those people can choose to make thier individual situations better on their own, I feel a little uncomfortable imposing our (or the UN’s or anyone’s) idea of Human Rights on an entire country.
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 10, 2006 at 8:01 PM “I’m sitting on half of the world’s proven oil supplies (a tremendous source of global power and wealth) and I’m essentially defenseless!
ROTFL! Yes, that thought had occurred to me, but I hadn’t quite formulated it to that extent. LOL!
“It’s like asking whether you want to be executed with a bullet to the head or starved to death over several days. My argument is that neither are usually necessary, and the kind of sanctions visited upon Iraq never are. There are all kinds of other policy options we should consider (even if we conclude anything has to “be done” about a given situation at all) before we ever start thinking about sanctions or war, some of which I have already mentioned”
I think they would be worth mentioning again...Solving the problems and informing people of options is very important!
Also, “Smart Sactions” are designed to target a specific goal or group. Not the whole country. In a war everybody in the involved countries- and not necessarily ONLY those countries - suffer. There is an organization in the US that is trying to make a “Peace Department” (a govermental department dedicated to the peaceful resolution of foriegn conflicts) as big or bigger than our “War Department”. This “Peace Department” would probably be very familiar with your “other policy options” as well as “Smart Sanctions”.
Thank you for this discussion tonight, Graeme, I’ve learned a lot!
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 10, 2006 at 8:15 PM I should probably clarify my position. The sanctions may have “worked” in a limited sense (i.e., they compelled Hussein to dismantle his own weapons before the inspectors could find them) but they weren’t “viable” in that they didn’t achieve their stated ends, i.e. punishing Hussein for hiding weapons it was clear he didn’t actually have. WMD was a smokescreen, in other words. Debating the “theoretical” efficacy of sanctions is thus a rather academic argument vis a vis what actually happened in this case. Sanctions could perhaps be a scalpel of diplomatic precision but in practice they tend to be a bludgeon of state power.
Case in point, Iraq: the sanctions were designed to keep Iraq weak and Hussein strong, like I’ve been saying. The US may have decided it didn’t like him after a while and thus removed any incentive whatsoever for him to comply (with a UNSC Resolution which would, as noted above, basically be a declaration of impotence by an Arab ruler), but his noncompliance really had very little to do with the maintenance of the sanctions, as the US made perfectly clear; US planners found them to be a useful tool of policy, and the anguished screams of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi mothers obviously didn’t matter a damn to them.
I’ve heard of the US Department of Peace and I think its a good idea.
I think you perhaps misunderstood my point about “controlling those states within our realm of influence:” I’m not talking about imposing cultural mores onto unwilling foreign populations (though that is an interesting debate in itself), I’m simply talking about reigning in “our” foreign leaders (i.e. Suharto, “our kind of guy” according to Clinton; Ariel Sharon, the “man of peace” according to Bush, etc.). What I was trying to point out was that it doesn’t really require “intervention” to stop these people, WMD or no: we simply decide not to give them any (same goes for conventional weapons, intelligence, diplomatic support, money, training, etc.). These leaders can do very little without “our” support in the West.
This doesn’t mean North Korea, Iran et al should be given carte blanch to do whatever they want, but their actions essentially mirror ours: if we have nukes, they’ll want nukes (justifiably so), etc. So we have to be a good example. Nobody will (understandably) accept their enemies having big guns while insisting that they can’t have the same. If some madman *actually* threatens his neighbours and his own people with WMD he *actually* has and we in the West have the power to intervene we should of course (in as sane a way possible), but this is so far outside the realm of experience I’m not sure its even worth mentioning at this point.
I actually think human rights are a rather universal standard, and are already enshrined in international law. I have no problem with the UN holding all of its members to their signed obligations. It just shouldn’t be done in a one-sided, clearly biased fashion. It is up to the poweful states to exert their power in order to control “their” despots and tyrants (preferably by not supporting them at all in the first place).
Posted by Graeme on Mar 10, 2006 at 10:30 PM As for policy alternatives, see what I wrote above:
“there is a whole UNIVERSE of potential non-violent, non-destructive approaches an immensely powerful state like the US could have pursued in “dealing” with Hussein [assuming this is even deemed necessary (which I am)]. The first that comes to mind is simply adopting policies unlikely to make [people like Saddam Hussein] stronger (i.e., no sanctions). The second is stop supporting him (no weapons, diplomatic cover, etc.). Third is the aforementioned region-wide disarmament [already proposed by the UN by the way and supported by at least some of the Arab states], under which all states are given both incentives and pressure to abandon their WMD programs. Support for democratic opposition groups is another. Encouraging social reforms through economic incentives is another. It isn’t particularly difficult to go on.”
As for “smart sanctions:” I agree that they may theoretically work. Specifically and strictly military sanctions ("dual use” is far too broad a category to ever be properly enforced) are probably a good idea for most of the world’s governments, as far as that goes, but especially the very worst ones. I reiterate again about WMD however: these things aren’t easy to get. Simply make it illegal for any US corporation (and other Western corporations through the UN, Interpol, trade deals etc.) to give dictators chemical precursors, missile components etc. and you will severely limit their ability to build WMD and delivery systems. There will still be people like A.Q. Khan in Pakistan who helped arm North Korea and Iran but they can be dealt with through aggressive policing of international arms control treaties (you know, the very ones Bush et al are currently shredding).
But again, modeling is important. If the US doesn’t force so-called “rogue” states into corners (you know, calling them evil and so on) they will have less reason to want WMD in the first place. They obviously think they need them to defend themselves against US aggression. No state in the world is ever going to use its one or 2 nukes in a first strike against the US, because no state in the world wants to be wiped off the map by the inevitable response. But having those 1 or 2 may be integral in preventing US invasion, as they threaten the extremely bad PR of 150,000 instant American military casualties. These are defensive weapons in this context.
This doesn’t mean their proliferation should just be allowed, but this will undoubtedly happen if the US continues on its path to more or less forcing everybody to arm themselves. So far the lesson, as I said, is clear: if you don’t have WMD we will invade you, if you do we won’t. The only reason the US doesn’t want “rogue” states to have WMD is precisely because they are effective deterrents against coercive US state aims.
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed this discussion as well. Please stay informed and passionate about these issues. The more people we have who care about these things the better (especially in the US). Informing people and trying to come up with positive alternatives are indeed important, so thanks for taking part. :)
Posted by Graeme on Mar 10, 2006 at 10:52 PM clearly sanctions do not prevent war nor proliferation of weapons. they are in fact a form of war and directly result in death, in this case of hundreds of thousands of children alone who were denied basic medical care. we are not the moral arbiters of justice on the planet. we do not even understand justice in the “homeland”. we are the only regime that has used nuclear weapons aside from israel which is our thug outpost. we have used depleted uranium bombs in this slaughter as we did in the last bush slaughter. the we i speak of includes you and i and everyone that lives under this murderous regime. unless ignorance and cowardice are prophylactics for responsibility. i know that this country is the terrorist of the planet and everyone fears us. it won’t be long until we all realize the enemy is us.
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:05 AM it is true that government does not equate to the populace. and yet if government going back many regimes is not representative and we allow it to continue it’s tyranny by the minority, we are complicit in it’s actions of terror and murder. we are the ones who pay for each and every war in blood and money.
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:24 AM it is us who need to control our despots within our own country. if we can’t do that who the fuck are we to control despots round the world. we set em up and sometimes they freak out and want independance or some crazy notion. no one out there believes in the things most americans do about their own regime. they hate and fear us and they are absolutely correct.
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:38 AM “But again, modeling is important. If the US doesn’t force so-called “rogue” states into corners (you know, calling them evil and so on) they will have less reason to want WMD in the first place. They obviously think they need them to defend themselves against US aggression. No state in the world is ever going to use its one or 2 nukes in a first strike against the US, because no state in the world wants to be wiped off the map by the inevitable response. But having those 1 or 2 may be integral in preventing US invasion, as they threaten the extremely bad PR of 150,000 instant American military casualties. These are defensive weapons in this context.
This doesn’t mean their proliferation should just be allowed, but this will undoubtedly happen if the US continues on its path to more or less forcing everybody to arm themselves. So far the lesson, as I said, is clear: if you don’t have WMD we will invade you, if you do we won’t. The only reason the US doesn’t want “rogue” states to have WMD is precisely because they are effective deterrents against coercive US state aims “
Excellent points, Greame - So what again is the answer? Are you leading into the suggestion that we disarm ourselves?
Methinks that “), but this is so far outside the realm of experience I’m not sure its even worth mentioning at this point.” But it’s a wonderful dream! ;-)
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 12, 2006 at 11:07 AM Excellent points, dougshaeffer - We are “criminally uneducated” and I think that education within the US is the key…
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 12, 2006 at 11:10 AM Oh, and we (the US) could stand a “regieme change” as well! ;-)
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 12, 2006 at 11:22 AM “So what again is the answer? Are you leading into the suggestion that we disarm ourselves?”
Disarming ourselves would be a fantastic idea, but I’m not even going that far. Simply adhering to the laws already on the books would at least be a start. For example, UNSC Resolution 687 called for Iraqi disarmament *in the context of region-wide disarmament,* the only context in which disarming one country really makes any sense. UNGA Resolution 60/52 specifically calls for a nuclear weapon-free Middle East.
Honouring the AMT, CTBT, NPT, Bioweapons protocols, etc. would be another really good idea. Bush has decided to undermine all ot these, which will only (predictably) lead to everybody else thinking they should ignore them too. Stop developing new nukes and other WMD and keep reducing your stores of old ones. As far as I’m concerned every country on earth should have one nuclear weapon and nobody else should get any more. But I’m not dreaming, I’m just asking that everybody honour the commitments they’ve already made.
“But it’s a wonderful dream! ;-)”
I hope the continuation of the human species is more than just a wonderful dream. Non-proliferation of the world’s worst weapons is certainly somewhere to start. I made the comment you quoted above in relation to a theoretical intervention against a foreign madman, but as I hope I’ve shown here a far more important focus for us should be controlling our own leaders (and those they control) than to worry about the fanciful machinations of the evil incarnate “other;” as someone said above, most of the time the enemy is us.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 12, 2006 at 12:59 PM “it is us who need to control our despots within our own country. if we can’t do that who the fuck are we to control despots round the world.”
The point is to influence our leaders to call off the attack dogs they already control and to stop propping up such horrific governments to begin with. The average American or Canadian could’t go much about KOPASSUS units in Timor or the SAVAK in Iran but their governments could have, simply by threatening to turn off the funding. Clinton proved this when he finally decided the bloodshed in East Timor was too much even for him to stomach. The violence stopped at a stroke of the pen. El Salvador, Guatemala, Turkey, the Occupied Territories, Nicaragua: all could have been the same. Hundreds of thousands could have been saved but weren’t because Washington felt their deaths were in its interest. These regimes are nothing without their powerful backers. Stop them and you stop much of the violence throughout the Third World.
Even bin Laden et al recognize this, in their own sick, twisted way, which is why they have started attacking American targets directly instead of focussing exclusively on their vassals in Egypt, Kuwait etc. If we in the left could be the “al-Qaeda of peace” (a global peace network) perhaps things would really start to change.
This is why I am sympathetic to but rather disagree with things like “Tibetan freedom concerts;” everybody wants Tibet to be free but rock concerts aren’t going to do much to convince China of anything. We in the West can influence our own governments; in that respect we do theoretically have “some” power to affect Chinese policy, say through trade negotiations, diplomacy and so forth, but our arguments aren’t going to have much effect if our own countries are supporting things at least as bad as what China does in Tibet all over the world at the same time. Why didn’t we have “Kurdish freedom concerts” or “Timorese freedom concerts” in the 1990s? Why no “Palestinian freedom concerts?” Why aren’t there weekly “Iraqi freedom concerts” today? How about “Afghan freedom concerts?” I’ll start respecting all of these bands a lot more when I see them start doing things like that alongside calling for Tibetan freedom.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 12, 2006 at 1:15 PM Graeme -
I know your quote was in relation to another matter, and I wasn’t trying to make light of what you are saying. I just thought it was appropriate for the idea of asking the US to disarm itself as well.
“ but as I hope I’ve shown here a far more important focus for us should be controlling our own leaders (and those they control) than to worry about the fanciful machinations of the evil incarnate “other;” as someone said above, most of the time the enemy is us.”
You have and you are right....
“ As far as I’m concerned every country on earth should have one nuclear weapon and nobody else should get any more. But I’m not dreaming, I’m just asking that everybody honour the commitments they’ve already made. “
Good idea - good point.
“I hope the continuation of the human species is more than just a wonderful dream. Non-proliferation of the world’s worst weapons is certainly somewhere to start.”
I think it would effect the continuation of most species actually! (except perhaps the lovely, lovely cockroach!) :-)
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 12, 2006 at 7:16 PM “If we in the left could be the “al-Qaeda of peace” (a global peace network) perhaps things would really start to change. “
Where do I sign up?
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 12, 2006 at 7:19 PM Thanks for your comments. Other species would probably benefit from greater human responsibility, yes - although I suppose the argument could be made that long-term their lot would be greatly improved by the disappearance of humans altogether.
As for where you sign up - there are many places to start. One is a student, youth and non-violence network I happen to be a founding member of myself. I don’t want to get your hopes up: to tell you the truth it’s mostly just a forum for friends to talk to each other (though so is al-Qaeda, in a way); we certainly encourage new members. It’s nothing dramatic but you might be interested to check it out. It’s called Peace Without Borders (http://www.pwb-net.org).
Another is the university in Austria where I got my MA in Peace & Conflict Studies. It’s called the European University Center for Peace Studies (EPU), and has a lot of interesting global peace things going on all the time (http://www.aspr.ac.at/welcome.htm).
If you’re interested in these things or would like more information on other peace projects I might know about just drop me a line - anardil@hotmail.com. Information sharing can be an important first step, as you said above.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 12, 2006 at 8:08 PM Thanks, Graeme...I’ll look into these things! :-)
My learning is just beginning, and I seem to learn best through talking with others…
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 12, 2006 at 9:18 PM So do I :) Thanks again and best of luck in your learning efforts.
Posted by Graeme on Mar 12, 2006 at 11:03 PM bluebutterfly, thanks, i agree education is the key. i admire kathy kelly, voices for creative non-violence, who has this objective and is powerfully committed.
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 13, 2006 at 9:04 AM graeme, bin laden was and is an ally of our regime. the attacks on the u.s. were directed by dick cheney. read mike ruppert’s crossing the rubicon and see if you can still hold the same opinion about bin laden. we have to get out of the false paradigm of us and them to see more clearly what is going on. follow the money. war profiteers, record profits for oil co’s while oil runs out. it is the desperate ruthless end of empire. and it will end.
Posted by dougshaeffer on Mar 13, 2006 at 9:15 AM Thank you dougshaeffer-
I agree with this as well…
bin laden was and is an ally of our regime. the attacks on the u.s. were directed by dick cheney. read mike ruppert’s crossing the rubicon and see if you can still hold the same opinion about bin laden. we have to get out of the false paradigm of us and them to see more clearly what is going on. follow the money. war profiteers, record profits for oil co’s while oil runs out. it is the desperate ruthless end of empire.
Posted by BlueButterfly on Mar 13, 2006 at 11:33 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Christopher Hayes
- The New Road to Serfdom
Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy" - Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy - What We Learn When We Learn Economics
Is a little economics a dangerous thing? - The Abramoff Babies
Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms. - The Good War on Terror
How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad - Economic Populism Proves Popular
To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
