|
3 March 2003
No War
Ten Reasons Against War On Iraq
An update of War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War on Iraq, by
Milan Rai
REASON 1: THE HUMAN COST OF WAR
A leaked UN study drawn up on 7 Jan. 2003
estimates that 'In the event of a crisis, 30 percent of children
under 5 would be at risk of death from malnutrition.' In other
words, 1.26 million children under the age of five could starve
to death because of this war.
The report warns that, the collapse of essential
services in Iraq could lead to 'a humanitarian emergency of proportions
well beyond the capacity of UN agencies and other aid organizations.'
There could be up to 500,000 direct and indirect casualties.
(Casualty figures include the wounded as well as the dead.) (The
full report is available from <www.casi.org.uk>.)
To engage in a war, knowing that these are
possible consequences, is a crime against humanity of extraordinary
proportions.
REASON 2: THE WAR IS ILLEGAL
'The draft resolution [put to the Security
Council by the US and UK] would provide no explicit authority
to conduct a war. It simply states that the council "decides
that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to
it in Resolution 1441." (Washington Post, 25 Feb.,
p. A01) The US and Britain 'have abandoned hopes of a resolution
that would explicitly authorise war.' (Guardian, 25 Feb.,
p. 1) Their draft contains 'no explicit threat of war.' (FT,
25 Feb., p. 8)
The US and UK rely on the 'authorisation'
which they say was granted in Resolution 1441 last Nov. But there
was no 'authorisation' in Resolution 1441.
Professor Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor
of Public International Law at Oxford University was asked by
the Radio 4 Today programme to consider the legality of
war on Iraq last Dec. He said, 'The statement in paragraph 13
of the Resolution [1441] that "the Council has repeatedly
warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result
of its continued violations of its obligations" is a simple
statement of what the Security Council has done in the past. It
cannot in my opinion possibly be interpreted as an express or
implied authorization to States unilaterally to take military
action against Iraq in the future.'
'My conclusion, therefore, is that under
present circumstances it would be contrary to international law
for the United Kingdom to engage in military action against Iraq,
or assist any other State in taking such action, unless it
was expressly authorised to do so by the United Nations Security
Council.' [See 'Iraq Hearing' at <www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/>
There is no 'express authorisation' in the
draft UN resolution. The US and UK are conspiring to carry out
an illegal war of aggression.
3) IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT
British Vice-Admiral Sir James Jungius KBE
observed in a letter to The Times (1 Jan., p. 25): 'Even
if the weapons do exist, where is the evidence of intent to use
them? War is too important and unpleasant a business to be
undertaken on the basis of a hunch, however good that hunch may
be.'
Former Conservative Cabinet Minister Douglas
Hogg: 'The real question is not whether he's got weapons of
mass destruction, but rather whether—if he has got those
weapons—he is a grave and imminent threat to the rest of
us... unless he's a grave and imminent threat there isn't
a moral basis for war, because the doctrine of self-defence isn't
properly invoked.' (BBC Radio 4, The World This Weekend,
12 Jan.)
At the time of writing, it has not been
proved that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—it
has certainly not been shown that Iraq intends to use its weapons
in an aggressive manner.
4) THERE IS NO LINK TO INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Having tried to convince us that we should
attack because Iraq is an clear and immediate threat, the Prime
Minister switched to arguing that we should attack because Iraq
is a vague and distant threat: 'the threat is real, and if we
don't deal with it, then the consequences of our weakness will
haunt future generations.' (Newsweek, 27 Jan., p. 21)
But former chief UN weapons inspector Richard
Butler testified to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in July 2002: 'I have seen no evidence of Iraq providing [weapons
of mass destruction] to non-Iraqi terrorist groups. I suspect
that, especially given his psychology and aspirations, Saddam
would be reluctant to share with others what he believes to be
an indelible source of his own power.' (Financial Times,
1 Aug. 2002, p. 7)
In the bin Laden tape which is supposed
to show the 'nexus' between al Qaeda and Baghdad, bin Laden says:
Muslims should not fight 'to seek victory for the ignorant governments
that rule all Arab states, including Iraq'; (Times, 13
Feb., p. 16) 'socialists [i.e. Saddam Hussein's Baath Party] are
unbelievers'; and it 'doesn't matter if the Communist party of
Saddam disappears.' (Times, 12 Feb., p.
1) With friends like this, who needs enemies?
REASON 5: THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIBERATING
IRAQIf there is a real desire to change the regime, why in
October 2002, did White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer say 'the
cost of one bullet' was less than the tens of billions of dollars
that a war would cost? (Telegraph, 14 Jan., p. 13)
If there is a real desire to change the
regime, why did Donald Rumsfeld say that if 'the senior leadership
and their families' went into exile—just them—that would
be 'a fair trade to avoid a war'? (Telegraph, 20 Jan.,
p. 1)
If there is a real desire to change the
regime, why did the US announce plans to replace only the top
three people in each Iraqi ministry in Iraq (with US soldiers)
keeping the government, police, judiciary and military intact?
The US plan was condemned by Kanan Makiya,
a fiercely anti-regime Iraqi exile, who said, 'Its driving force
is appeasement of the existing bankrupt Arab order, and ultimately
the retention under a different guise of the repressive institutions
of the Baath [Party] and the army.' (Observer, 16 Feb.)
This isn't 'regime change'. It's 'regime
stabilisation, leadership change.'
REASON 6: THIS WAR WILL DEVASTATE THE
KURDS
'Turkey has deployed an estimated 5000 troops
to northern Iraq. Post-war, Turkey will almost certainly move
in to ensure that any attempt at independence by the Iraqi Kurds
is quashed.' (Guardian, 21 Feb., p. 4) This invasion could
involve 'up to 80,000 Turkish troops.' (Telegraph, 27 Feb.,
p. 17)
The US-Turkish plan, which both Iraqi Kurdish
parties reject, 'envisages Turkish troops deploying along a nearly
200 mile-long, 20 to 25 mile-deep "buffer zone" on the
Iraqi side of the border.' (Guardian, 24 Feb., p. 4) Hoshyar
Zebari, foreign relations chief of the Kurdish Democratic Party,
says, 'Our people are terrified by the prospect.' (Independent,
24 Feb., p. 2)
Congressman Jim Moran, a senior Democrat
who recently met the Kurdish ambassador to Washington: 'If we
sell out the Kurds for the third or fourth time, that's wrong.'
(FT, 28 Feb. 2003, p. 7) That's
the plan.
REASON 7:THIS WAR WILL HURT THE WORLD'S
POOR
South Africa, chair of the 53-nation African
Union 'has warned that a war in the Middle East would have "serious
repercussions" for debt-burdened countries in the region.
It argues that rising oil prices in an escalating Middle East
crisis would prove disastrous for African recovery and scupper
the New Partnership for Africa's Development.' (FT, 4 Feb.,
p. 8)
REASON 8: THE MILITARY ARE UNCONVINCED
Scores of retired US and British soldiers
have spoken out against war. Field Marshal Lord Brammal, former
chief of Britain's Defence Staff, has said, '|You don't have a
licence to attack someone else's country just because you don't
like the leadership.' (Times, 5 Aug. 2002, p. 1)
REASON 9: IRAQ'S NEIGHBOURS OPPOSE THIS
WAR
The countries which are most under 'threat'
from Iraq, which are within reach of the al-Samoud missiles which
UN inspectors are forcing Iraq to destroy, oppose this war. At
the end of Feb., Turkey, a close NATO ally, refused to allow US
troops access to Turkish bases to conduct the war despite a bribe
of over $25 billion! The feelings of the region were summed up
by Hassan Yassin, a senior Saudi adviser: 'The world will be a
safer place for all of us if war with Iraq can be avoided today,
and if tomorrow we can restore the UN's authority over the United
States.' (Sunday Times, 12 Jan., News Review, p. 4)
REASON 10: THERE IS NO DEMOCRATIC MANDATE
FOR WAR
45 per cent of British people believe George
W. Bush 'represents the greatest danger to world peace' (45 per
cent believe it is Saddam Hussein). 47 per cent believe the US
is 'A bully that wants to dominate the world'. Only 23 per cent
believe it is 'A force for good in the world'. (Sunday Times,
23 Feb., p.13)
'The advice proffered by a large majority
of Britons to Mr Blair is thus clear. He should not continue "to
make active preparations for launching an early military assault
on Iraq" (32 per cent of British people). Rather, he should
inform the Bush administration "that he lacks the necessary
public support for war in the UK, and the US will therefore either
have to go it alone or else give the UN weapons inspectors more
time to complete their work" (63 per cent).' (Telegraph,
19 Feb., p. 4)
Douglas Hogg, the former Conservative Cabinet
Minister, has drawn up an Early Day Motion (716) signed by 133
MPs—'That this House does not believe that British forces
should be required to participate in a war against Iraq unless
all of the following conditions are met: (a) that there is
clear evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to peace,
(b) that there is a substantive motion of this House authorising
military action, (c) that there is an express resolution
of the Security Council of the United Nations authorising the
use of military force against Iraq and (d) that all other
policy options have been exhausted.'
This is an immoral, illegal, counter-productive
and undemocratic war.
BOOK
War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Why We Shouldn't Launch Another War
Against Iraq by Milan Rai
'An excellent weapon for all those opposed to Bush's war'.
Tariq Ali
'Excellent'. Alice Mahon MP
'Required reading for anyone concerned
about the risk of war'. Professor Paul Rogers, Bradford
School of Peace Studies
'Timely and important'. Hilary
Wainwright
£10 plus £1.80 p&p.
Please make cheques to ARROW Publications, and send with your
address to 29 Gensing Rd, St Leonards on Sea, East Sussex TN38
0HE.
ARROW
^ back
to the top
|
