|
Cover
Table of Contents
Editorial
- Families of the Disappeared Unite!
Cover Story
-They do not ask for Charity… They demand Justice!
Country Situations
New Hopes for Ending Impunity in China
And Disappearances Continue…
Four-Year Effort To Reveal Disappearances: A Reflection
An Individual Tragedy With Universal Pain
The Human Rights Commission in
Sri Lanka
Photos:
Forum and Leadership Training
Legal Analysis
The UN Negotiation on the Draft Treaty…
Political Analysis
Showdown in Baghdad
Features
Daddy’s Diary
News Features
The Nilo Valerio Foundation’s Coming Into Being
No Closure ‘till Justice is Achieved
The Formation of Indonesian Association…
Year-End Report
– A Summary
2002 Revisited
Literary
Warning
|
POLITICAL ANALYSIS
SHOWDOWN IN BAGHDAD
By: Francis Isaac 1
As this article is being written, war clouds have begun to speed their way over the Iraqi landscape, with no apparent indication of settlement or respite. Further heated by the country’s seemingly windless desert atmosphere, both women and able-bodied men have started to expect the opening of hostilities at country’s borders near Kuwait and Turkey, placing the entire Middle East at the epicenter of madness, debacle and death.
This was also underscored by US President George W. Bush’s announcement on 8 March 2003 giving Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm or face the American and British military onslaught. This, after the presentation of chief UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei before the Security Council. Although rebuking Iraq for its slow moving pace and disinclination to hand over documents on its previous weapons program, the inspectors nonetheless concluded that the country has already carried out a “substantial measure of disarmament.”
The findings, however, failed to impress the United States, warning that their “coalition of the willing” would have no qualms in attacking Iraq, even in the absence of a UN resolution supporting military action. Washington justified its bellicose stance by claiming that the world cannot afford to have a tyrant like Saddam remain undeterred and warned that the UN is bound to lose its significance if it fails to act in the most forceful way.
France, a long-time American ally, on the other hand strongly rejected the Bush administration’s military “adventurism,” appealing to its fellow Security Council members to give the arms inspectors more time. This stance, which has earned the support of other Western countries like Germany and Belgium has caused so much consternation in the White House that at one point, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was forced to scornfully describe their former Cold War allies as part of “the old Europe.”
Balkanization, Baghdad-style
 But while negotiations and deft diplomacy have so far remained as the primary mode of engagement by the protagonists, the United States of America has constantly indicated that war remains the only option. As early as 11 February 2003, US Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith has already presented an outline for a planned occupation of Iraq for at least two years. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Feith argued that “enormous uncertainties” after the war may force American troops to extend their stay for an undetermined length of time.
This was then followed by an Associated Free Press (AFP) report stating that American military officials plan to divide Iraq into three administrative sectors once Saddam Hussein has been dislodged from power—one in the north, the other in the south and a third in central Iraq including Baghdad. Retired general Jay Garner, who now heads the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs, would serve as the overall civil administrator assisted by two retired generals who would respectively serve as administrators for the northern and southern sectors. They were identified as Generals F.J. “Buck” Walters and Bruce Moore. The central sector, on the other hand, will be administered by the former US ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine.
A Pissed Off World
Such unilateralism, however, of the United States and their apparent disregard for United Nations’ initiative have provoked strong anti-American sentiments throughout the world. This has been most apparent in Germany wherein Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s anti-war position in the last parliamentary polls have resulted in the Social Democrats’ stunning electoral success, riding on the crest of popular resentment against Bush’s gung-ho attitude and the Germans’ deep-seated pacifism and proclivity against military action. Interviews made by the Associated Press (AP) with “dozens of ordinary people in nations as far-flung as France and China, Algeria and South Korea” suggest that the “goodwill and sympathy for the United States generated by the September 11 terror attacks have evaporated.”
The plunging rate of American prestige is further manifested in the burgeoning protest movement against George Bush and his fellow hawks in both the Republican Party and the military-industrial establishment. Converging in what must have been the largest peace rally in history, anti-war protesters in 600 towns and cities in six continents led simultaneous protest actions on 14-18 February to denounce the planned invasion of Iraq. The event, which started in Sydney, Australia soon wound up throughout the world, gathering between eight to 11.5 million people.
Ironically, the biggest demonstrations took place in countries whose governments are staunchly supportive of the United States’ policy on Iraq, particularly Great Britain, Australia, Italy and Spain. In Barcelona alone, 1.3 million people joined the demonstration, while another one million took to the streets of Rome. In Montreal, Canada, about 100,000 people joined the peace rally despite freezing temperatures. In London, between 750,000 to two million protesters joined in what police described as the biggest demonstration in the city’s history.
Apart from these, peace marches were also held in France, Germany, Poland, Romania, Indonesia, Switzerland, Belgium, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Russia, the Czech Republic, Scotland, Greece, the Netherlands, Japan, Bangladesh, the Philippines and South Africa. Anti-war protests were also held in Israel wherein 3,000 Jews and Arabs marched side by side in a rare moment of unity along the streets of Tel Aviv. Rallies were also held in Morocco, Lebanon and Syria with protesters usually brandishing AK-47 rifles.
Even in the United States, the protest actions have also gained momentum, with Hollywood stars like Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover joining them. Family members of the 9/11 victims have also joined the rallies organizing themselves into the “9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow.” Labor unions have also taken a stand against Bush’s Middle East policy with the launching of “US Labor Against the War” on 11 January 2003.
Oily Intentions
Peace activists claim that despite Bush’s do-gooder rhetoric, his brand of military belligerency is no different from the kind of terrorism practiced by the al-Qaida and the iron grip used by Saddam’s Ba’ath Party. As America’s leading intellectual Noam Chomsky said in an interview with Suzy Hansen, “I’m kind of simple-minded. I believe in elementary moral truisms—namely, if something is a crime when committed against us, it’s a crime when we commit it against others...I think it makes sense to remind people of it.”
Even the Vatican has admonished the United States for its saber-rattling policy despite the Bush’s attempt to pepper his speeches with Judeo-Christian imagery derived from the Old Testament. By distancing himself from the White House, the Pope has effectively deprived Washington of the moral legitimacy in its impending war.
The bottom-line, activists claim, is Washington’s attempt to take control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves which is the second largest in the world. Based on statistics, the United States consume about 70 million barrels of oil a day, hence the common opinion in the Pentagon that views Iraq as the golden gateway to petroleum–based economic shangri-la.
War of the “Chicken Hawks”
Surprisingly, however, those who have been most adamant in the pursuit of war have had no combat experience whatsoever, with some even managing to avoid the military draft despite the military situation in the United States at the time of their youth. Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, failed to enlist for military service in the 1960s due to his “other priorities.” Secretary Rumsfeld, on the other hand, took advantage of a university deferment during the Korean War while he was a student in Princeton University. But worse of all was the United States’ future war-time President George W. Bush, who managed to evade being drafted for the Vietnam War by serving in Texas Air National Guard. Given their ludicrous military record, American author Chalmers Johnson dubbed America’s current leaders as chicken hawks—“men and women with an abstract knowledge of war who have never come under attack of any sort.”
No wonder Bush and his ilk are so enthusiastic about war. For as history suggests, the cowardly and the “sunshine patriot” are so brave when it comes to other people’s lives.
1 Francis Isaac, first began his activists years as a grim and determined Marxist but soon ended up as confused post-modernist, a music lover by heart, he subscribe to the idea of anarchist writer Emma Goldman: “If I can’t dance to your revolution, I won’t come”.
VOICE April 2003
|