Thursday, March 06, 2003
- “ú–{ŒêŠw?Z–K–âŒð—¬ƒvƒ?ƒO ƒ‰ƒ€ by TAE
?i?d•¡“Š?e‚ɂ‚«Ž¸—炵‚Ü‚·?I?j
‚?‚È‚³‚Ü?A‚¢‚Â‚à‚²‹¦—?‚ ‚肪‚Æ‚¤‚²‚´‚¢‚Ü‚·?B
‚m‚o‚n–@?l“Œ‹žƒGƒCƒŠƒAƒ“ƒAƒCƒY‚Ì?‚–ì‚Æ?‚µ‚Ü‚·?B
ƒCƒxƒ“ƒg‚Ì‚²ˆÄ“à‚Å‚·?B
?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`
•¶•?‰ÈŠw?È?AŒã‰‡Œˆ’è?I
—§–½ŠÙƒAƒWƒA‘啽—m‘åŠw?A‹¦Ž^Œˆ’è
http://www.apu.ac.jp
?@?@?@?@“ú–{ŒêŠw?Z–K–âŒð—¬ƒvƒ?ƒOƒ‰ƒ€
?@
?@?@?@?@?@?`?¡?N“x?A‚¢‚æ‚¢‚æ?Å?I‰ñ?`
?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`?`
?‘?Û“I‚ÈŠw?¶‚½‚¿‚Æ“ú–{Œê‚Ō𗬂·‚éƒ{ƒ‰ƒ“ƒeƒBƒA?E
ƒvƒ?ƒOƒ‰ƒ€?B—ׂÌ?‘?Û?l‚Æ‚ ‚È‚½‚à˜b‚µ‚Ä‚?‚悤?I?I
?œŠJ?Óú?F2003?N3ŒŽ11“ú?i‰Î?j
?œ?W?‡ŽžŠÔ?F9?F40
?œ?W?‡?ê?Š?FJR?ü?u?V‘å‹v•Û?v‰w?@–kŒû
?œ“à—e?F??ƒNƒ‰ƒXŒ©Šw?@10?F00?|10?F50
??Œð—¬?@?@?@?@11?F00?|12?F50
?œŽQ‰??ï?F1000‰~?i—¯Šw?¶ 500‰~?j
?@?¦“–“ú‚?‚¨‚‚è‚Ì‚È‚¢‚悤‚¨Šè‚¢‚¢‚½‚µ‚Ü‚·?I
?œ–â?‡‚킹?E—–ñ?i‚¨–¼‘O?^?‘???^Šw?¶‚?Šw?Z–¼?^
?@“d˜b?Ô?†?^ƒ??[ƒ‹?j‚?‰º‹L‚Ü‚Å
?@
?@Žå?Ã?FNPO–@?l “Œ‹žƒGƒCƒŠƒAƒ“ƒAƒCƒY?iTAE?j
?@TEL 03-6801-9666?@FAX 03-6801-9667
?@ishn@annie.ne.jp
?@http://www.annie.ne.jp/~ishn
?œŒã‰‡?F•¶•?‰ÈŠw?È?^
?@?@?@?@’““ú‘åŠØ–¯?‘‘åŽgŠÙ?@ŠØ?‘•¶‰»‰@?^
?@?@NPO–@?l ‘½•¶‰»‹¤?¶ƒZƒ“ƒ^?[?E“Œ‹ž21?^
?@?@‚?‚ƃ~ƒ…?[ƒWƒAƒ€ ?ã–ì?½?ʼnæŠÙ?^
?@?@“?’è?ñ‰c—˜Šˆ“®–@?l ?‘?Û?äŠr•¶‰»Œ¤‹†?Š?^
?@?@?½?·•Ê?‘?Û‰^“®“ú–{ˆ?ˆõ‰ï?iIMADR-JC?j
?œ‹¦Ž^?F•xŽmƒ[ƒ?ƒbƒNƒXŠ?Ž®‰ïŽ??^
?@?@?@?@—§–½ŠÙƒAƒWƒA‘¾•½—m‘åŠw
?œ‹¦—??F“Œ—mŒ¾ŒêŠw‰@?^“Œ‹ž’†‰›“ú–{ŒêŠw‰@?^
?@?@?@?@ƒA?[ƒNƒAƒJƒfƒ~?[?a’J?Z?^
?@?@?@?@“Œ‹ž“ú–{ŒêƒZƒ“ƒ^?[?^?Ô–å‰ï“ú–{ŒêŠw?Z?^
?@?@?@?@YMCAƒAƒWƒAŒêŠw‰@?^
?@?@?@?@?ÂŽRƒXƒN?[ƒ‹ƒIƒuƒWƒƒƒpƒj?[ƒY?^
?@?@?@?@ƒJƒC“ú–{ŒêƒXƒN?[ƒ‹
?œŽ^“¯?F•Û?â“W?l?i?O‹c‰@‹cˆõ?j?^
?@?@?@?@?h?i‹Ê?i?l?Þˆç?¬ƒRƒ“ƒTƒ‹ƒ^ƒ“ƒg?j?^
?@?@?£ŒÃ—R‹IŽq?i?O‹c‰@‹cˆõ?j
?i?‡•s“¯?EŒh?Ì—ª?@‚Q‚O‚O‚R?N‚RŒŽ‚S“úŒ»???j
?–ƒ{ƒ‰ƒ“ƒeƒBƒA?EƒXƒ^ƒbƒt•å?W’†?I
?@?iƒXƒ^ƒbƒt‚?ŽQ‰??ï–³—¿?j
?@ŽQ‰?ŽÒ‚Æ‚¢‚?‚µ‚å‚ɂ‚‚éƒvƒ?ƒOƒ‰ƒ€‚Å‚·?B
- ‘æ‚R‰ñ?…ƒtƒH?[ƒ‰ƒ€ Water Forum
Join our Direct Action against Privatization of Water
The 3rd World Water Forum will be held in Kyoto, Osaka and Shiga from March 16th to 23rd. A SEED JAPAN was launched the Stolen Water Campaign on Dec 6th 2002. We are focusing on the privatization of water services promoted by International Financial Institutions such as World Bank, IMF and Asian Development Bank. We are going to take a creative direct action against privatization of water services on 21st March. The detail of our direct action has been considered. We hope you will join our campaign, and join our
action to make fair water!
‘æ‚R‰ñ?…ƒtƒH?[ƒ‰ƒ€‚ª‚RŒŽ16“ú‚©‚ç23“ú‚Ü‚Å?¡“ú‚Æ‚É‚ÄŠJ?³‚ê‚Ü‚·?BA SEED JAPAN ‚?2002?N12ŒŽ6“ú‚©‚ç?u’D‚í‚ꂵ?…ƒLƒƒƒ“ƒy?[ƒ“?v?„?i‚µ‚Ä‚«‚Ü‚µ‚½?B?¢ŠE‹â?s?AIMF ‚âƒAƒWƒAŠJ?‹â?s‚Æ‚¢‚?‚½?‘?Û‹à—Z‹@ŠÖ‚ª‚·‚·‚ß‚é?…“¹ƒT?[ƒrƒX‚Ì–¯‰c‰»‚É?Å“_‚ð“– ‚Ä‚Ü‚·?B3ŒŽ21“ú‚É‚±‚¤‚µ‚½?…“¹ƒT?[ƒrƒX‚Ì–¯‰c‰»‚É?½‘΂·‚邽‚ß‚Ì’¼?Ú?s“®‚ð?s‚¢‚Ü‚·?B?Ú?ד™‚?‚·‚Å‚ÉŒŸ“¢‚³‚ê‚Ä‚¢‚é‚Ì‚Å?AŠF—l‚àŽ„‚½‚¿‚̃Lƒƒƒ“ƒy?[ƒ“‚ÉŽQ‰?‚µ?A
?…–â‘è‚Ì‰ðŒˆ‚É?vŒ£‚µ‚Ü‚µ‚傤?I
for more info:
A SEED JAPAN
5-4-23 Shinjuku,Shinjuku ku, Tokyo, 160-0022 JAPAN
Tel:+81-3-5366-7484
Fax:+81-3-3341-6030
e-mail:asj@jca.apc.org
URL:http://www.aseed.org/
REFERENCE
Water justice in Kyoto?
http://tokyoprogressive.org/news/tpnews_comments.php?id=P134_0_2_0_C
‹ž“s‰ï‹c‚É?…‚Ì?³‹`?iWater?@Justice?j‚?‚ ‚肤‚é‚©?H
http://tokyoprogressive.org/news/tpnews_comments.php?id=P136_0_2_0_C
World Water Forum promotes privatisation and deregulation of world’s water
--from Corporate Europe Observer - Issue 7
http://arenson.racknine.net/2002_09_03_tokyoprog_archive.html#85406381
?¢ŠE?…ƒtƒH?[ƒ‰ƒ€Žs–¯ƒlƒbƒgƒ??[ƒN
http://www.jca.apc.org/%7Epfw/
WATER ?…
http://www.mnet.ne.jp/%7Ebjsmall/sub1.htm
The BAD guys (more or less):
http://www.worldwaterforum.org/
Also this:
Why Does the WTO Want My Water?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-02.htm
- Musicians Band Together Against War Threat (Billboard Magazine)
by Barry Jeckell [Published on Friday, February 28, 2003 by Billboard]
http://199.249.170.183/billboard/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1826821
Dozens of artists from across the musical spectrum have joined forces to speak out against an impending U.S.-led war against Iraq. Rappers Jay-Z and Nas, singer/songwriters Natalie Merchant and Sheryl Crow, roots rock acts Wilco and Dave Matthews, and veteran artists George Clinton, R.E.M., and Lou Reed are among the artists listed under the headline “War On Iraq Is Wrong And We Know It” in an ad credited to Musicians United to Win Without War that ran in Wednesday’s editions of The New York Times.
“Don’t let Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld drown out the voices of reason,” the ad insists, referring to the president, vice president, and defense secretary. “Disarm Iraq with tough inspections.”
The ad, which also includes quotes from former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark and late soul musician Marvin Gaye ("War is not the answer"), carries a coupon soliciting contributions “to fund additional efforts to get the word out and to help avert a war.”
Founded by former Talking Heads leader David Byrne and rap impresario Russell Simmons, Musician United to Win Without War is described on the organization’s Web site as “a loose coalition of contemporary musicians who feel that in the rush to war by the Bush administration the voices of reason and debate have been trampled and ignored.
“We feel that war is not inevitable, though to be honest the U.S. media and government have made us feel that it has become a forgone conclusion,” the explanation continues. “We have no love for Saddam Hussein, but believe that tough [United Nations] inspections have not yet shown enough evidence in justification of invasion.”
The site lists 59 music figures making up the collective, although only 42 appear in the ad. Others who make up the group are Autechre, Eric Benet, T. Bone Burnett, Kandi Burriss, Busta Rhymes, David Byrne, Blu Cantrell, Capone & Noreaga, Rosanne Cash, Dave Chavarri, George Clinton, Brian Eno, Ani DiFranco, Steve Earle, Missy Elliott, Fat Joe, Floetry, Free & AJ, Fugazi, Jagged Edge, Emmylou Harris, Joe Henry, Natalie Imbruglia, Daniel Johns, Donnell Jones, K-Ci & Jo Jo, Angeliique Kidjo, Kronos Quartet, L’il Mo, John Leventhal, Christian Machado, Massive Attack, Mobb Deep, Ann Nesby, Outkast, Pharoahe Monch, Musiq, Raphael Saadiq, Ryuichi Sakamoto, Russell Simmons, Bubba Sparxx, Seven, Sonic Youth, David Sylvian, Tweet, Suzanne Vega, Caetano Veloso, Lucinda Williams, Bryce Wilson, the Youngbloods, and Zap Mama.
“Iraq’s been contained for 12 years,” Simmons said in a statement. “Hundreds of thousands don’t have to die. Stand up, demonstrate, and have your voice heard.” Added R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe, “What we are facing is a complex and multi-faceted problem. Simply bombing Iraq would only create more problems, making an already bad situation much worse.”
Along with a copy of the ad, the site also includes a link to an online anti-war petition, which, like the group’s online home, is hosted by MoveOn.org, an organization that builds electronic advocacy groups. Another link offers visitors the chance to send a free fax with a simil
- Analysis / there is still hope by David McReynolds
If I’ve had few thoughts to contribute to the host of lists I’m on - mainly relaying info as it comes in, as opposed to making points of my own - it is because “everything has been said that needs to be said”. To a great extent we are all convinced. Most of the email I get is a matter of preaching to the converted. (I do hope people are sending some of this material on to relatives and friends).
But in the last week several developments lead me to feel there is, possibly, an advantage to being older. It may give one a certain perspective.
For one thing, the situation really is as dangerous as most of us think it is. Not only is the group around Bush pushing for war against Iraq, but it has failed, in ways that can prove catastrophic, to deal with North Korea through direct diplomacy. (While I am deeply opposed to the “nuclearization” of North Korea and the Korean peninsula, the Bush Administration’s record in this situation has actually, I think, caused the crisis and hope of a resolution does not lie with North Korea as much as with the US).
There is reason to hope the situation can be turned around. What Bush and his people have done (with deplorable help from the media) is to sell us on the idea that war is a done deal. The latest shift by Bush this past week, that even if Iraq disarms it isn’t enough, that Saddam must leave, shows the world that the issue of disarming Iraq was only a fig leaf, that the real objective is the power of Washington to dictate regime change at will, and to secure control over oil resources in the Gulf.
The war is NOT a done deal - though a week from now it may be. It will be hard at this point for Bush to pull back, but it is still possible. (Nothing would be more contemptible than to sacrifice Iraqi and American lives simply because Bush might lose face if he pulled back). Bush could declare that he has achieved his goals, that he had sought to disarm Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, that this is being done, the inspectors are achieving their goal, and that all of this was achieved because of his resolve. And then pull back.
It would be seen in the rest of the world as Bush backing down, but many Americans would accept his explanation. And Bush (and the US) stands to lose far more if the peace isn’t kept.
On the one hand we see an Administration hell bent on having its war, raising the demands steadily so that Iraq can’t meet them, showing a remarkable willingness not only to distort truth but to lie (we all know by now that there is no Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and there are no ties between Iraq and Al Queda). But, on the other hand, lets list the positive developments in the past month.
The Pope has gone so far as to call for Catholics to fast for peace in Iraq. He has been clearer on his opposition to this war than on almost any occasion I can recall. Yesterday the report came that he was sending his personal representative to Washington in a final appeal to Bush.
The demonstrations around the world on February 15th exceeded anything I can recall in my 73 years. They were a profound influence on the policies of the governments of Great Britain (where 121 Labour MP’s stunned Blair by voting in opposition), of Spain (where a leading government official urged Bush to silence Rumsfeld, of Germany (were the Foreign Minister was so furious at Rumsfeld at a recent meeting that he broke into English to say no one could understand the US case for war), to the Arab states where, despite their dislike of Saddam, they have stood fast against support for the war, of Turkey, which shocked Washington by blocking deployment of US troops, and even to the Security Council, where it now seems the US may be unable to muster a majority of votes for a second resolution or, if it can coerce a majority, the resolution may be veoted. On top of all this, the AFL-CIO has come out against the war. Summing these things all up, we have a badly rattled Administration.
If Bush fails to get a second Security Council resolution it may prove impossible for Blair to take Great Britain into the war. In that case the “coalition of the willing” would end up being the US, Eastern Europe, Israel, and a very shaky Spain and Italy (overwhelming majorities of all of these countries, except for Israel, sharply oppose the war).
Bush continues to say he will, if necessary, go it alone. And of course, the rationale for the war has now shifted from charges that Iraq threatens the peace, to charges that Iraq is run by a tyrant who must be overthrown - and this shift in rationale has deeply alarmed almost every other nation, because if there was a shred of reason to support Bush when he was saying Iraq was a threat to peace, there is profound hesitation in supporting Bush when it comes to letting Washington decide which national leaders should be displaced simply because they offend Bush’s moral sense. In this situation, the courageous resignation of a top US diplomat in Greece because of the Bush war drive suggests something of the tensions within the establishment. Yesterday came the news that the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, urged that Bush stick with inspections. The New York Times yesterday had a strong editorial deploring the haste to go to war.
The rush to war has become a kind of madness. Never I seen a world so intent on stopping a single nation as it is today on blocking Bush. The old enemies - Germany and Russia, China and Japan - are united in trying to prevent this blood bath.
In addition there is the domestic factor of our being in the midst of a severe recession which hints at turning into a depression. If Bush hadn’t made Iraq the main story, the economic bad news would be the leading item.
It is not only the outrage of his tax bill, which proposes more tax cuts for the rich, it is the extremely difficult problem of all state governments which are losing tax revenues because of the recession, and must cut social programs. What can be cut? Schools? Prisons? Medical care? Hospitals? Fire and police? Housing?
Bush’s loss of support from labor, the hesitation (and in some cases open opposition) from sectors of the establishment media, such as the New York Times, all have undercut Bush’s ability to push ahead to war.
Two other things have happened, which seem new to me. First, because Bush has waited so long to begin the war, he has also given time for those opposing the war to rebut the Bush case. It is almost as if the Vietnam peace movement was compressed in time and took place prior to the Vietnam War! Thus Bush now confronts a very strong opposition to the war. Much of this is quite openly expressed, in signs in shop windows, sometimes subtly (yesterday as I passed one shop that specialized in art prints I saw it featured in the window two of Picasso’s famous peace doves). The editorial cartoonists have been there long before the editorial writers, mocking the efforts at national security (duct tape indeed!) and the war.
Finally, I sense in the flood of email something new - a sense of humor about Bush. A President who is not only dropping in ratings, but becoming a joke. In the event that he does go to war it is not likely to result in a sudden national unity but rather a deepening of the opposition. And, of course, under the Charter of the United Nations, if Bush leads the US into war, he will be guilty of a war crime, as will every member of his cabinet.
What can be done in the next ten days to two weeks?
First, obviously, continue to pressure members of Congress. All members of the House of Representatives face elections in November of next year. A third of the Senate will be up for election. Personal letters make a difference. Second, continue letters to the press - they count. Third, where possible, when the media has been giving distorted views, try to meet with the newspaper or radio or TV managers. (Yesterday I heard of people going to the Metropolitan Museum here in New York with paper and pencil to stand in front of art works from Iraq, drawing them - when asked what they were doing, they are saying “these are things Bush will soon destroy forever - we want to make copies now").
But we need also to escalate our actions. I understand there is a plan for a demonstration in Washington on March 15th. That is fine, but I think it would be more important to consider responsible civil disobedience, not “the day after” but “the day before”. Not to protest a war that has begun, but to prevent a war from beginning.
Remembering always that the police are not our enemy, not the target for our anger, that our protests need to be responsible, peaceful, and compassionate, they need to take place at military bases, government buildings, Congressional offices, etc.
There is a wonderful and spontaneous ability of people to act without central direction. It is over a year before we can go to the ballot and vote against the political leaders who have been silent or complicit. But we can “vote with our bodies” this week and next. Vote early, vote often. The war is not inevitable.
David McReynolds New York City
-“ú–{•½˜a±¸¼®?/Peace Action Japan March-April 2003
Can we stop the war before it starts? What do we do if it DOES start? Demonstrate? Civil Disobedience? How to raise the cost to the warmakers? How to save lives? How to create a world of peace, of social and economic justice?
DISCUSSION: ‚±‚ê‚©‚ç‚Ì•½˜aŠˆ“®/Where does the peace movement go?
Here are some important links:
Actions
PREEMPTIVE NONVIOLENCE NOW:sit-ins, blockades....
Anti-War Petition/“–?«‚È‚«•Ä?‘‚̃Cƒ‰ƒN?UŒ‚‚Ö‚Ì“ú–{?•{‚ÌŽÀŽ¿“IŽxŽ?‚Ì“P‰ñ—v?¿
Confronting the War Machine-April 5-6 2003: Citizens weapons inspections, nonviolent actions....
Emergency Petition to the Security Council
An Appeal from Dr. Helen Caldicott to the Pope (Petition)
Debate
Mobilize For The Next Phase: Dominick and Azulay
Where do we go from here: Michael Albert
-Voices in the Wilderness Iraq Peace Team: Sand in the machine
Friends,
Here’s the lates news out of Iraq and the voices office:
1. a call to action from the Iraq peace team
2. a way or two to answer the call
Call to STOP the Iraq WAR BEFORE it Escalates to
“Shock and Awe” - Act NOW!
Iraq Peace Team, Baghdad
March 1st, 2003
We, the undersigned 20 members of the Iraq Peace Team in Baghdad, write you from the brink of tragedy - a flesh and blood tragedy for the people of Iraq, a moral tragedy for the people of the U.S.
We write you as the U.S. has assembled one of the mightiest war machines ever to plague this fragile and bloodied planet. This war machine is poised to attack Iraq - a comparatively defenseless nation already crippled by years of UN sanctions. A nation whose misfortune, it has been said, is that “our” oil is beneath its sands.
The attack - its Pentagon architects proudly call it “shock and awe” - may happen any day now. It’s aimed at the cradle of much of the world’s civilization. Land of the Tigris and Euphrates, land of Sumer and Babylon, land of Abraham and the Garden of Eden, Iraq is also the land of 24 million human beings - most of whom would be too young to vote or enlist if they were in the U.S.
We were immensely heartened by the marches in the U.S. - and all over the world - on February 15. We are aware that many in the U.S. will hit the streets the very day “shock and awe” commences.
Given its unimaginable scale, its unthinkable carnage, however, “shock and awe” must be stopped BEFORE it happens.
Our Call, then, is for PRE-EMPTIVE nonviolent civil disobedience action in every village and city and capitol in the U.S.
Please join us. We must all mobilize all of our networks. We must all use our collective resourcefulness. We must find ways to throw sand in the gears of the war machine. The precise date of the U.S. attack is unknown, but here is reason to believe it may be very soon.
The time to act is now.
The Iraq Peace Team: Cynthia Banas Michael Birmingham Cathy Breen Chris Doucot Kathy Kelly Scott Kerr Edward Kinane Cliff Kindy Ramzi Kysia Michael Ferner Doug Johnson Charlie Litekey Lisa Martens Elaine Martinez Lisa Ndejuru Bettejo Passalaqua Mary Burton Risely Trisch Schuh Neville Watson Jerry Zawada
PREEMPTIVE NONVIOLENCE NOW
sit-ins: go to your federal government offices, armed forces recruiting centers, weapons companies (boeing, raytheon, lockheed-martin, etc), military bases and SIT IN. there are different risks to doing this in different place, so find your comfort level and push the envelope.
blockades: where is your local national guard located? are they being deployed? where are they going? find out and be there!
shout-outs: find out where your public officials will be appearing in public. if they’re pro-war, challenge their position in public.
national moratorium: wednesday, march 5 is the national “stop the war” moratorium--no work, no school, no driving, no business as usual.
ash wednesday: if you are a person of faith who would normally celebrate ash wednesday, move your celebration to a congressional office, weapons company, recruiting center, or whatever.
different acts of civil disobedience carry different risks and penalties, so find your comfort level and PUSH IT.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
- Just In: March Stories
March Stories:
http://tokyoprogressive.org/news/topblog.php?id=D20030308
-Asia And The War With Iraq
By Andre Vltchek
In February, the people of Asia stood shoulder to shoulder, protesting in front of their US embassies against the forthcoming war against Iraq. They marched through rain, snow and tropical heat, their numbers varying from several hundreds to hundreds of thousands. But their message was unanimous: “We are not irrelevant. We, the people of the largest and the most populous continent on earth are against the war and against the Western hegemony. And we want our voices to be heard.”
Even in Japan, a country often described as the staunchest supporter of US foreign policy, around 80% of the population is against the war. There is no major nation on the Asian continent that is cheering for an invasion of Iraq.
From Indonesia to Iran, from Japan to Sri Lanka, people are asking the same question: who gave the moral mandate to the United States and the rest of the Western world to preside over the fate of the country that is located thousands of miles from their national boundaries?
Asian unity on the issue of war against Iraq was clearly visible during the summit of Non-Aligned Nations in Kuala Lumpur. The Non-Aligned Movement unites 116 countries: two-thirds of the countries that make up the United Nations. The great majority of Asian nations are also members of the NAM.
Malaysian PM, Mahathir Mohamad, declared “?Encertainties of today’s world are due not to ‘a clash of civilizations’ between the West and Islam, but to a revival of the old European trait of wanting to dominate the world. The expression of this trait invariably involves injustices and oppression of people of other ethnic origins and colours. It is no longer just a war against terrorism. It is, in fact, a war to dominate the world.”
While the newspapers in South East Asia were full of quotes from Mohathir’s speeches, the Western media exhibited a profound disinterest and disrespect to the opinion of people from the great majority of the world, openly expressed by their leaders at the summit of NAM.
“The West talks about some disagreements between the US and Germany and between the US and France”, said a painter in Ubud (he didn’t want to be identified), a small town on the Hindu island of Bali.
“These Western countries have just some small disagreements. They all say that Iraq has to comply with their will and that it has to disarm, they just differ in their views about how it should be achieved. In the end, France and Germany will not defend Iraq from US aggression. We in Asia say: the West terrorized this continent for centuries and, in many ways, still does. We all suffered more from Europeans than from Iraqis. Why should we now listen to the West? It has no moral mandate, no right to define for all of us what is right and what is wrong.”
“Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the ‘other superpower’ has embarked on a mission to satisfy its ‘instinctive sense of superiority’?E, announced Iran’s President Mohamad Khatami at the NAM summit. He also spoke about the “fanatical fundamentalism” of the sole superpower’s project to make its own moral and cultural values into eternal and ever-lasting truths.
Even the Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri decided to join the critics of the US administration: “No matter how powerful the country is, that does not give it the right to act unilaterally against another.”
“When seen from Asia, the looming war against Iraq appears to have all the hallmarks of an Anglo-Saxon adventure”, wrote influential Sri Lankan journalist Marwaan Macan-Markar in his article for the IPS.
Many Asians feel that it is not just the UN that Bush threatens to make irrelevant. It is the entire world that is not white, the entire world that strives to remain culturally different and opposes the world order and one-way globalisation.
While the Western media concentrates its attention on the details and minor disagreements between the US and its European allies, men and women in all major Asian cities try to grasp the essence of the issue, asking questions such as: Why doesn’t NATO have to disarm if Iraq and other countries do? Why does the US insist on going to war if the great majority of people all over the world oppose such aggression?
Asia suffered tremendously from Western terror. British colonial rulers didn’t hesitate to use chemical weapons and extermination techniques against the people of the Middle East (Blair never mentions this when he muses about the “civilized world"). The French ruled brutally over entire Indochina, and the Dutch over Indonesia. And so on!
East Timor lost more than one third of its population during the Indonesian occupation which received a green light from the US and Australia (and was subsequently fuelled by the British military industry).
The whole of South Asia and large areas of the Middle East and Far East experienced the “civilized” whip and greed of the British Empire. The Iraqi people suffered from the coup led by Saddam Hussein, supported by the CIA. Iran lost around one million people after it had been invaded by Iraq, armed simultaneously by the US and the USSR.
The US managed to kill millions of innocent people in Indochina, bombing the Cambodian countryside, supporting corrupt and brutal dictatorships in both Southern Vietnam and Cambodia (paving the way for Khmer Rouge to take power). It carpet-bombed the poor people of isolated Laos. It butchered between one and three millions of Vietnamese men, women and children, not even caring to find out how many really died - they hardly considered them to be human, anyway.
Cambodian, Laotian and Vietnamese people, and particularly children are still losing their limbs and lives in countryside where multitudes of unexploded “bombies” rest at the bottoms of rice fields and elsewhere. The US doesn’t even bother to cooperate with de-mining agencies.
And on the cultured and civilized front ....? What little is left after the intense American bombing of the magnificent towers of the My Son Sanctuary, the spiritual heart of the ancient Champa Kingdom and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, remains a minefield. The great citadel of Imperial Hue, the ancient capital of Vietnam and another UNESCO Heritage, is still largely a ruin after a devastating US bombardment.
Why on earth should the Asians trust us? Why should they believe that we have a mandate to police the world? We dropped two nukes, they didn’t. We had been invading them for centuries, building our glorious “civilized” cities from the theft of their natural resources and the slave labour of their men, women and children. We carpet-bombed them, utilizing all possible weapons of mass destruction, including the notorious ‘Agent Orange’ that is still poisoning the earth of Indochina.
For millions of Asians whose relatives died, whose economies were ruined and whose entire land areas were reduced to pre-industrial devastation, our past and present involvements are just one terrible reality. It’s not like the ‘reality’ of those who are discussing foreign policy in Parisian cafes, in the wine bars of New York or in the clubs of London. For Asians, it’s real reality, it stinks, it makes them shiver in the winter and suffer from horrendous illnesses. It’s a reality that leaves millions of people still hungry - people in countries that we tried to “liberate”, to “civilize”, to make “safe”.
And we still sit on our nukes, we still cling to our veto powers, we still push our economic system, our culture and our system of government down the throat of the entire remainder of the world.
The truth is, the rest of the world doesn’t like it. And they don’t like us. They’ve had enough of our colonialism, neo-colonialism, arrogance, and wars. They’ve had enough of our WTOs, IMFs, and World Banks. And it’s billions of them, and that’s only in Asia.
The CIA, instead of chasing Muslim extremists all over the world, should send their spies to small villages and towns in counties like Indonesia and listen to the voices of the people there. Then they should report back to their masters: report the truth that most Asians are absolutely tired with our hegemony on power. They are restless and ready to act.
It never made it into any newspaper in the West, but after the brutal terrorist attacks on September 11, Vietnamese villagers were firing home made rockets celebrating the attacks that Vietnamese government (quite correctly) denounced with all its force. Shocking? But remember that they lost millions of people, and nobody even told them: “sorry guys, excuse us, we were wrong. Maybe we should at least give some medical help to your children that we maimed or poisoned”. Behaving as we do, we can hardly expect much love and sympathy in this part of the world.
With all the terror and suffering (past and present) that we caused, the only way we can create real peace and stability is to stop, to apologize and to start working with Asian (and of course, Latin American and African) countries on an equal footing. And, of course, to pay our dues and help to clean up the mess that we created.
Then, and only then, there is chance that we can be truly supported, appreciated, liked and respected. And above all, forgiven. Instead, Bush and Blair are pushing Asia and the entire planet towards a catastrophe.
Instead of forcing other countries to disarm, we should disarm ourselves. No local dictator managed to bring so much grief on this planet as we did - as our Western civilization did. Let’s disarm and then let’s (politely) ask others to do the same.
And let’s listen to the others, to the majority of people in this world, in all the different parts of the world, instead of applauding the hardly coherent mumblings that are coming from the governments in Paris and Berlin - they have the same goals, but want to use different means. And the reason they are asking for “more time” is because they are still bit more afraid of their own people than they are of Bush and his entourage.
We are not the chosen people and our truth is not the only truth. There are only two groups that should be allowed to disarm the Iraqi President: one group consists of the Iraqi people themselves. Another group is called ‘the people of the world’ - the majority of the countries of the General Assembly of UN. The same majority should also have a right to tell us - the West - to disarm as well as to tell us to comply with the UN resolutions.
Yes, we are all laughing now. We all know that such a suggestion is na?Ee and absurd. But our laughter may not last too long. It is enough to listen to the words of Malaysian Prime Minister (and each and every journalist working in this part of the world will confirm his words) to have chills running down our spines:
“Our people are getting restless. They want us to do something. If we don’t they will, and they will go against us unable to mount a conventional war they will resort to guerrilla warfare, terrorism against us.”
Bio for the author:
Andre Vltchek is a Czech/American novelist, non-fiction writer and left-wing journalist. He writes for several publications in the US, Europe, Asia and Latin America, besides running his own journal “WCN” ( [url=http://www.worldconfrontationnow.com]http://www.worldconfrontationnow.com[/url] ). Currently he resides in Viet Nam, Japan and Latin America
For information on the ZNET sustainer program, please see this page:
http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm
-Civil Disobedience
by David Edwards
“The killed will be covered with earth and lime, and once more all the crowd of deluded men will be led on and on till those who have devised the project weary of it, or till those who thought to find it profitable receive their spoil. And so once more men will be made savage, fierce and brutal, and love will wane in the world… And so once more the men who reaped profit from it all will assert with assurance that since there has been a war there must needs have been one, and that other wars must follow, and they will again prepare future generations for a continuance of slaughter, depraving them from their childhood.” (Tolstoy, 1896)
Ceausescu - The Balcony Scene
In December 1989 Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu harangued the populace from his balcony in the customary manner. When his audience failed to listen but instead interrupted and finally silenced his speech with a rising wave of sound, Ceausescu was finished. The dictator was reduced to waggling his hand at the crowd in a futile attempt to silence them.
Millions of concerned souls gave the media and politicians a taste of their own Ceausescu moment on February 15. For months, they have been haranguing us from their balconies to the effect that terrorists threaten us on every side, that Saddam is a terrible threat, that war is needed to disarm him, to stifle international terrorism and to liberate the people of Iraq.
Blair has ceaselessly claimed that the military build up is inspired by Vegetius’ maxim: “Let him who desires peace, prepare for war.” But his claim has been ceaselessly undermined by the amassing of sufficient military force to present the world with a fait accompli, making withdrawal politically suicidal. It has also been undermined by Bush’s insistence on the need for “regime change”. When Bush’s advisers noticed the absurdity of the contradiction they had Bush explain that “regime change” could mean either actually changing the regime, or effectively changing the regime by forcing it to change its behaviour. No one was fooled.
Despite Blair’s ‘impassioned sincerity’ - carefully orchestrated by his press secretary Alastair Campbell - everyone could see that the world’s strongest nation was proceeding, as Mark Twain wrote, “with its banner of the Prince of Peace in one hand and its loot-basket and its butcher-knife in the other”. (Quoted, Norman Solomon, ‘The Twain That Most Americans Never Meet’, ZNET Commentary, November 19, 1999)
The goal was clearly to invade Iraq to grab the oil and to distract the US population from the Republican kleptocracy stealing its wealth. All that was needed was an excuse to start swinging the knife.
So the bar for Iraqi compliance was raised as high as possible by UN resolution 1441 in the hope that Saddam would miscalculate or blunder. A complete and full accounting of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - with any omission bringing “serious consequences” - was one hurdle. Immediate and unhindered access of inspectors anywhere in Iraq - an extraordinary request for any sovereign nation - was another.
When 1441 failed to deliver the required result, Bush and Blair hoped for some small discovery of WMD. The outlook must have seemed bleak. Reviewing the years of Iraqi disarmament between 1991-98, Unscom’s executive chairman Rolf Ekeus stated in May 2000 that as a result of extensive Iraqi compliance “not much is unknown about Iraq’s retained proscribed weapons capabilities” and “in all areas we have eliminated Iraq’s capabilities fundamentally”.’ (Quoted, Glen Rangwala, ‘A Threat to the World? The facts about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction’, April 2000, [url=http://www.arabmediawatch.com/iraq]http://www.arabmediawatch.com/iraq[/url] )
When only a dozen empty warheads were found our leaders simply insisted that Saddam was “not fully cooperating”. Iraq was declared “the size of France”, inspectors were not in the business of playing “hide and seek”, as they had presumably not been between 1991-98 when 90-95% disarmament was achieved.
Again, Bush and Blair failed to realise just how absurd it seemed to ordinary thinking people that they should so ardently press the cause of inspections, only to then immediately declare them futile. Even the cautious chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has been unable to restrain himself:
“Eight years of inspections, four years no inspections, and then 11 weeks, and then call it a day? It’s a little short.” (The Guardian, February 24, 2003)
A Prophet Armed - Blair’s Tanks
It could not be clearer that Bush and Blair are possessed of an obscene enthusiasm for war - not because they are psychopaths but because they are heavily committed to a pre-determined course of action. The media aside, few people take seriously their claimed aspiration for a peaceful outcome. The current US/UK attempt to pass a second resolution - which makes no mention of military action, in a final desperate attempt to fool people - is described with perfect Orwellian irony as “a final push for peace”.
One can only suppose that this brazen approach to public manipulation is rooted in arrogance born of decades spent successfully deceiving the public. Having simply stolen the US election, and in the wake of September 11, the Republican administration appears to have believed there were no limits to its ability to manipulate and deceive. Blair went along, not because he has a principled enthusiasm for pursuing unpopular causes, but because he took it for granted that the public would believe his version of events, as so many had believed him over Serbia and Afghanistan. But as Robert Fisk wrote recently in the Independent, Bush and Blair got it very wrong:
“In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare stories and false information and student essays dressed up as ‘intelligence’. We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle East to their advantage.” (Robert Fisk, ‘Tired of Being Lied To’, The Independent, February 15, 2003)
The almost manic determination to terrorise the public with concocted threats has resulted in deep levels of scepticism. One does not need to be an Iraqi rocket scientist to notice that major terror alerts generally precede important meetings at the UN Security Council and/or major anti-war marches. On November 7, 2002, the day before the UN vote on Resolution 1441, which “set the clock ticking” for war, Downing Street began issuing warnings of imminent terrorist threats against UK ferries, the underground, and major public events.
In response to political crises, the Pinochets of this world reflexively send tanks onto the streets to intimidate people physically. In Britain, Blair sends out tanks to intimidate people psychologically with ‘terror threats’. The ringing of Heathrow with tanks that preceded the latest report by Hans Blix, and the peace march, was said to be in response to increased terrorist “chatter” warning intelligence services of an impending attack. The media failed to explore the one question that might have shed light on the credibility of these claims: did French and German intelligence services also report increased “chatter”? Instead, the media obediently focused on the heightened “orange” state of alert in that other founding member of the “coalition of the willing” - the US.
The media also somehow failed to notice that the threat suddenly vanished into thin air. The Guardian/Observer website records 37 mentions of articles containing the words ‘Heathrow and threat’ (as of February 23). The words ‘Gatwick and threat’ record 8 mentions. There is not one record of a news report mentioning a threat to Heathrow or Gatwick airports after February 14, the day of the Blix report and the day before the marches. Earlier that week, there had been a flood of reports with titles like, ‘Soldiers drafted in to increase Heathrow security’ (February 11), ‘UK on missile terror alert’ (February 12), ‘Minister - troop deployment is no stunt’ (February 12), ‘Huge hunt for missile smugglers’ (February 13), and so on.
The media failed to notice that all of this came to an abrupt end for no discernible reason. No one dared suggest that the end of the crisis might have had more to do with the impact of a high-stakes propaganda tactic on the tourist industry, than it did on the negation of any threat. Only Channel 4’s, Bremner, Bird and Fortune - a comedy show which puts ostensibly ‘serious’ BBC, ITN and Channel 4 news programme to shame - openly discussed the possibility. The secrecy of government means that we are here only speculating - perhaps all of the above was indeed an amazing coincidence - but an honest democratic media would investigate the appalling possibility that the British government has been deliberately terrorising its population in pursuit of a cynical war.
Political Alchemy - Popular Aspiration, Private Policy
Since the marches, and like Ceausescu on his balcony, politicians and the establishment media have been desperately waggling their hands at us to be still: Blair is sincere; peace is the desired aim; Iraq is a serious threat to the West; Iraq never has cooperated with inspectors; the threat of military force will compel peaceful disarmament; Iraq will be liberated into oil-rich democracy; a second UN resolution would legitimise war, and on and on.
The issue of oil is nowhere to be found; the reality of Iraqi near-total compliance with inspectors between 1991-98 is nowhere; the US/UK responsibility for genocide in Iraq under sanctions is nowhere; the long and bloody history of US opposition to Third World independent nationalism is nowhere; the deep corruption of the Republican administration, its dependence on ‘Military Keynesianism’, and its associated need to divert the public gaze, are all nowhere.
There have been mentions of the crude haggling between the US and Turkey on support for war, and there have been fleeting, unexplored hints of bribery - “arm twisting” and “intense diplomacy” - in the Security Council. But there have been few serious attempts to expose the ugly reality and just what it means for the morality and legitimacy of a vote on a second UN resolution, and so of a war.
With regards to last year’s crucial resolution 1441, nations on the Security Council “voted under heavy diplomatic and economic pressure from the United States”, InterPress Service reported. As recipients of aid from Washington, non-permanent members of the Council “were seemingly aware of the fact that in 1990 the United States almost overnight cut about $70 million in aid to Yemen immediately following its negative vote against a U.S.-sponsored Security Council resolution to militarily oust Iraq from Kuwait”. (Quoted, Norman Soloman, ‘Unilateral Power: By Any Other Name’, ZNet, November 21, 2002)
John Pilger gives some of the detail of the pre-Gulf War UN vote:
“Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: ‘That was the most expensive No vote you ever cast.’ Within three days, a U.S. aid programme of $70 million to one of the world’s poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia.”
Passing over these issues, the media have portrayed our leaders as principled statesmen floating high above the greed-driven industries that back them, that supply their personnel, and from which they came. Instead, our leaders are declared sincere, perhaps misguided, perhaps over eager, but sincere.
Tony Blair’s affectation of sincerity is his one trick and he plays it brilliantly. But Bush is the mirror in which we see Blair reflected for what he is - he is the realpolitik portrait to Blair’s ‘Third Way’ Dorian Gray - the ‘Third Way’ was to stand as neither Tory nor Labour, but instead to create a new, PR-friendly Tory party, making the old Tory party, and democracy, redundant. Blair’s disaster is that Bush was not kept far from public view in someone’s attic.
The much-discussed conundrum regarding Blair’s sincerity is resolved by a simple observation - no reasonable person would ally themselves and their country with the likes of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell and Perle to fight a war of this kind. And no honest person would try to fool the public that these men were acting honourably.
And on February 15, the global roar of millions of fundamentally reasonable and honest people rose around the world against the lies, as it rushed along the Embankment, where we too marched, past the Houses of Parliament to Hyde Park. What a moment of human hope and triumph that was! It was a moment when metaphysics met politics. To the question, ‘Well, just how gullible are human beings?’ the answer came loud and clear: ‘Not THAT gullible!’
The media’s response to this deafening, unpaid roar of reason and compassion - which contrasted so starkly with its own highly-paid, feeble hinting in the direction of truth - has been remarkable to witness.
The favoured response has been the stubborn, unmoved insistence that democracy has nothing to do with popular protest - no matter that the whole country, the whole world, disagrees: ‘Leaders are there to lead’. Never has it been more obvious that the formal procedures of democracy involve a kind of political alchemy whereby popular aspirations are bubbled and boiled by the machinery of government and - hey presto! - we end up with parties, governments and polices all favouring elite interests.
Thus, the vast majority might oppose the tiny few, but ‘democracy’ means the tiny few must be allowed to continue with their mendacity in pursuit of their agenda. The job of the media is to nod sagely at the idea that this, by some unimaginably profound logic, constitutes the highest imaginable form of democracy. In the 1930s, anarchist writer, Rudolf Rocker, described well the power of this mystification:
“The actual deeds and purposes of these elect always remain hidden from the simple mind of the average citizen, and it is precisely this hidden activity which becomes the unquenchable source of a blind belief in the unalterability of a political providence - a belief which grows correspondingly more powerful as man’s confidence in his own powers diminishes. The purely human pales before the radiant halo of political institutions.” (Rocker, Culture and Nationalism, Michael E. Coughlan publishing, 1978, p.172)
Into the category of the unmoved, fall the diehard establishment media like the BBC’s Newsnight. The first Newsnight after the marches (February 17) saw political correspondent, David Grossman, asking:
“The people have spoken, or have they? What about the millions who didn’t march? Was going to the DIY store or watching the football on Saturday a demonstration of support for the government?” (February 17, 2003)
This, indeed, is a classic example of what psychologist Erich Fromm described as “man’s capacity of not observing what he does not want to observe”. What did Grossman not want to observe? The mere fact that 52% of the British population is opposed to war in all circumstances, and that 90% are opposed to war without a second UN resolution. Even in the US, fully 57% believe that the UN, not their commander-in-chief, should decide whether or not military action is taken.
The people did speak, and they spoke right around the world. But did journalists like Grossman listen? Did Bush and Blair listen? And if Bush and Blair didn’t listen, what can we do now to make sure, not only that they do listen, but that they act on what is being said to them by the people they are supposed to represent? These are the real questions.
On this first, tragi-comic Newsnight after the greatest political demonstration in British history, the studio discussion was confined to interviews with Tory Lord Baker of Dorking, Tory MP John Redwood, Dr Martin Conway of Oxford University, Professor Rodney Barker of the London School of Economics, Anthony Howard, and the views of Jack Straw. Not one marcher was featured and not one spokesperson from the 1 to 2 million-strong peace movement.
The discussion was presided over by the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman. This was the same Paxman who had failed utterly to challenge Blair in an interview two weeks earlier and who, a day later, would interview the anti-war playwright, Arthur Miller. Paxman asked Miller how he could oppose an attack given that Saddam had “driven 4 million people into exile” and “killed a million of his own citizens”. The million figure is the government’s darkly comic spin on UN reports that a million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of sanctions - Iraqi citizens, as Paxman notes, but victims of crippling Western sanctions, as the UN notes. Paxman continued, asking Miller:
“You live in New York City… you must vividly recall what happened on September 11. In the world in which we live now, isn’t some sort of pre-emptive strike the only defensive option available to countries like the United States?”
The answer is an obvious ‘yes’ - if you believe government lies to the effect that Iraq is linked with September 11, that it is linked to al-Qaeda, that it has never cooperated with arms inspectors, that it is not cooperating now, that it poses a threat to the West, that extra time now for inspections is futile, that war is an answer to anything. If we believe some or all of these lies, then that question is indeed worth asking. But as almost no one is this gullible, why ask this question now, why not ask other questions? In his classic essay, On Civil Disobedience, the American philosopher Henry David Thoreau explains a common problem for all mass media truth-seekers:
“But the rich man… is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue… It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it.”
Reveries of a Cruise Missile Liberal
With such astonishing national and international levels of opposition, the press has been obliged to report the extent of that opposition. The anti-war opinions of French and German politicians, for example - previously ignored - now must be reported. And in response to hundreds of emails from Media Lens’ readers and others, sections of the press have indeed opened a small window for more honest views - the Independent on Sunday carried a major article by John Pilger (February 23) and Richard Norton-Taylor wrote a powerful article in the Guardian (February 24). But it has been noticeable that the genesis, significance and arguments of one of the truly great global peace movements in all history have not been explored. Instead, the media have rushed back to reporting, not challenging, the establishment position.
Thus, as if February 15 had never happened, the latest front page of the Observer featured an article by Kamal Ahmed and Ed Vulliamy: ‘Saddam told: disarm in three weeks or it’s war’ (The Observer, February 23, 2003). Of the article’s 16 paragraphs, one mentions that UK “officials hope” that France, Russia or China will find it hard to use their veto. Another mentions the possibility of a backbench revolt by Labour MPs. But otherwise the article - as ever for Guardian and Observer ‘news’ reporting - concentrates on what “Downing Street said...”, what “President George Bush said...”, what “Number 10 sources also said...”.
On BBC and ITN News, while viewers cheer French and German initiatives, reporters talk of “chaos” at the UN and “sad days” for international diplomacy, as though continuing to fail to stand up to a rampant superpower would constitute “order” and “happy days”. On Newsnight (February 24), Tom Carver talks of “doom-laden warnings” that the US/UK won’t get enough votes to pass a second resolution, while the rest of the country talks of “doom-laden warnings” that they will.
In the Observer, Nick Cohen repeats again his baseless claim that the US/UK are intent on liberating Iraqi when he refers to:
“The satisfaction of an anti-war movement which persuaded one million people to tell Iraqis they must continue to live under a tyranny...” (Cohen, ‘The Left’s unholy alliance with religious bigotry’, The Observer, February 23, 2003)
Cohen’s claim was reduced to absurdity on the same day by Hollywood producer Saul Zaentz. In a remarkable conclusion to his acceptance speech at the Bafta awards, Zaentz described the tyranny afflicting Cohen’s ‘liberators’:
“I was, and still am, a member of the majority of American voters who were not realised in the last presidential election. And there is no doubt of outright criminality at the highest level by the court-declared winners. We are now seeing in America the possibilities of an absolute government by the few for the betterment of the few. This is to be reached in any manner. But as one of that great majority who believes and knows America as America is not the person, politician or political party who happens to be in office for a stated period of time, in the words of Martin Luther King, “We shall overcome” and we will.” (BBC1, The British Academy and Film Awards, February 24, 2003)
Cohen’s second point is also mere wishful thinking - the anti-war movement has persuaded very few people of anything. Most people persuaded themselves after reading articles by the likes of Cohen, and after staring nonplussed for months at the antics of Bush, Blair et al. The key arguments of the anti-war movement, as we have documented, have rarely been seen beyond the internet - people have simply been working things out for themselves. People have, for example, worked out for themselves that one day of demonstrations is not enough - the time has come for non-violent civil disobedience.
It has become clear that the US and UK governments represent no one, that they are trying to plunge the world into the same cycle of violence and revenge, hatred and despair that cursed the twentieth century. But vast numbers of people around the world are unwilling to accept this lunatic course of action. There is an understanding that September 11 had causes - causes very much like the actions intended by Bush and Blair now. There is a sense that terrorism is the product, not simply of a world of crazed fanatics who enjoy killing, but of a world of injustice and pain - the solution to injustice and pain being not yet more injustice and pain. As Geshe Lhundub Sopa, writes:
“The consequences of activities such as destruction and killing motivated by a mind disturbed by greed and hatred are like light rays, in that they will spread everywhere, bringing war and suffering.”
The solution lies in restraint, in generosity of spirit, in compassion and concern for others. Of course we can feed the cycles of hate and fear and exploitation, and this may indeed appear to offer short-term benefits for a cynical few - but the fundamentally reasonable and humane majority simply want to get on with their lives; they do not want to live in a world on fire with suffering and hatred.
Our leaders have responded as though bowing to overwhelming public opinion were merely an option. But the whole world has seen that the whole world is against a cynical, greed-driven war. The whole world will therefore be up in arms - figuratively at home but literally abroad - if cynicism and greed are seen to triumph so ruthlessly over reason and popular feeling.
Whatever gains the Bush cabal imagine can be achieved through war will be more than offset by the inevitable backlash should they proceed. There has already been great violence and disruption in a world in which killing for profit has been to some extent obscured beneath a veneer of benevolence - what price peace in a world in which killing for profit is clear, out in the open, utterly shameless?
The Stop the War Coalition is calling on the public to make its protest felt immediately in the event of war in a range of ways. See: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=150203
“Occupy your city or town centre, organise mass meetings or walkouts at work, sit in at your college or university.
* If you are at school organise a walkout or an occupation if you can, or call for a debate in your class or assembly to spread the word.
* In the evening of an attack we are calling for mass occupations of city and town centres at 6pm. In London this means assembling at Trafalgar Square at 6pm to bring the whole centre of government to a halt.”
On the Saturday following any outbreak of war there will be a national demonstration in London.
In a ZNet article Jessica Azulay and Brian Dominick write of the peace movement:
“We have become a threat; but can we deliver? Policy makers are debating right now whether or not they have to heed our dissent. Now we must make it clear to them that there will be political and economic consequences if they decide to ignore our protest, and be prepared to follow through.” (’Mobilize For The Next Phase - The Anti-war Movement Shifts Gears’, ZNet, February 21, 2003, [url=http://www.zmag.org]http://www.zmag.org)[/url]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTED ACTION:
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to the heads of BBC news and ITN expressing your views:
Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news. Email:
Jonathan Munro, head of ITN newsgathering. Email:
Write to the editors of The Guardian and The Observer: Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor Email:
Roger Alton, Observer editor Email:
Simon Kelner, Independent editor Email:
Leonard Doyle, Independent foreign editor Email:
Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts:
-Anti-War Interviews From The Guardian
We Proceed In Iraq As Hypocrites
Zadie Smith
The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause. The case against is clear. To begin war on Iraq would be to launch a pre-emptive strike on a country we fear will attack us on a future unspecified date, in a future unknown manner, with weapons we have not been able to find. It would be to set the most remarkable international precedent. It would be in contravention of international law and the UN charter. It would be to consolidate a feeling of injustice in the Middle East, the consequences of which we will reap for generations. It would be, simply, illegal.
It is telling that where the pro-war discussion becomes most urgent, most passionate, is precisely where it is least tenable, that is, as a response to September 11. It cannot be simultaneously unconnected (as has been admitted) and the engine of all action (as is endlessly inferred.) Again, it is for the pro-war contingent to clarify their position. We are told that we shall “sweep in and out of Iraq”, “set up shop” there, and then proceed in “sorting out” the Middle East situation.
The reality is that we will be told by television that we “swept in”, but, as in the first Gulf conflagration, there will be massive civilian casualties, unavoidable in a military attack on a nation where children make up more than 50% of the population. If we are committed to the idea that a civilian death in the west is of equal value to a civilian death in the east, then we proceed in Iraq as hypocrites and cowards - and the world knows it. This is what people mean when they say “Not in my Name” - it is not liberal tosh or soft-headed fantasy. It is a repudiation of the responsibility of that blood. It is the pro-war contingent who become fantastical when they imagine a quick or a “smart” war.
The anti-war contingent is accused of being without alternatives, which is rather like being told by a young thug: “I’m going to rob this house, and I’ll be justified in doing so, unless you have a better idea as to how I can make a thousand quid in an hour.” The lack of alternatives to an illegal action does not legitimise that action. “Why now? Why here?” are not idle questions, they are requests for explanations on why a pre-emptive, illegal war has become suddenly become more palatable than the diplomatic stalemate that preceded it. Rather than insane cowboy rhetoric, political fact is requested. The following questions were asked by Senator Byrd two weeks ago in the senate, a speech which made no appearance in any form in the American press. To whom are we handing power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war create chaos in the region and result in a horrific attack on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which, after all, has far closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
I hope it is not considered anti-American to suggest that when significant questions like these go unreported anywhere in the American media, the pro-war contingent appears to need to add suppression of information to this extraordinary descent into illegal, irrational procedure. Why are the answers to Senator Byrd’s questions being fudged? Why are the questions themselves not discussed in the American press? What exactly is going on here? Anti-war movements are often sentimental, muddle-headed and politically naive. This one merely requests an explanation.
‘Why Should “We” Be In Favor Of Selective Vigalantism”
Tariq Ali
The speed with which a political agenda decided in Washington for its own purposes (in this case the overthrow of a regime and the occupation of an oil-rich country which sells oil in euros and not dollars) is then imposed on Britain may be nothing new, but is still disturbing. The US determines its needs, the Murdoch media empire approves, and liberal journalists are put on the defensive.
What are “we” to do about Saddam? Who the hell are “we”? And why should “we” be in favour of the selective vigilantism determined by US interests in the region? The Iraqis need democracy, and neither Saddam nor the US will ever give them that.
Democracy in an oil-rich country is a dangerous option for the west (note recent attempts to topple Hugo Chavez in Venezuela). If they elect a government that challenges the west (as happened in Iran), then what? Another regime change.
Saddam was at his worst when he was a staunch ally of the US, unleashed first against local communists, Kurds and trade unionists, and subsequently against Iran, with the open backing of Reagan’s then envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, and Britain’s Margaret Thatcher.
Today, he is a weakened and enfeebled dictator. Had his people not been so devastated by western sanctions, they might well have toppled him by now. That is why Blair’s late decision to invoke humanity has a false ring.
The notion that Iraq threatens the US, or its favourite Israel, is truth only for hardcore believers. They want Iraq, partially for the oil and partially to re-map the region. Ariel Sharon is already demanding an assault on Iran after the “liberation” of Baghdad
Solutions
Kamil Mahdi
It is not in the interest of the Iraqi people to simply go back to the position before this crisis. War, comprehensive sanctions and containment are all damaging to Iraqi society and detrimental to people’s ability to challenge tyranny. Here we are, possibly within days of a cataclysm and certain military defeat, yet the regime’s structures are intact.
The alternative to war is not the threat of war, which is implicit and understood. The alternative is to start a political process that empowers the people of Iraq and shifts the domestic balance in their favour. War and sanctions both write off the people and target them. The way to empower the people is by both shifting the agenda and establishing the credibility and authenticity of international concern. Propaganda and spin in the service of war will not convince Iraqis that this is not an imperialist project. The way out of the present impasse is:
1 Maintain weapons inspections to allay western concerns.
2 Introduce human-rights monitors.
3 Lift the economic blockade and demand professionalism and transparency in economic affairs under UN monitoring.
4 Implement Resolution 688, including an end to repression.
5 Genuinely support Iraqis, not by imposing an agenda and stooges on the opposition.
6 Start a process of truth and reconciliation.
7 Relieve debt and remove reparation to enhance moves toward democracy.
8 Move towards UN-supervised elections after a time.
9 Curb Ariel Sharon and move immediately towards a just Middle East peace under resolution 242, with recognition of Palestinian rights.
The Saddam regime is now in retreat and its project is doomed. This is an opportunity to undercut its domestic power base and also to curb extremism. The alternative to a political process is a devastating imperialist war, followed by a bloody liberation struggle.
· Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter.
Hans von Sponeck
I was in charge of the UN humanitarian programme in Iraq, and I resigned in protest over what I perceived to be a criminally faulty UN sanctions policy. It is now well documented that the policy of sanctions are a main cause of the death and destitution in Iraq. The evidence is there to prove it. Plus, sanctions haven’t weakened Saddam one bit, and we know it.
To say I am against war is an understatement. What is required is dialogue and disar mament, with a concurrent lifting of economic sanctions, as well as very strict controls at Iraqi entry points. The best way is to continue with resolution 1441. I totally agree with the French and Russian and German proposal to continue with the disarmament and monitor thoroughly.
Iraq is the most X-rayed country in the world. We need to accept it is a threat to nobody, even if it would be good to have a new government. What is required is a continuation with the disarmament process, a strengthening of monitoring, and the lifting of a punishment from the Iraqi people who have done nothing wrong, while scrutinising tightly what the Iraqi government will do with the greater economic freedom. But there is absolutely no justification to consider Iraq as an imminent threat that would justify a pre-emptive strike - which in any case is against international law.
· Former UN humanitarian controller for Iraq
Harold Pinter
“What should we do?” The question should be: “What have we done?” The US and the UK couldn’t care less about the Iraqi people. We’ve been killing them for years, through sustained bombing and the brutal sanctions which have deprived hundreds of thousands of children of essential medicines. Many of them are dying and are dead from the effects of depleted uranium, used in the Gulf war. The west has shown total indifference to these facts.
What is now on the cards is further mass murder. To say we will rescue the Iraqi people from their dictator by killing them and by destroying the threadbare infrastructure of their country is an insult to the intelligent. We have no moral position in this matter whatsoever.
The impending war is about testing new weapons of mass destruction (ours) and control of oil. The arms manufacturers and the oil companies will be the beneficiaries. The United States will be making a giant stride towards controlling the world’s resources. The whole thing is about “full spectrum dominance” - a term coined by the US - not me.
Noam Chomsky
Exactly the right question, and in my opinion, we know exactly the right answer to it. It’s useful to remember that Saddam Hussein is not the only monster supported by the present incumbents in Washington until he did something contrary to their interests. There’s a long list that they supported right to the end of their bloody rule - Marcos, Duvalier, and many others, some of them as vicious and brutal as Saddam, and running tyrannies that compare well with his: Ceausescu, for example. They were overthrown internally, despite US support for them. That’s been prevented within Iraq by the murderous sanctions regime, which has devastated the population while strengthening Saddam, and forcing the population to become hopelessly reliant on him for survival.
Solution? Give Iraqis a chance to survive, and there’s every reason to believe that they’ll get rid of him the way that others have. Meanwhile, strengthen measures to ensure that Saddam, or some replacement, doesn’t develop significant military capacity. Not a very serious problem right now, since as is well known, Iraq is militarily and economically the weakest country in the region, but it could be down the road, and in his hands, it would be likely, even without the US and UK to supply him.
· Institute professor at the department of linguistics and philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
-Peace and Justice Activism
Peace and Justice Activism
From United for Peace and Justice
Reports now emanating from the White House and 110 Downing Street in London clearly indicate the dogged determination of the Bush administration with the strong backing of Tony Blair’s Labor government, to wage war against Iraq as soon as possible. In complete defiance of global anti-war public opinion—that brought millions of people into the streets throughout the United States, Britain and every corner of the world—Washington and London are pressing forward.
The massive U.S. military buildup in the Gulf region is now driving the Iraq crisis diplomacy. The war hawks’ message to the United Nations and the people of the world is, “To hell with you. We’re waging war whether you like it or not!”
But there is still a chance to stop this war. We stand on the edge of a global catastrophe, and our response must be based on the needs of a world-wide crisis-level mobilization.
Over the next few weeks and months the antiwar movement must be on an emergency footing. We must surpass the determination of President Bush and the warmongers to wage war by escalating all of our efforts to prevent war. Our message to Bush, to Blair, to the governments around the facing massive U.S. pressure to join their crusade, is “The World Says No to War!”
The next weeks are critical for demonstrating continued widespread local, national and global opposition to the rapid war preparations underway by the U.S. Our challenge to the war drive comes in the form of cities saying no to war, of massive outpouring of people into the streets to demonstrate our opposition, of political pressure on our elected officials, of demonstrations of thanks to the United Nations and governments still standing defiant of the U.S. pressure for war.
Several activities are now planned in the coming weeks to show opposition to a war against Iraq.
United for Peace and Justice urges everyone to actively participate in ALL of the various protest activities indicated below. We must double and triple all of our efforts to march in the streets, to lobby in the suites, to go to jail as well as to write, e-mail and call the White House, our legislators and the media with one clear message, “THE WORLD SAYS NO TO WAR!”
Below are some priority days of action to focus on. We recognize that there are many, many other fabulous initiatives for peace activists to join and we encourage you to seek them out and share your events with the world by posting to [url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org]http://www.unitedforpeace.org[/url]
March 1: PILGRIMAGE OF PRAYER AND WITNESS FOR PEACE IN WASHINGTON, DC—People who are based in or near Washington, DC are encouraged to participate in this African-American led, faith-based, multi-racial event. Meet at the U.S. State Department, 2201 C Street, NW on March 1 at Noon. For more information, call Black Voices for Peace, 202-232-5690
March 5: ONE-DAY NATIONAL STUDENT STRIKE—Books Not Bombs! Stop The War Against Iraq! and the NATIONAL MORATORIUM TO STOP THE WAR The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (NYSPC) calls upon students on campuses across the United States to join us in a one-day student strike on March 5th, 2003. For more information see the National Youth and Student Coalition Website. Walk out of school (if you?re a student) or cancel your classes (if you’re a professor).
Show your determination to stop this war! Call in sick or close your business. For ideas on the national moratorium, go to http://www.notinourname.net/call_for_the_moratorium.html
MARCH 8: JOIN WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD TO CALL FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE ON INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY For 92 years women around the world have been marking International Women’s Day with calls for a more peace and justice-centered world. We urge you to join in this rich tradition and COME TO WASHINGTON D.C. FOR THE WOMEN-LED ANTI-WAR MARCH ON SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 2003 or to organize an International Women’s Day Peace and Justice event in your community. Post your events at [url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org]http://www.unitedforpeace.org[/url]
United for Peace and Justice and other groups have made International Women’s Day actions a priority both because of the impacts war has on women and children and because this year’s celebration falls on the day following Hans Blix’s next report to the United Nations Security Council.
March 8 in Washington, DC
11:00 a.m. - RALLY at Malcolm X Park (16th St. between U and Euclid NW)
1:00 p.m. ?EMarch to Encircle the White House
Join with Alice Walker, Vandana Shiva, comedian Janeane Garofalo, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Granny D, Susan Griffith, Barbara Ehrenreich, Amy Goodman, Rania Masri, Michelle Shocked, feminist theologian Chung Hyun Kyung, Nobel Peace Laureate Jody Williams, Cheri Honkala, Maxine Hong Kingston, Inga Muscio, Terry Tempest Williams, Medea Benjamin, Starhawk, and many others to say no to war and yes to policies that reflect the values of peace, compassion, generosity, and the recognition of the interconnectedness of the whole human family.
For details on the march and the week of activities in Washington, see [url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org/women]http://www.unitedforpeace.org/women[/url] or [url=http://www.codepink4peace.org]http://www.codepink4peace.org[/url] or call The Women?s Peace Vigil at 202-393-5016 or e-mail
Other ideas for International Women’s day activities include The Women’s Strike for Peace http://womenstrike8m.server101.com/English/stopthewar.htm
And the 2nd Annual International Women’s Day Global Peace vigil
http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/iwd.htm
Sunday, March 15- EMERGENCY CONVERGENCE ON THE WHITE HOUSE
The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition and other organizations are calling for an Emergency National Anti-War Convergence to TAKE IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE on Saturday, March 15. There will be a parallel activities in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Go to http://www.internationalanswer.org
POST ALL YOUR LOCAL PEACE EVENTS AT [url=http://www.unitedforpeace.org]http://www.unitedforpeace.org[/url]
- Why I am going to Iraq
by Wade Hudson
On March 5, I head for Baghdad to join the Iraq Peace Team (IPT), a project of Voices in the Wilderness. About twenty IPT members, including myself, will stay in Iraq indefinitely, even if President Bush invades Iraq.
We will not deploy ourselves as human shields at highly likely targets, as some peace activists are doing. We will live independently in Baghdad and provide support and assistance to the Iraqi people as best we can. We will witness, listen, observe, and report back on what we learn. We will participate in vigils and other demonstrations to protest the war.
With my tax dollars, my government is preparing to inflict untold death and suffering on Iraqi civilians - even though most of the world opposes this war. This rush to war, based on bribery and threats designed to overcome the will of the people, is a challenge to democracy worldwide. So I am compelled to say “not in my name,” as strongly as I can.
I am compelled to help stop this war and make amends for the damage that is being done with my money. By joining the Iraq Peace Team, I can do both at the same time. I can protest the war while simultaneously assisting those who will suffer as a result. And I can communicate in person that the American people are not their enemy.
I would prefer that the progressive movement were more proactive, and less reactive. I would prefer to build a large, democratic, fully inclusive grassroots membership organization to advance a longer-term, comprehensive program for justice, democracy, and peace. I would prefer that we operate more out of love and joy, and less from fear and anger.
But the people of the world cannot afford to sit back and wait to see if Bush pulls the trigger. The Bush Administration’s foreign policy is a train wreck waiting to happen. We must reverse the Bush Doctrine before it is too late.
The case for war is founded on lies, distortions, and wishful thinking. One lie is the claim that there is a close connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Most Americans who support war on Iraq believe this unfounded claim, which the mainstream media has not seriously examined.
A major distortion is the allegation that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, which has not been proven, according to Hans Blix. The United States certainly has not presented the “smoking gun.”
The wishful thinking assumes that virtually all Iraqis will welcome the U.S. Army as liberators, enabling the occupying force to leave within a year. But unlike Germany and Japan, which the West occupied following World War Two, Iraq has no cohesive traditions and is torn with bitter, centuries-old divisions. And there is no commitment to a Marshall Plan for Iraq following a war.
So the official rationale for war is far from convincing. Whatever the real reasons for this drive toward war, it is imperative that the people of the world stop it. I believe that IPT offers one way to help.
IPT belongs to a growing peacemaking community. In recent years, nonviolent peacemakers, such as Nonviolent Peaceforce and Christian Peacemaker Teams, have begun to place themselves in the midst of violent conflicts, trying to help protect human rights and the lives of civilian communities, prevent violence, and promote the peaceful resolution of conflict.
If enough people with the proper approach get involved, these efforts bear great promise. By going to Iraq, I hope to help build this movement. Eventually we could have a well-trained peace force that is large enough to help stop wars.
-Wade Hudson is a community organizer, activist, and writer living in the San Francisco Bay Area. People can subscribe to his Baghdad Journal at http://lists.inlet.org/mailman/listinfo/baghdadjournal
Links: Iraq Peace Team, [url=http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org]http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org[/url]
Nonviolent Peaceforce, http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/
Christian Peacemaker Teams, [url=http://www.prairienet.org/cpt/]http://www.prairienet.org/cpt/[/url]
To subscribe or unsubscribe to Baghdad Journal, go to:
http://lists.inlet.org/mailman/listinfo/baghdadjournal
