Will you also demonstrate and demand "peaceful" actions to cure the abysmal human rights violations of the Iraqi people under the rule of Saddam Hussein?
Or, will you simply forget about us Iraqis once you discredit George W. Bush?
It goes on like this. To be honest, I have serious doubts about an unsigned, anonymous letter like this, which the CS Monitor says breaks their own standards. (What's this guy's job, anyway?) And I certainly don't believe that this argument is a good reason to go to war.
However, I think this is a good reminder to the pro-peace movement of the types of issues we have to keep in mind, and have answers for. I don't want us to forget about the people of Iraq, either. I don't think that bombing them will help -- it hasn't helped us remember the suffering in Afghanistan -- but I think that we need to back peaceful plans to deal with these types of problems.
Posted by Kynn at February 27, 2003 04:30 PM | TrackBack
Comments
I think that article has one major flaw. It's arguement is clearly aimed at peace activists, but ignores the fact that the same arguement applies to those who support a military solution to the situation in Iraq. Killing several hundred thousand people in Iraq and installing a new goverment will not in itself guaranty an improvement in human rights in Iraq, and there is no reason to assume it is impossible to improve human rights in Iraq without using war.
One might as well ask 'What if the war is successful'? Will the Kurds be protected? We've already agreed to allow Turkey to invade northern Iraq to disarm the Kurds. What will the new form of the government be? Who's interests will it serve? How much of the country will be left standing? Who'll pay to rebuild it? How will Iraq repay the loans to rebuild? South America is a good example of the kinds of suffering and poverty that might face the Iraqi people down the road if they are forced to go to the IMF to rebuild after the war. And all of this ignores the fact that hundreds of thousands of people will die if war is waged. These are not just imaginary people in a far off land, these are real human beings who will experience real suffering and death at the hands of the US. How will the survivors feel about the new US backed government if they have lost children, brothers, sisters, parents to our bombs? Iraq is currently a secular government. When war shreds the fabric of society in Iraq, it will fester and become a fertile breeding ground for anti-US sentiments and Islamic fundamentalism. Will Iraq wind up with a human rights record like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?
I certainly agree that peace activists should also march in support of international human rights. It is a very important issue because it sets the tone for what is acceptable in the international community.
The important thing to remember here is that we are talking about waging a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I question the assumption that we have to deny houndreds of thousands of people the right to live in order to improve human rights in Iraq.
There are many international organizations working on the issue of human rights. If one wants to address human rights in Iraq I would say that is the place to start. Dropping bombs on people should always be a last resort.
Your unnamed writer makes a powerful case for overthrowing the current regime in Baghdad, and he deserves to be questioned on his own terms; that is, what relationship does the Bush administration's push for war have to the hopes of the Iraqi people? If past performance is any indication, there is precious little hope for a resolution that will treat Iraq and its people as more than a photo opportunity, ready to be double-crossed at the administration's convenience. I'm sure that even this is preferable to the continuation of the current horrors, but it's a sad thing to pin a country's hopes on an American government as dishonest and cynical as this one has proven so far. To the Bush administration, other nations, even erstwhile allies, are targets of coercion, vilification and bribery in its quest for global dominance, and Iraqis should not deceive themselves as to the true nature of their moment in the spotlight. I wish them the best of luck, nevertheless, and remind him that the opposition to this American war is not in any way supportive of Saddam Hussein, but part of a global movement that questions the use of military force as a way to settle international disputes. I am under no illusion that this coming campaign can be averted, but the enormous and unprecedented popular outcry against it is a good omen for the future. Our grandchildren may yet say that in retrospect, Mahatma Gandhi was the most important man of the 20th century, not Hitler.
Alternatives between the status quo inspections and full-scale invasion are pretty scarce, but here's at least an attempt at one. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has a proposal for "A New Approach: Coercive Inspections"
Frankly, accusations that the scare-quoted "peace movement" will simply forget Iraq if war is averted are a bit rich, considering that a large chunk of what is currently the peace movement was calling attention to the horrific humanitarian situation under the sanctions regime long before Iraq was the war du jour. Large chunks of the peace movement have, frankly, a far more consistent record of opposing disastrous humanitarian situations, and seeking remedies that didn't involve war, long before many of today's hawks suddenly developed an interest (real or feigned) in these issues. I, for one, refuse to be lectured to about the Memory Hole by members of a pro-war movement who appear largely unaware of what's happening in Afghanistan.
