i-NSIDER/No.106/March 17, 2003
Going to war after all?
-- The world superpower's five reckless schemes
|The summit meeting of the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom
and Spain in the Azores Islands on March 16 was like three cats gathering
on a tin roof. Just the day before, in Washington, D.C., a hundred thousand
protesters surrounded the White House, holding the placards that read "BUSH
IS MAD", "NO WAR FOR EMPIRE", or "NO BLOOD FOR OIL",
in response to a call from ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism).
Hundreds of thousands held anti-war rallies in Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Boston, and even in Tampa, Florida, where the US Central Command Headquarters
is located. In Spain, a million people marched in Madrid and half a million
in Barcelona, crying "STOP WAR", "RESIGN, AZNAR". The
British government is near collapse, as many Labor Members of Parliament
oppose the government, while anti-war sentiment is rising among the general
At the Azores Summit Mr. Blair and Mr. Aznar, the prime ministers of UK and Spain, reportedly implored Mr. Bush to get more support from other countries by making one last proposal to Saddam Hussein. But the president was firm and ready to go to war. He said he would give up diplomatic efforts unless a new UN resolution was passed by March 17. And it was unlikely that the US plan would get approved, even if the Security Council discussed and voted by the end of the 17th. So, instead of being rejected by the Security Council, US would rather withdraw from the diplomatic scene and start the war without a resolution. The US would do it any way with or without British help. In a week or so, an extremely ridiculous and absurd war will begin.
Why is this war ridiculous?
1 The aim is reckless. The purpose of this war is a "removal"
of President Saddam Hussein. The removal of a regime is a violation of
identified international rules. The UN Charter says in paragraph 4 of
Article 2 that " All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat of force or the use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
2 The means are reckless. To "remove" Saddam Hussein,
the Bush administration has four scenarios : (1) He should go into exile
voluntarily; (2) He should be killed or expelled in a coup d'etat; (3)
He should be killed by an air-strike; or (4) He should be arrested or
assassinated when the US ground force has reached Baghdad.
3 The supposition is reckless that Iraq will be disarmed only if Hussein is "removed". Why has Iraq been armed with weapons of mass destruction? We won't argue about US technical support and supply to the Iraqi arsenal in the past. The country is surrounded by many a threat, Iran being its neighbor and Israel being armed with nuclear weapons. There is no solution for the Middle East without reconstructing a full peace process, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
4 The use of force is reckless when it is not backed up
in political and diplomatic arenas. Military actions are based on a nation's
politics and diplomacy. If a government embarks on a war without solid
domestic support and international cooperation, it will lose public confidence
sooner or later.
5 Relying on a "war economy" is reckless. The Bush administration does not have any working strategy for financial and development issues. Double-digit deficits are resurfacing, and the value of the dollar is going down. World currency does not flow to the US as much as it used to. The only empire of the contemporary world is showing its symptoms of autointoxication and is gradually falling down as an arrogant and reckless state under the president, who grabbed the presidency in an unfair election.
Copyright (C) 2003 Webcaster All rights reserved.