 |
| First garage door against the war, by Andrew Mamo and Helen Ferry |
Here we go, sending our troops off to the Gulf as the government pretends it’s not committed to war when the United States give the word. Great way to avoid making the case, eh? The government knows it hasn’t convinced the vast majority of Australians we should back a unilateral strike – it hasn’t even tried to – yet that’s what we’ll do if that’s what George Bush wants.
If you’re against John Howard’s decision, don’t get mad, get active, and most of all, feel sorry for our troops. What a terrible feeling they must have, knowing they could lose their lives for a country whose people don’t want them to go and whose government won’t explain why they should.
Paul Gilchrist in Mosman writes: “I see that Tony Blair has given evidence to a Commons Liaison Committee over his actions on Iraq (independent). In this committee, Tony Blair has to answer questions from MPs about the justification for war in Iraq and how Britain will be involved. Here in Australia, John Howard brushes off these questions as “hypothetical” and does not have to justify his actions to parliament or the people. Do you know why our system is apparently less accountable than the mother of parliaments?”
Howard is scheduled to wave off the troops on board HMAS Kanimbula at 10 am tomorrow morning. If you want to protest or cheer, be at Cowper Wharf, Woollomolloo in Sydney. Greens campaigners have this advice for those who want to protest: “It’s VERY IMPORTANT that the protest targets Howard and the Government, rather than the troops themselves who are going off to a dangerous situation. Emotions will be running high with families being left behind, so we need to send a message that it is not the men and women in uniform who we are angry with, but the politicians who are putting them at risk. All slogans and activities must be non-violent and respectful towards the troops as individuals. Please come on down and bring your home-made banners and creative ideas!”
Today, your thoughts and ideas about what the hell is going on and what on earth to do about it. Pro-war Webdiary columnist Harry Heidelberg intervenes in the debate between Jim Nolan and Jack Robertson on whether we should go to war on human rights grounds. His column, Yes, it really is about getting the weapons, is at Harry22Jan. (At the end of this entry, Webdiarist Hamish Tweedy – a supporter of war provided it’s UN sanctioned – responds in detail to Scott Burchill’s popular piece on war myths last week.)
Paula Abood writes: ‘Remember when you read vague stuff about the US government ‘editing’ bits from Iraq’s declaration? If you read the quality press you’ll have wondered just who these corporations were who’d supplied Saddam but whose names were removed. Here they are, courtesy of Berlin daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung, No. 6934, 19 Dec 2002, page 3, “Exclusive: The Secret List of Arms Suppliers – Saddam’s Business partners” (taz, in German):
Key
A = nuclear weapon program
B = biological weapon program
C = chemical weapon program
R = rocket program
K = conventional weapons, military logistics, supplies at the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, and building of military plants.
USA
1. Honeywell (R, K), Spectra Physics (K), Semetex (R), TI Coating (A, K), Unisys (A, K), Sperry Corp (R, K), Tektronix (R, A), Rockwell (K), Leybold Vacuum Systems (A), Finnigan-MAT-US (A), Hewlett-Packard (A, R, K), Dupont (A), Eastman Kodak (R), American Type Culture Collection (B), Alcolac International (C), Consarc (A), Carl Zeiss – U.S (K), Cerberus (LTD) (A), Electronic Associates (R),International Computer Systems (A, R, K), Bechtel (K), EZ Logic Data Systems, Inc. (R), Canberra Industries Inc. (A), Axel Electronics Inc. (A).
In addition to these 24 home-based companies are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US.
Also designated as suppliers for Iraq’s arms programs (A, B, C & R) are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories.
FRANCE
Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique (A), Sciaky (A), Thomson CSF (A, K), Aerospatiale and Matra Espace (R), Cerbag (A), Protec SA (C), Thales Group (A), Societe General pour les Techniques Nouvelles (A)
GREAT BRITAIN
Euromac Ltd-Uk (A), C. Plath-Nuclear (A), Endshire Export Marketing (A), International Computer Systems (A, R, K), MEED International (A, C), Walter Somers Ltd. (R), International Computer Limited(A, K), Matrix Churchill Corp. (A), Ali Ashour Daghir (A), International Military Services (R) (part of the UK Ministry of Defence), Sheffield Forgemasters (R), Technology Development Group (R),International Signal and Control (R), Terex Corporation (R), Inwako (A), TMG Engineering (K), XYY Options, Inc (A)
JAPAN
Fanuc (A), Hammamatsu Photonics KK (A), NEC (A), Osaka (A), Waida (A)
NETHERLANDS
Melchemie B.V. (C), KBS Holland B.V. (C), Delft Instruments N.V. (K)
BELGIUM
Boehler Edelstahl (A), NU Kraft Mercantile Corporation (C), OIP Instrubel (K), Phillips Petroleum (C), Poudries Reunies Belge SA (R), Sebatra (A), Space Research Corp. (R)
SPAIN
Donabat (R), Treblam (C), Zayer (A)
SWEDEN
ABB (A), Saab-Scania (R)
***
A Melbourne reader (name withheld) has found the White House propaganda sheet on Iraq, called ‘Apparatus of Lies: Saddam’s Disinformation and Propaganda 1990-2003’, at whitehouse. “With all the debate regarding when the war will start or if it should start at all, the document is an interesting salvo in the public opinion war in full swing. Some of the techniques described, with much gnashing of teeth, would seem quite at home in any western governments spin doctor’s arsenal. Maybe it will become required reading in Public Relations courses. I have no doubts that Saddam and Co have engaged in many if not all of the ‘black arts’ exposed in the paper – it just seemed ironic that the White House would be keen to toss such a stone in light of their own admitted policy of controlling was ‘information’ post the Vietnam period when those dramatic raw images caused such problems for morale back home. Surgical strikes, collateral damage etc etc etc.”
Andrew Mamo and Helen Ferry’s ‘garage door against the war’ campaign is now in business. Send your images and ideas to doorsagainstwar. Greens member and Webdiarist Max Phillips writes: “For those garage-owning suburbanites who are serious about displaying their opposition to the war, the Greens are producing large “No War” triangles. If you would like to place one in your front window or in your front yard, contact us office@nsw.greens.org.au or phone 02-9519 0877.”
The Labor Council of NSW has details of lots of upcoming protests against the war in NSW. Call Amanda Tattersall on 0409 321133 or email her at a.tattersall@labor.org.au for posters and leaflets.
Several readers recommend the website of US anti-war group Move on, at http://www.moveon.org/, which recently produced a TV ad as part of the campaign. Julienne McKay writes: “You are probably aware of the US anti war group Moveon, but just in case I’m doing as they ask, and forwarding details of their campaign in the US to an influential member of the media in my country. A friend in the US – a student radical in the 60’s, now approaching her 60’s – originally sent me the information.”
Webdiarist Jozef Imrich recommends opendemocracy Hot off the press from Susan Richards of Open Democracy, featuring John Le Carre, Salman Rushdie, John Berger, Christopher Hitchens, Roger Scruton, David Hair and Gunter Grass with Marina Warner, Anita Roddick and others promising to join what this global conversation on Iraq and the War.
Merrill Pye in Sydney writes: “I recently received this from a friend in Canada who received it from a friend in the USA. Perhaps not a very scientific contribution, but one that definitely relates to systems of belief? Just sing along folks, to the tune of ‘If You’re Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands’.”
If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.
*
If the corporate scandals growin’, bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin’, bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain’t smokin’
We don’t care, and we’re not jokin’.
That Saddam will soon be croakin’,
Bomb Iraq.
*
Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let’s look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
*
While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.
*
So here’s one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying ‘no’ would look like treason.
It’s the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
***
Mark Paloff in Wollongong imagined the worst case scenario and penned this:
NEWS OF THE WORLD, 2005
Today, the Middle East continues to be a grizzly testament to the greed and misguided folly of disgraced ex-leaders Bush, Blair and Australia’s John Howard.
American, British and Australian forces remain bogged down in an occupation of Iraq that began two years ago, with no consolidation of their position in sight on the oil-smoked horizon. The oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait that were to underwrite the continuation of the “non-negotiable American way of life” have all been torched, filling the sky with acrid fumes since March 2003. World oil production has halved and western economies stagger along maimed by record negative growth, shrivelled GDPs and massive unemployment.
The direct human toll of the Bush/Blair/Howard folly will never be accurately counted. In Iraq alone, military casualties on both sides are approaching 100,000. Guerrilla fighting in the streets of Iraqi cities and towns adds hundreds more military and civilian deaths each day. Iran’s mischievous insurgencies from the north amplify the chaos and death. In the absence of electricity and clean water supplies, it has been estimated that another half a million Iraqi babies and children have perished since March 2003 to add to the half million that died during the American/Australian naval blockade that began 11 years ago.
President Gore, PM Saxby and PM Lawrence, although united in their efforts, appear powerless to unravel the monumental tragedy their predecessor’s policies have created. This human tragedy is now known as ‘The Bogus War’. The propaganda of three years ago spruiked unconvincingly that it was about disarming a minor dictator. Common but muted wisdom knew it was a brutal grab for oil at a time when the USA was consuming oil four times faster than new supplies were being found.
The introduction of conscription two years ago to provide reinforcements for the savaged armies of the USA, Britain and Australia has sent these three countries into bitter domestic turmoil, adding further debilitating divisions within already turbulent societies. The shameless flight of capital, with its owners, to havens in northern Europe and South America has exacerbated class divisions, bringing general strikes and the collapse of essential services.
None, it would seem, foresaw the opportunism of the Arab world to use the west’s preoccupation with Iraq to seek their final vengeance upon Israel. That always-contentious nation now lay as rubble and a new Jewish diaspora has begun.
The unleashing of Al-Qaeda’s international network upon the west last year, a network neglected by the West as the Iraqi adventure consumed its attentions, has viciously changed the world forever. Unchained, and assisted by the strategy of total unpredictability, this brand of terrorism has been successful in mortifying the populations and economies of dozens of countries. The poisoned water supplies of Liverpool, Washington, Seattle and Sydney have sent their citizens into exodus. The plethora of bombed structures, including Buckingham Palace, the United Nations and the Sydney Harbour Bridge, has us all feeling vulnerable, and strangely punished.
Perhaps George W Bush gave us a good warning of what to expect in August 2002 when he asked “Who knows how many wars it will take to secure our homeland?” What we are all asking ourselves today is, “How did Bush and Blair and Howard ever get away with committing us to this Bogus War?”. Why didn’t someone stop them in 2003?
***
Hamish Tweedy
Here is my take on Scott’s answers to eleven war questions and claims in Counterspin: Pro-war mythology (smh).
1. “Is Saddam Hussein likely to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the US and its allies?
Scott says:
* The development of WMDs by vulnerable states like North Korea and Iraq is as a direct consequence of the threat posed by US and that any responsible government should really develop them as it is the only way to curb US imperialism.
I think the characterisation of North Korea and Iraq as vulnerable states is perhaps just a little rich. More likely the argument could probably be framed along the lines of: If you are a despotic tyrant with regional ambitions and actively suppress your own population then the creation of WMDs is a good way to force the civilised world to deal with you other than by the use of force. Which kind of makes the US/UN’s position all the more understandable.
* Because Saddam Hussein didn’t use them during the 1991 Gulf War he won’t use them again.
Horses for courses: At the time the UN/US were only forcing him out of Kuwait. Therefore Saddam pulls/is forced out of Kuwait, develops appropriate delivery systems and tries again.
2. Saddam Hussein has form: He has used them before.
Scott says:
* Yes they have but only against those who didn’t have WMDs.
I’m not sure what the point is here. Is Scott suggesting that only Iraq’s neighbours without WMDs are at risk, an interesting and extremely threatening little arms race sounds like it has just been created.
* The US and UK continued to supply him with the means to manufacture WMDs after he had used them in 1988, so why does his continued ownership of WMDs concern them now.
Not a good idea, I agree, but I don’t see how a mistake (along with countless others I am sure Scott can name) somehow prevents the US and the UK from acting to rectify the situation now.
* If the US is genuinely concerned about Iraq why did Donald Rumsfeld normalise relations with Iraq in 1983 when they were using chemical weapons against Iraq on a daily basis.
That was twenty years ago during the Cold War. We were allies with the USSR during WWII were enemies during the Cold War and are on the brink of being allies again it doesn’t mean anything.
3. Hussein has invaded his neighbours twice.
Scott says:
* The US supported him when he invaded Iran during the 1980s.
I’m really not up to date on my history of the Iran-Iraq war but I understood that the US supported Iraq and the USSR supported Iran (the US was hardly likely to support Iran given the hostage situation was barely three years old).
* The US was ambivalent about the result of a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait.
It is fairly easy for me to imagine that a country could express its ambivalence about the outcome of border dispute and reasonably expect that this wouldn’t be interpreted as tacit approval for the invasion of one country by another.
4. Saddam Hussein is a monster who runs a violent oppressive regime
Scott says:
* As Blair, Straw, Prescott, Blunkett, Cook or Hoon, did not speak out previously against Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s and 1990’s how can they have a problem with him now?
This is a point that proves absolutely nothing about anything. They have a problem with him now.
* As the West didn’t oppose the rise of Suharto’s brutal regime how can they oppose Saddam’s now?
The Cold War isn’t being fought.
5. Only the threat of force by the US has forced Iraq to accept weapons inspectors
Scott says:
* The use of force in 1998 had the opposite effect.
To point out the bleeding obvious, bombing over 4 days, no matter how effective does not carry the same weight as stationing 150,000 troops plus aircraft carrier groups around your border.
* Richard Butler pulled the inspectors out, Saddam did not kick them out.
This is semantics – if the weapons inspectors were pulled out because they could do their job the effect is the same.
* Why didn’t we inflict the same punishment on other countries?
The same reason we didn’t inflict it on Iraq at the time. The Cold War.
6. Has the threat posed by Saddam Hussein increased recently?
Scott says:
As his armed forces no longer have support from either the US or the USSR and due to sanctions imposed after the Gulf War not as dangerous as he was previously.
This is the million dollar question. An argument can be made that for the very reasons outlined he is considerably more likely to attempt to develop WMDs and more likely to rely on them. I am of the view that this is what the Weapons Inspectors are in Iraq to determine, and that what they report will, I hope, be the basis for any future action, if any. To this point Kevin Rudd and the Opposition have most clearly stated their case and it is one that I wholeheartedly support.
7. Saddam Hussein will pass WMDs on to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.
Scott says:
* There is no proof he has and they are natural enemies.
I am happy to accept this as fact based on Scott’s word. I think that Saddam having WMDs in his own right is sufficient enough threat. His secret service is probably just as capable of delivering them as Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group for that matter.
* This is a smoke screen to prevent identification of the real proliferators of WMDs.
Like Scott, I would like to know who is responsible and would agree it should be stopped (although I think this is a vain hope).
8. The US wants to democratise Iraq
Scott: The US isn’t interested in democracy in Iraq and will install a compliant dictator.
I agree. I hope, however, that the task of installing a democracy in Iraq after a war (if there is one) falls to the UN and not the US – a vain hope perhaps but it still not a reason for not acting.
9. What is the Status of Pre-emptive Strikes in International Law
Criminal, I hope.
10. The question of oil. Access or control?
I don’t really know or care. Whether Saddam has oil or not is irrelevant if he has WMDs, and whether he has oil or not is certainly not a reason for not enforcing UN resolutions.
11. The credibility of the UN and Canberra
Really it’s all just politicking. I’m not sure I care too much (although I probably should).
The point I’m trying to make is that the issue here is how to deal with Iraq and its development of WMDs (if they have them). Are people who are currently opposing it opposing it on the basis that any conflict will be led by the US, or are they opposing pre-emptive strikes? My main problem with Scott’s piece is that he seems to frame his argument against action on the basis that any action led by the US should not be supported.
Kevin Rudd has further clarified his position on support for a conflict with Iraq and again I find myself in agreement with his position. I don’t believe the debate over involvement should degenerate into conspiracy theories about the US and its intentions. The issue is Saddam Hussein and whether or not he is developing WMDs. The way I see the debate people should roughly fall into one of the following three categories should the Weapons Inspectors report that Saddam Hussein is in fact developing WMDs:
1. You don’t like Saddam Hussein developing WMDs but believe it is a legitimate course for a sovereign nation to take to provide itself with an adequate means of self defence and therefore would not support any action against Iraq whatever the Weapons Inspectors find.
2. You believe that Saddam Hussein’s development of WMDs represents a real threat to global/regional security but would only take action if it came under the auspices of the UN. Kevin Rudd did give himself some room to move here, which is prudent. We are dealing with hypothetical situations and boxing yourself in would not be smart. The main thrust of his position is that action must be UN endorsed.
3. You don’t give a tinkers cuss what the Weapons Inspectors find or don’t find because you want to destroy Saddam Hussein and Iraq anyway.
For what its worth, I started out at 3 thanks to John Wojdylo’s Saddam’s heart of darkness piece (John26Sep2002Part1 and JohnPart2) but have since tempered my position and moved to UN endorsement, due to the ongoing difficulties that a policy of pre-emption would cause.