Dat was het motto van Irak al van in 1992 toen ik daar was. Uiteindelijk komt deze discussie, die met een wat ongelukkige uitspraak van Abou Jahjah op gang werd getrokken, neer op: hebben de onderdrukte volkeren het recht om zichzelf te verdedigen? Ik meen van wel. Ieder volk heeft het recht op zelfbeschikking, en het recht om de wapens op te nemen als het wordt aangevallen door de roversbenden van het "geciviliseerde Westen". Wat is dat toch met die "vredes"-beweging? Onze vaders en grootvaders hebben gevochten in de Internationale brigades in de Spaanse burgeroorlog. Franco moest worden gestopt. Welnu, Bush ook. Toen vond men een oproep tot bewapening niet vreemd, en nu wel? Wat is er veranderd? Ik vind dus de argumentatie van Ludo De Brabander niet correct. Moest het verzet in WOII ongewapend de Duitse agressor tegemoetgaan, genre "Peace brothers" en bloemekes rond de nek? Wat is dat toch met die "vredes"beweging? El Salvador, Nicaragua, Vietnam... Is dat allemaal vergeten? Mochten de verzetsbewegingen zich niet verdedigen? De discussie binnen de vredesbeweging (internationaal) over het opheffen van alle sancties, of alleen de niet-militaire (ic de economische) sancties is al zeer oud. Dit fenomeen wordt "de-linking" genoemd. Je kan de discussie terugvinden hier: http://www.irak.be/ned/nieuws/de-linking.htm en is heel belangrijk, omdat diegenen die enkel ijveren voor de opheffing van economische sancties, het Iraakse volk weerloos laten tegen de agressor. De wapeninspecteurs moeten dan het werk afmaken: de weinige defensie die Irak nog bezit, moet in kaart worden gebracht, zodat de te bombarderen plaatsen met nog meer precisie kunnen worden gebombardeerd. Ik druk hieronder 2 brieven af over deze kwestie, die de kern van de zaak raken. Friends, This is indeed a very important matter for us to consider. When one visits discussions groups and sites of groups and organization that consider themselves "anti-sanctions", one can not help but notice the fragmentation within those groups. There is certainly a lack of any clear policy, and the objective is far from clear. Although all claim to be "anti-sanctions", this is not the whole true picture. Some groups advocate the lifting of "non-military sanctions" while continuing to impose "military sanctions". This should not be an objective of any anti-sanctions group, because we can either be pro-sanctions or against them. If we start supporting some sort of sanctions, we will be giving one or several states the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. And we will be creating a precedent, where one country can dictate to smaller countries what they can have and what not. Supporters of the imposition of "military sanctions" base their stance on the following: ”Iraq should not be allowed to develop WMDs, because it has used it against its neighbours and its own people. Saddam Hussein is a dictator who should not be allowed to have access to weapons technology.. That argument is nothing but a repetition of what the CIA says. Why should Iraq not be allowed to develop or own WMDs, in the same way like Israel, Britain, France or Pakistan? That question receives no reply from defenders of the imposition of "military sanctions". If sanctions should be imposed on Iraq for developing WMDs, shouldn't similar sanctions be imposed on all other Nuclear states? That question too finds no reply. The issue of Iraq's use of WMDs in its war with Iran is brought up, without telling us that Iran too used similar WMDs in the same war. In fact, the whole argument neglects the major issue: Iraq's wish to develop its own WMD programs were spurred by the Israeli and Iranian similar programs and the threats such programs pose. If the US is granted the right to go thousands of kilometrers, across continents to fight wars, because it sees a threat to its national security, shouldn't every state have the same right? If Britain has the right to fight a war over the Falklands, why can't Iraq fight a war over Kuwait? The issue of Halabja, where 4000 or more Kurds died from bombardment with chemicals, remains an issue of controversy. At that time, the US denied that Iraq was responsible. That was also the outcome of a study by the Pentagon. Iraq also denied that accusation, and accused Iran. Only after the 1991 techno-kill of Iraq, new voices in the US brought up the issue of Halabja again, and suddenly it was Iraq.. Surprisingly, no proof was presented. Suddenly, all the satellites had gone blind, and no aerial photos of what really happened were released. Could it be that it was neither Iraq nor Iran, but Turkey or even Israel who had carried out the bombing of Halabja? Is that why the US is not giving evidence? Another issue which those mainly American and British "pro military sanctions" forget is history. They refuse to look into the history of their states and see how millions of people were subjected to radioactivity in order to study its long term effects. Documented information tell us of experiments in former colonies or the areas of Native Americans, where those people were treated like Guinea pigs. Should the US and UK be allowed to have WMDs, having killed their own people? Questions like that are faced with silence. We are often told by Americans (and their European supporters) that the use of the two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nakazaki were necessary to end the war. The US had the right to defend itself. Can Iraq claim its use of WMDs against Iran was intended to defend itself and end the war? When asked to apply the same principle to Iraq, those people are quiet. Stranger things are also presented. Some say they do not take a position on the ongoing US/UK bombing of Iraq or the no-fly zones, because in the words of one group "lifting the non-military sanctions may expose the government of Iraq to more popular discontent as it will no longer be able to blame the US and the UK for Iraqis' suffering." This could only mean one thing: this group, at least, accuses the government of Iraq of "unjustly blaming the US and the UK for Iraqis' suffering". It therefore believes that the US and the UK ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for Iraqis' suffering. That leaves only the GOI. By campaigning for de-linking, and stating that one of its objectives was to "expose the government of Iraq to more popular discontent", this group becomes a party involved in supporting popular discontent against the GOI leading to the overthrow of the Iraqi Government. That same group states that it "neither supports nor seeks to topple the Iraqi regime". How does one accommodate those two contradicting statements?? No state or group has any right whatsoever to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, one of the founders of the UN, and the land which gave the world its civilization. And especially not the US or the UK whose history of colonialism, oppression and genocide is the worst in the history of mankind. When the Native Americans are treated like the settlers in the land, then the US may have the moral right to talk about human rights. And when Britain withdraws from Northern Ireland and grant its people the right to self determination, then it can talk about protecting the Kurds or Shiite of Iraq. Until then, they better shut up. Attempts to raise the issue of the legality of UN resolutions against Iraq, the use of DU, the legality of the no-fly zones and the bombing of Iraq have been disregarded by most of those groups. The only talk is about the "humanitarian suffering" of Iraqis, without defining what that word means. While defending the oil-for-food program, some have blamed the government of Iraq for not doing enough or for not accepting "de-linking", as if all that the Iraqis need is food and medicine; like cattle.. Discussions are intentionally diverted into petty things and side issue, to distract the attention of the majority from the main and important matters. Articles from some who go to Iraq are nothing but descriptions of what we all know, and criticism of the GOI. These are some of the reasons why the anti-sanctions movement is not successful in its work. There is a lack of sincerity in dealing with the issue, and there is a lack of a unified objective. That is why we need a new direction, and a new campaign based on respect for international law, the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; a policy based on equality of all people, and justice for all; on the right of all people to life, and especially for non interference in the affairs of Iraqis. Iraqis should live like all other people, and they alone can decide their fate. I look forward to hearing your views and ideas on how to proceed. We need, now more than ever, to concentrate our efforts on opposing the sanctions in all their forms, and on removing the threat of the coming aggression. Peace GIS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: fine tuning the anti-sanction and humanitarian initiatives Peace and stability in the Gulf region can't be achieved without a strong Iraq, both economically and militarily. The only other alternative seems to be a general disarmament of all countries in the region to achieve a certain military balance that way. This will obviously not happen because neither will the US stop to sell weapons or give military aid to their client states nor will there be serious disarmament negotiations involving all countries in the region. The idea to convince the western alliance to give up their aggression against Iraq seems quite naive. It is like asking the military to give peace or capitalists to stop making profits. It is not our business to question the Iraqi government in any way. We don't have anything to say or judge about internal Iraqi or regional affairs of the Gulf besides being interested outsiders. First and foremost we have to show respect and understanding of our responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people. We should demand nothing less than the unconditional and immediate rehabilitation of Iraq and restoration of its full sovereignty in all aspects. We should demand an end to all military, economic and financial intervention of our countries in the Gulf region ( and elsewhere ). We should use the example of Iraq to further discredit and unmask the United Nations as an oppressive organization in support of the dominant powers. Let's go with George Bush and state that either you are against the US and its allies or you are with them. There is no middle ground in a situation like we are in now and no basis for communication with those responsible for so much suffering worldwide. carst