The People Determine - No to War - We Can Make the Difference

Workers' Daily Internet Edition News Release: Article Index :

The People Determine - No to War - We Can Make the Difference

Iraqis have paid the blood price for a fraudulent war
The crudely colonial nature of this enterprise can no longer be disguised

"Iraq Is Not a Natural Democracy" …

There's No Business Like War Business

US Occupation Government for Iraq

Statement Of The Government Of The Socialist Republic Of Vietnam On The War Against Iraq Waged By The United States And United Kingdom

The London Political Forum is holding a discussion and report-back meeting. We are reproducing below their invitation to join in.

"Nothing Bush and Blair … do now will change the truth of their great crime in Iraq. It is a matter of record, understood by the majority of humanity" (John Pilger). Mass killings, systematic destruction of society, of a population's health, these are their chosen methods to impose their agenda on the world. We cannot and will not allow this to be how our world is ordered.

People are looking for ways to make a difference, to be able to put an end to Britain's participation in acts of force and aggression, shown in the enthusiasm for the idea of a People's Assembly. The discussions in the last London Political Forum (LPF) reflected this search. It was with excitement that delegates from LPF to the People's Assembly for Peace were nominated, discussed and elected.

This coming meeting of the LPF where the Report Back of the delegates takes place is very crucial. Not only for the cross-section of people who were there last time, but for everyone who is asking how the peace movement and People's Assembly can be developed. Can the existing political system and institutions be the way forward? Hasn't this system been a factor in bringing about war against the people's will in the first place? These are very important questions that are raised for the anti-war movement and the movement for democratic renewal.

The scale of civilian deaths and injuries as the Iraqi people have fought to defend their country from invading armies has been horrific. Now the occupying forces are unleashing anarchy, chaos and violence. This war of "liberation" is bringing terror and death.

To the occupying powers the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people are as nothing, for all the spin. If Britain and the US get away with their crimes, other countries will be next. We are witnessing the destruction of civilisations as these powers attempt to bring the whole world under the programme and values of Anglo-US neo-liberal globalisation.

Billions of dollars of reconstruction contracts are being handed to US firms, US military rule is being imposed. The real agenda to establish the hegemony of the US and give the big corporations unfettered access to exploit the world's people and resources is increasingly obvious.

The only "superpower" rising to confront them is ourselves, the people. We, the movement against war, are confronted with an urgent question of how the people's will can open the path for humanity's progress and determine the future.

The movement is already shaping a different reality in the way people are being brought together to share information and values. Where discussion flourishes within the movement and out on the streets, the writ of disinformation, lies and spin cannot run.

What should democracy look like? What forms does our society need to imagine, try out and develop? How can we make sure the movement of the people against war is not restricted to the role of protest? How can such a body as the People's Assembly and local forums actually take on the character of tribunes of the people? These are issues we want to discuss.

Now is the time to organise for change, to take our stand with the world's people, based on the conviction that the future lies with us. Come and contribute to the discussion and participate in charting the way forward!

Wednesday, April 23, 2003 – 7.30 p.m.

Marx House, 37a Clerkenwell Green, EC1R 0DU

(Nearest Tube: Farringdon)

Speakers from CND, JustPeaceUK, People’s Assembly Delegates, and others.

Seumas Milne, The Guardian, Thursday April 10, 2003

On the streets of Baghdad yesterday, it was Kabul, November 2001, all over again. Then, enthusiasts for the war on terror were in triumphalist mood, as the Taliban regime was overthrown. The critics had been confounded, they insisted, kites were flying, music was playing again and women were throwing off their burkas. In parliament, Jack Straw mocked Labour MPs who predicted US and British forces would still be fighting in the country in six months' time. Seventeen months later, such confidence looks grimly ironic. For most Afghans, "liberation" has meant the return of rival warlords, harsh repression, rampant lawlessness, widespread torture and Taliban-style policing of women. Meanwhile, guerrilla attacks are mounting on US troops – special forces soldiers have been killed in recent weeks, while 11 civilians died yesterday in an American air raid – and the likelihood of credible elections next year appears to be close to zero.

In Baghdad and Basra, perhaps the cheering crowds have been a bit thinner on the ground than Tony Blair and George Bush might have hoped – and the looters and lynchers more numerous. But it would be extraordinary if many Iraqis didn't feel relief or euphoria at the prospect of an end to a brutal government, 12 years of murderous sanctions and a merciless bombardment by the most powerful military machine in the world. Afghanistan is not of course Iraq, though it is a salutary lesson to those who believe the overthrow of recalcitrant regimes is the way to defeat anti-western terrorism. It would nevertheless be a mistake to confuse the current mood in Iraqi cities with enthusiasm for the foreign occupation now being imposed. Even Israel's invading troops were feted by south Lebanese Shi'ites in 1982 – only to be driven out by the Shi'ite Hizbullah resistance 18 years later.

Nor does the comparative ease with which US and British forces have bombed and blasted their way through Iraq in any way strengthen the case for their war of aggression, as some seem to have convinced themselves. Not even the smallest part of the anti-war argument rested on any illusion that a broken-backed third world regime could win a set-piece military confrontation with the most technologically advanced fighting force in history. Rather, the surprise has been the extent of the resistance and bravery of many fighters, who have confronted tanks with AK 47 rifles and died in their thousands.

In reality, the course of the conflict has strengthened the case against a war supposedly launched to rid Iraq of "weapons of mass destruction" – but which has now morphed into a crusade for regime change as evidence for the original pretext has so embarrassingly not materialised. Not only have US and British forces so far been unable to find the slightest evidence of Saddam Hussein's much-vaunted chemical or biological weapons. But the Iraqi regime's failure to use such weapons up to now, even at the point of its own destruction, suggests either that it doesn't possess any – at least in any usable form, as Robin Cook suggested – or that it has decided their use would be militarily ineffective and politically counter-productive.

So great is the political imperative to find such weapons, it seems hard to believe they won't turn up in some form. This is after all the coalition which used forged documents to implicate Iraq in the purchase of uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger. But, short of a last-ditch deployment in Tikrit or Mosul, the main pre-emptive pretext for war has already been exposed as a fraud.

As the price that Iraqis have had to pay in blood has become clearer – civilian deaths are already well into four figures – Tony Blair and his ministers have increasingly had to fall back on a specious moral calculus to justify their aggression, claiming that more innocents would have died if they had left the Iraqi regime in place.

What cannot now be disguised, as US marines swagger around the Iraqi capital swathing toppled statues of Saddam Hussein with the stars and stripes and declaring "we own Baghdad", is the crudely colonial nature of this enterprise. Any day now, the pro-Israeli retired US general Jay Garner is due to take over the running of Iraq, with plans to replace the Iraqi dinar with the dollar, parcel out contracts to US companies and set the free market parameters for the future "interim Iraqi administration".

Shashi Tharoor, UN under secretary-general warned Britain and the US against treating Iraq as "some sort of treasure chest to be divvied up", but the Pentagon, which is calling the shots, isn't listening. Its favoured Iraqi protege, Ahmed Chalabi – scion of the old Iraqi ruling class who last set foot in Baghdad 45 years ago – was flown into Nasiriya by the Americans at the weekend and, almost unbelievably for someone convicted of fraud and embezzlement, is being lined up as an adviser to the finance ministry.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair is once again seeking to provide a multilateral figleaf for a policy set by Washington hardliners. "Democratisation" in Iraq could only have legitimacy if security were handed over to a United Nations force of non- combatant troops and elections for a constituent assembly held under UN auspices. But nothing of the kind is going to happen, when even Colin Powell insists on "dominating control" by the US. The "vital" UN role Blair has secured from the US president appears to be no more than humanitarian aid and the right to suggest Iraqi names for the interim authority.

The most that could eventually be hoped for from US plans is a "managed" form of democracy in a US protectorate, with key economic and strategic decisions taken in advance by the occupiers. Given the likely result of genuinely free elections in any Arab country, it is little wonder that the US would have such problems accepting them – just as they collude with torture and dictatorship by their client states in the region. Anyone who imagines the US is gagging for independent media in the Middle East should ponder Tuesday's attacks on the al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV offices in Baghdad.

The wider global impact of this war was spelled out by North Korea's foreign ministry this week. "The Iraqi war shows," it declared, with unerring logic, "that to allow disarmament through inspections does not help avert a war, but rather sparks it", concluding that "only a tremendous military deterrent force" can prevent attacks on states the US dislikes.

As the administration hawks circle round Syria and Iran, a powerful boost to nuclear proliferation and anti western terror attacks seems inevitable, offset only by the likelihood of a growing international mobilisation against the new messianic imperialism. The risk must now be that we will all pay bitterly for the reckless arrogance of the US and British governments.

s.milne@guardian.co.uk

Former Tory Prime Minister John Major delivered a speech at a Hong Kong business conference on April 3 which gives an indication of the outlook of the ruling political circles on Iraq. It is one which divides the polity on the basis of national origin and religious belief after which it is declared, "Iraq is not a natural democracy." The following excerpt from the speech illustrates the point.

"The common belief is that the coalition has an agenda to dismember Iraq and to control its oil. Nonsense though it is, it is a fear that will not be dispelled with words alone, which is why the actions of America and Britain will be scrutinised so carefully in the months ahead. 

"Whatever the immediate post-war arrangements for governing Iraq may be – probably a military governorship – it is desirable for the UN to be involved as swiftly as possible in any interim administration. Some sounding board for local opinion – perhaps a consultative council representing the main tribal interests – should also be put in place. 

"This will be uncomfortable and rancorous since the views of the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are unlikely to be as one; but the effort must be made – and be seen to be made. It is important, too, that Arab opinion accepts beyond any doubt that the present territorial borders of Iraq are sacrosanct, and that the management and ownership of oil will remain in Iraqi hands. 

"The establishment of any longer-term government in Iraq is fraught with difficulty. Iraq is not a natural democracy. The depth of bitterness between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds is such that any ‘grand coalition’ is improbable to the point of absurdity. Yet, unless military governorship or UN administration is to be lengthy, we must anticipate a legitimate government that may reflect the numerical dominance of the Shias, who make up over 60 per cent of the population. 

"Such a majority government would install a Shia Iraq beside a Shia Iran, which is an uncomfortable omen. Saudi Arabia is one of many countries that would look uneasily at the future if collaboration between these two countries were to become likely."

by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service, April 2, 2003

When the dust finally settles on post-war Iraq, the United States may have unleashed virtually all of its state-of-the-art weaponry on a country already devastated by 13 years of rigid UN sanctions. 

After 14 days of heavy pounding, US military forces so far have dropped over 8,700 bombs, including more than 3,000 missiles, and also fired millions of rounds of ammunition on military and civilian targets inside the country. 

When US fighter pilots in B-2 stealth bombers launched the initial attack on a residential compound in Baghdad – believed to be a meeting place for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and senior Baath Party officials – the opening salvo included a pair of 2,000 pound bombs and 36 deadly long-range Tomahawk missiles. 

The US military will have to replace all of these weapons – worth billions of dollars – giving a tremendous boost to the US military industry, which has been on the skids since the last Gulf War in 1991.

In the latest Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, the US State Department predicts that US arms sales are expected to reach over 14 billion dollars this year, the largest total in almost two decades, compared to 12.5 billion dollars in 2002. 

"A tragic indicator of the values of our civilisation is that there's no business like war business," says Douglas Mattern of the New York-based War and Peace Foundation. 

"I believe arms sales will increase even beyond the staggering amount we have today, due to a continuing destabilisation of the area and the lobbying for sales by the armament industry," Mattern told IPS. 

One writer describes a "charmed circle of American capitalism", where Tomahawk and cruise missiles will destroy Iraq, Bechtel Corporation (which once employed US Vice President Dick Cheney) will rebuild the country. "And stolen Iraqi oil will pay for it." 

"US weapons contractors are likely to gain significant profits because of this war," says Natalie Goldring, executive director of the Programme on Global Security and Disarmament at the University of Maryland. 

"They'll be paid to replace the weapons that are used or destroyed in the war. The companies will also trumpet their successes at next summer's Paris Air Show, searching for foreign buyers," Goldring told IPS. 

Global annual military spending was 780 billion dollars in 1999, 840 billion dollars in 2001 and is on target for one trillion dollars, according to UN estimates. 

Besides the human casualties, the 14-day-old Iraqi war has seen the destruction of millions of dollars worth of military equipment on both sides of the battlefield. 

A US Apache Longbow helicopter, brought down by Iraqi farmers, costs about 22 million dollars. The US Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, which is also on the casualty list, is priced at over 1.2 million dollars. The war has also seen the destruction for the first time on a battlefield of a monstrous US-built Abrams battle tank. 

Goldring pointed out that Washington has armed Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan for decades. "The strategy was to give and sell these countries weapons so that they could defend themselves, and we wouldn't have to deploy US forces to the region. This strategy has clearly failed," she added. 

Of the world's 10 major buyers of US weapons systems last year, five were from the Middle East: Egypt (1.1 billion dollars in US arms), Kuwait (1.0 billion dollars), Saudi Arabia (885 million dollars), Oman (826 million dollars) and Israel (710 million dollars). The other five nations in the top 10 were South Korea, Japan, Canada, Greece and Britain.

"We have armed unstable regimes with our most sophisticated weapons, and have then used the widespread proliferation of the weapons as the argument for producing the next generation of more expensive weapons. The vicious cycle continues," Goldring said. 

The really big money for US defence contractors, says Mattern, is in the annual Pentagon budget, which has risen from 294 billion dollars in 2000 to about 400 billion dollars in 2003. At the current rate of growth, the budget is expected to hit 500 billion dollars by 2010. 

He said the Pentagon will spend about 60 billion dollars to buy new arms this year and over 30 billion dollars in research and development of new weapons. "The US armament industry is the second most subsidised industry, after agriculture," he added. 

The Iraqi war will also affect the global fight against poverty, because of the huge cost of the war and its aftermath. "It will also degrade health care and other needs in the United States," according to Mattern. 

One-half of the world's governments spend more on the military than on health care, he added. "The war business is the world's ultimate criminal activity." 

US President George W. Bush last week sought Congressional approval for a hefty 75 billion dollars to fund the first six months of the Iraqi war and related anti-terrorism and foreign aid expenses.

"With the intensity of the war so far," says Goldring, "the 75 billion dollars is probably just the down payment on the war". 

The bottom line, says New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, is that the United States will win on the battlefield, probably with ease. 

"I am not a military expert," he wrote, "but I can do the numbers: the most recent US military budget was 400 billion dollars, while Iraq spent only 1.4 billion dollars."

It is reported that US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has been involved in the creation of the so-called Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) for Iraq which will be run by retired US General Jay Garner. Garner is said to head the US occupation government in Iraq but he will report to the head of US Central Command, General Tommy Franks. Garner is on leave from the defence contractor L-3 Communications where he runs an L-3 subsidiary, including his old company SY Technology which made missiles presently being used to bomb Iraq, news agencies report. Garner's team will administer three regions, with retired General Buck Walters in the south, retired General Bruce Moore in the north and former US Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine in the central region, news agencies report.

The ORHA is preparing to begin operations in the southern port city of Umm Qasr, news agencies report. "The mission of ORHA is to provide humanitarian assistance, work on reconstructing the country and install a civil administration that would prepare for the eventual creation of an interim government by Iraqis themselves," Reuters says.

"Humanitarian assistance" is expected to be overseen by George Ward, a former ambassador to Namibia. "Reconstruction" is to be overseen by Lewis Lucke of the US Agency for International Development and "civil administration" by Pentagon lawyer Michael Mobbs who will be in charge of 11 out of 23 ministries. He is the government lawyer who sought to have US citizens imprisoned indefinitely without charge as part of the war on terrorism, news agencies report. Robert Reilly, a former head of the Voice of America, "is working with Iraqi exiles to create radio broadcasts for use in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq," the New York Times reports. Timothy Carney, a former ambassador to Sudan, will run the Ministry of Industry; Robin Raphel, former ambassador to Tunisia, is slated to run the Ministry of Trade; and Kenton Keith, a former ambassador to Qatar, is supposed to head the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the New York Times said. Other possible members of occupation government are former director of the CIA James Woolsey as director of the Information Ministry and former Pentagon aide Walter Slocombe as adviser to the Defence Ministry. Woolsey is part of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board and several other neo-conservative groups including Americans for Victory Over Terrorism. He also sits on the advisory board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) to which General Garner also has ties, a connection likely to arouse hostility in Iraq, news agencies said.

During an April 6 interview with Fox News, Wolfowitz indicated that the United States may keep a permanent military presence in a post-war Iraq as it has done in Germany since the end of World War II. "It's a possibility," he said adding that it is "too soon" to say what those arrangements would be. He reiterated the platitude that "the Iraqi people" will have a role to play saying, "Many of these issues have to be decided in partnership with an Iraqi government that represents the Iraqi people. And we need to get there, so that we can make those decisions in partnership with them."

Wolfowitz said that Saddam Hussein's government will not survive the war and the "coalition" will take initial responsibility for administering the country for "at least six months," China Daily reported.

Wolfowitz said the United Nations will have an important role to play, but will not take charge of an interim government like it did in places like Kosovo. "It's not a model we want to follow, of a sort of permanent international administration," he said. He repeated the claim that the United States is not in Iraq to run the country. "You can't talk about democracy and then turn around and say we're going to pick the leaders of this democratic country," he said.

"On March 20, 2003, the American and British government launched war against the Iraqi people, regardless of the protest of the majority of the world people, ignoring efforts by many UN members to prevent war and seek peaceful solutions to the Iraqi weapon issue. This action constitutes a gross violation of fundamental principles of international law, including the United Nations Charter. It also renders the United Nations ineffective, creates an extremely dangerous precedent in international relations, causes sufferings to the Iraqi people and undermines peace and stability in the Middle East and the world.

"The Vietnamese government and people's principled position is that in international relations, national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity must be fully respected and that conflicts must be settled peacefully on the basis of equality and mutual respect, refraining from the threat or use of force. With that position, the Vietnamese government and people vehemently condemn the military action waged by the American and British governments against the Iraqi people, and strongly demand an immediate end to those actions and full respect for Iraq's national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity to restore peace in the region and stability in the world."