A looooooong post
Apr. 14th, 2003 05:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
misscamI was recently asked some serious questions about various things war related, so here goes (be warned, this will be long.)
France and anti-semitism. This is not merely a French trend. You see it in plenty of European countries - Austria and its Freedom Party, for instance. The leader, Haider, made fun remarks like 'people of the Warren SS were decent men' and their website were choked with links to neo Nazi groups. My very own beloved Norway had two years ago the murder of Benjamin, a 15 year old boy (his mother was African), by neo Nazis. In England you have David Irving, who claims to be an historian, yet denies the existence of the Holocaust. And whadda ya know, it is in the US too. They call themselves revisionists, and their goals are basically to rewrite history, deny the existence of the Holocaust and basically insinuate that the Jews deserved it anyway. Yes, Le Pen is disgusting. Is he the only one? Nope. (And though he had support, the rallies against him in France were heartwarming. People were outraged, and it takes a lot to stir the people these days) And racism too, is plentiful. However, this is not just France. If you think France is a bad example, I invite you to take a trip around Europe and Australia. And racism and anti-semitism sure as hell run rampant in the Middle east. Nor is anti-semitism a new thing. Been around for centuries and has led to much Jewish suffering. (This doesn't alter the fact that Israel has done plenty of really, really nasty things)
And why have I not attack France on these grounds? Simple. It is not the issue. If you want to attack France for being buddies with Saddam, I'd like to point out that the US has no problems being buddies with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan these days, and as I said before, it sure didn't stop the US in the 80s being buddies with Saddam. No, neither has the morale high ground in this case. Which made the American 'boycotts' so idiotic - hello, you are in essence boycotting behaviour your own country has indulged in here. I found it silly, so my own suggestions were silly (if you thought I really wanted the Staue of Libery placed in the Atlantic with a certain obscene gesture, well, then I'm sorry. I was taking the piss, a proud Aussie tradition)
Weapons of Mass Destruction Well, duh. The nuclear program has been known since 1995. It apparently was a ten billion dollar programe. But Hans Blix did not say he trusted Saddam. He wasn't even happy with the Iraqi co-operation. He said so, again and again. He also said that progress was made. Some Americans thus villainfied him. The man was just doing his job. I'd also like to point out that Saddam had this weapons back in the Gulf War. He didn't use them (if he had, the US would have crushed him). If the US truly is so worried about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dictororial regimes, I'd like to point out that both Pakistan and North Korea has nuclear weapons.
As for the murder of POWs... Well, there was some recent stories about Afghanistan and captuared Taliban prisoners. They were stuffed in containers, those who did not choke to death shot when the container was opened again. And what do you know, there's footage of Americans just watching this happen. And what of the treatment of the captured Taliban prisoners on the infamous Cuban base? Doesn't follow the Geneva convention and clearly breaks human rights. (And if the answer is that these are terrorists, well, that's how the Iraqi goverment apparently saw the Americans, judging from all the 'infidels')
When is a war justified? Well, that is the million dollar question, isn't it?
One poster suggested freedom. Hmmm. Of course, living in free Norway, I like my freedom. Hell, when we were invaded by Germany back in WW2, we fought for our freedom. However, I shall counter that with a little tale of Yugoslavia. After WW2, it was run by Tito (Dictator Monthly, Mr. September), and it wasn't a free country. When he died, the whole thing fell apart. And what did the people do with their freedom? They started killing each other.
When Algeria had free elections some decades back, you know what they chose? A fundementalist Islamic party who wanted to run the country by Islamic rule. This was their campaign. Literally, one vote, one party, for all time. And they won the election, fair and square (International monitors confirmed this). And if one wants to attack France for being an ass, here is the chance. France would not stand for this, and helped the miliatry take up a bloody campaign against the Islamic movement. Thousands upon thousands died. The struggle still goes on. (More on Algeria here)
If free elections were held in Iraq, and a similar result came about, would the US allow it? If it were to become as Iran? (The reason why the US supported Saddam in the 80s was the fear of such an Islamic rule) Why do we assume the Middle East wants our version of democracy in the first place? Freedom and democracy the Western way has fucked up many developing countries. I'm not saying this is all 'bad, bad Western world', but it is a fact. Look at Nigeria. Burundi. Sometimes, democracy the Western way works. Sometimes it doesn't. So, there is no gurantee this will work in Iraq. There is no gurantee Shiites and Sunnis will not engage in a powerstruggle that may lead to civil war.
But to return to the question - is war justifiable when it frees a people? Well, we better gear up to free Tibet, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and countless others, then. And what about those who are democracy in name, but corrupt in nature? Shall war be waged there as well? Let's face it... If we were to liberate all the people suffering, there would be no end to wars.
But this, again, is not for me the issue with the Iraq war. The US government has known Saddam was 'evil' since at least the 80s. His weapons of mass destruction have been known of a good while. His government has no greater ties to terrorist networks than the other countries in the region does. He has made no recent acts of agression. (While, on the other hand, North Korea has) Why now? The Gulf War was in 1991.
So, we return to the 'free people' argument, and then we run into trouble. For there are many unfree peoples of the world. And even if freedom is given to them, it may not mean a better life. Sometimes, it leads to wars that lasts decades. And perhaps people will think 'you know, maybe it wasn't so bad when that evil guy was around...' (dangerous thinking, I'd say)
And my answer is thus - when is war justified? Never. It is, however, sometimes necessary. (Can I justify killing a man because I know he's about to kill ten others? No. Killing is killing. But I can argue it was necessary) Most of the time, it is not. History justify war because we need it to. So when is a war necessary?
When there are no other choices. No other choices at all. And in this case, I am not convinced. I need the UN. Yes, it is flawed. But it is what we have. Perhaps it is because I come from a country who believes in talk, not military. I don't know. But I cannot support this war as it stands. History could prove me wrong. Who's to say? But I don't think we're about to see the glorious birth of democracy in Iraq. I think were about to see a lot of trouble, and perhaps more terrorism to come from this.
Finally, a bit on AlJazeera and objectivity. No newsorganisation is wholly objective and unbiased. Not AlJazeera, certainly not CNN or FOX News, not even the BBC. Journalists are humans. I know I'm not unbiased. Americans are not unbiased, Germans are not unbiased, Swedes are not unbiased. AlJazeera has its values, CNN has its values. For instance, AlJazeera choses to broadcast a lot on the suffering of the Palestinians. The American press does not as much, sometimes not at all. (And note, I am not taking a stand here. Both sides commit horrors, but Israel has the bigger guns, to put it simply). That's a value judgement. And as I have noted several times in this LJ, this is propaganda on all fricking sides.
I cannot speak for the whole peace movement. It's so diverse. Some of it may be anti-semite backed, but most of it is just normal people who are worried. I don't love Saddam. I don't wish ill on the Iraqis. In fact, much of my fear over this war is out of concern for the Iraqis. I am not convinced this will bring peace and prosperity. I fear the rising anti-American sentiment and the even more 'reshaping of the world' from the US. I fear that going without the UN once will lead to twice.. and third and fourth and fifth..
No, I cannot support this war. I probably wouldn't make a good world leader, but you know, I'm rather glad for that.
I also suggest some reading:
On why Arabs may not be so happy Saddam is gone
I quote: From day one of this war, Arab public opinion has been firmly against the US-led invasion.
Perhaps it would have been different if the Palestinians had a state of their own. But Arabs blame Washington for the suffering of the stateless Palestinians, and for 12 years of UN sanctions on Iraq.
The Independent on the war, how it played out, and opposition
I quote:
Many of us who opposed the war did so not out of any fondness for the Iraqi leader nor even the belief that the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction was absurdly overblown. We did so because we believed the risks to regional stability outweighed the potential gains. Nothing so far has changed that judgement; indeed Turkey's behaviour, the current chaos in Iraq and the American sabre-rattling against Syria only confirm it.(...)
The real question, Kelly [journalist who was killed in the war, Cam ed.] argued, is "whether the employment of [America's] almost unfathomable power will be largely for good, leading to the liberation of a tyrannised people and the spread of freedom; or largely for bad, leading to a corruption of America's own values and freedoms. Probably the next hundred years hinges on the answer." That is no exaggeration. It was true before the war, and is still truer today. The past 25 days have changed everything, in the Middle East and beyond. Yet, in a deeper sense, they have changed nothing.
On Saddam's horrific regime
I quote:
Iraqi courts have been "instruments of repression rather than impartial judicial institutions," said the New York-based Human Rights Watch.
"The US government can't solve this problem by offering some technical assistance to the Iraqi judicial system," said Richard Dicker, director of the group's International Justice Program. "That system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up."
Briefly on the Norwegian view
Norwegians are known for their peace initiatives internationally and generally oppose all military aggression. Norway also is a longtime backer of the United Nations and an overwhelming majority of Norwegians resented the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq without a UN mandate.
Al-Jazeera website in English You really ought to go there, especially if you get the main reports of the war from CNN or a similar western newsorganisation. I'm not saying what they report is any more 'objective' than CNN, but it will give insight into how the Arab world views this.
I really think that whatever you believe in this situation (pro or anti-war), you never know enough about it. The world is very, very complicated. I freely admit my ignorance of many things - but I also strive to constantly better my knowledge. It's part of why I chose journalism. I really believe that knowledge is important in understanding each other - and ultimately, have peace with one another.
France and anti-semitism. This is not merely a French trend. You see it in plenty of European countries - Austria and its Freedom Party, for instance. The leader, Haider, made fun remarks like 'people of the Warren SS were decent men' and their website were choked with links to neo Nazi groups. My very own beloved Norway had two years ago the murder of Benjamin, a 15 year old boy (his mother was African), by neo Nazis. In England you have David Irving, who claims to be an historian, yet denies the existence of the Holocaust. And whadda ya know, it is in the US too. They call themselves revisionists, and their goals are basically to rewrite history, deny the existence of the Holocaust and basically insinuate that the Jews deserved it anyway. Yes, Le Pen is disgusting. Is he the only one? Nope. (And though he had support, the rallies against him in France were heartwarming. People were outraged, and it takes a lot to stir the people these days) And racism too, is plentiful. However, this is not just France. If you think France is a bad example, I invite you to take a trip around Europe and Australia. And racism and anti-semitism sure as hell run rampant in the Middle east. Nor is anti-semitism a new thing. Been around for centuries and has led to much Jewish suffering. (This doesn't alter the fact that Israel has done plenty of really, really nasty things)
And why have I not attack France on these grounds? Simple. It is not the issue. If you want to attack France for being buddies with Saddam, I'd like to point out that the US has no problems being buddies with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan these days, and as I said before, it sure didn't stop the US in the 80s being buddies with Saddam. No, neither has the morale high ground in this case. Which made the American 'boycotts' so idiotic - hello, you are in essence boycotting behaviour your own country has indulged in here. I found it silly, so my own suggestions were silly (if you thought I really wanted the Staue of Libery placed in the Atlantic with a certain obscene gesture, well, then I'm sorry. I was taking the piss, a proud Aussie tradition)
Weapons of Mass Destruction Well, duh. The nuclear program has been known since 1995. It apparently was a ten billion dollar programe. But Hans Blix did not say he trusted Saddam. He wasn't even happy with the Iraqi co-operation. He said so, again and again. He also said that progress was made. Some Americans thus villainfied him. The man was just doing his job. I'd also like to point out that Saddam had this weapons back in the Gulf War. He didn't use them (if he had, the US would have crushed him). If the US truly is so worried about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dictororial regimes, I'd like to point out that both Pakistan and North Korea has nuclear weapons.
As for the murder of POWs... Well, there was some recent stories about Afghanistan and captuared Taliban prisoners. They were stuffed in containers, those who did not choke to death shot when the container was opened again. And what do you know, there's footage of Americans just watching this happen. And what of the treatment of the captured Taliban prisoners on the infamous Cuban base? Doesn't follow the Geneva convention and clearly breaks human rights. (And if the answer is that these are terrorists, well, that's how the Iraqi goverment apparently saw the Americans, judging from all the 'infidels')
When is a war justified? Well, that is the million dollar question, isn't it?
One poster suggested freedom. Hmmm. Of course, living in free Norway, I like my freedom. Hell, when we were invaded by Germany back in WW2, we fought for our freedom. However, I shall counter that with a little tale of Yugoslavia. After WW2, it was run by Tito (Dictator Monthly, Mr. September), and it wasn't a free country. When he died, the whole thing fell apart. And what did the people do with their freedom? They started killing each other.
When Algeria had free elections some decades back, you know what they chose? A fundementalist Islamic party who wanted to run the country by Islamic rule. This was their campaign. Literally, one vote, one party, for all time. And they won the election, fair and square (International monitors confirmed this). And if one wants to attack France for being an ass, here is the chance. France would not stand for this, and helped the miliatry take up a bloody campaign against the Islamic movement. Thousands upon thousands died. The struggle still goes on. (More on Algeria here)
If free elections were held in Iraq, and a similar result came about, would the US allow it? If it were to become as Iran? (The reason why the US supported Saddam in the 80s was the fear of such an Islamic rule) Why do we assume the Middle East wants our version of democracy in the first place? Freedom and democracy the Western way has fucked up many developing countries. I'm not saying this is all 'bad, bad Western world', but it is a fact. Look at Nigeria. Burundi. Sometimes, democracy the Western way works. Sometimes it doesn't. So, there is no gurantee this will work in Iraq. There is no gurantee Shiites and Sunnis will not engage in a powerstruggle that may lead to civil war.
But to return to the question - is war justifiable when it frees a people? Well, we better gear up to free Tibet, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and countless others, then. And what about those who are democracy in name, but corrupt in nature? Shall war be waged there as well? Let's face it... If we were to liberate all the people suffering, there would be no end to wars.
But this, again, is not for me the issue with the Iraq war. The US government has known Saddam was 'evil' since at least the 80s. His weapons of mass destruction have been known of a good while. His government has no greater ties to terrorist networks than the other countries in the region does. He has made no recent acts of agression. (While, on the other hand, North Korea has) Why now? The Gulf War was in 1991.
So, we return to the 'free people' argument, and then we run into trouble. For there are many unfree peoples of the world. And even if freedom is given to them, it may not mean a better life. Sometimes, it leads to wars that lasts decades. And perhaps people will think 'you know, maybe it wasn't so bad when that evil guy was around...' (dangerous thinking, I'd say)
And my answer is thus - when is war justified? Never. It is, however, sometimes necessary. (Can I justify killing a man because I know he's about to kill ten others? No. Killing is killing. But I can argue it was necessary) Most of the time, it is not. History justify war because we need it to. So when is a war necessary?
When there are no other choices. No other choices at all. And in this case, I am not convinced. I need the UN. Yes, it is flawed. But it is what we have. Perhaps it is because I come from a country who believes in talk, not military. I don't know. But I cannot support this war as it stands. History could prove me wrong. Who's to say? But I don't think we're about to see the glorious birth of democracy in Iraq. I think were about to see a lot of trouble, and perhaps more terrorism to come from this.
Finally, a bit on AlJazeera and objectivity. No newsorganisation is wholly objective and unbiased. Not AlJazeera, certainly not CNN or FOX News, not even the BBC. Journalists are humans. I know I'm not unbiased. Americans are not unbiased, Germans are not unbiased, Swedes are not unbiased. AlJazeera has its values, CNN has its values. For instance, AlJazeera choses to broadcast a lot on the suffering of the Palestinians. The American press does not as much, sometimes not at all. (And note, I am not taking a stand here. Both sides commit horrors, but Israel has the bigger guns, to put it simply). That's a value judgement. And as I have noted several times in this LJ, this is propaganda on all fricking sides.
I cannot speak for the whole peace movement. It's so diverse. Some of it may be anti-semite backed, but most of it is just normal people who are worried. I don't love Saddam. I don't wish ill on the Iraqis. In fact, much of my fear over this war is out of concern for the Iraqis. I am not convinced this will bring peace and prosperity. I fear the rising anti-American sentiment and the even more 'reshaping of the world' from the US. I fear that going without the UN once will lead to twice.. and third and fourth and fifth..
No, I cannot support this war. I probably wouldn't make a good world leader, but you know, I'm rather glad for that.
I also suggest some reading:
On why Arabs may not be so happy Saddam is gone
I quote: From day one of this war, Arab public opinion has been firmly against the US-led invasion.
Perhaps it would have been different if the Palestinians had a state of their own. But Arabs blame Washington for the suffering of the stateless Palestinians, and for 12 years of UN sanctions on Iraq.
The Independent on the war, how it played out, and opposition
I quote:
Many of us who opposed the war did so not out of any fondness for the Iraqi leader nor even the belief that the threat posed by his weapons of mass destruction was absurdly overblown. We did so because we believed the risks to regional stability outweighed the potential gains. Nothing so far has changed that judgement; indeed Turkey's behaviour, the current chaos in Iraq and the American sabre-rattling against Syria only confirm it.(...)
The real question, Kelly [journalist who was killed in the war, Cam ed.] argued, is "whether the employment of [America's] almost unfathomable power will be largely for good, leading to the liberation of a tyrannised people and the spread of freedom; or largely for bad, leading to a corruption of America's own values and freedoms. Probably the next hundred years hinges on the answer." That is no exaggeration. It was true before the war, and is still truer today. The past 25 days have changed everything, in the Middle East and beyond. Yet, in a deeper sense, they have changed nothing.
On Saddam's horrific regime
I quote:
Iraqi courts have been "instruments of repression rather than impartial judicial institutions," said the New York-based Human Rights Watch.
"The US government can't solve this problem by offering some technical assistance to the Iraqi judicial system," said Richard Dicker, director of the group's International Justice Program. "That system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up."
Briefly on the Norwegian view
Norwegians are known for their peace initiatives internationally and generally oppose all military aggression. Norway also is a longtime backer of the United Nations and an overwhelming majority of Norwegians resented the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq without a UN mandate.
Al-Jazeera website in English You really ought to go there, especially if you get the main reports of the war from CNN or a similar western newsorganisation. I'm not saying what they report is any more 'objective' than CNN, but it will give insight into how the Arab world views this.
I really think that whatever you believe in this situation (pro or anti-war), you never know enough about it. The world is very, very complicated. I freely admit my ignorance of many things - but I also strive to constantly better my knowledge. It's part of why I chose journalism. I really believe that knowledge is important in understanding each other - and ultimately, have peace with one another.