Steven
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com] On Behalf Of billbartlett at dodo.com.au Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:21 PM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Saddam is a cruel tyrant who should face international justice
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/02/19/1045638358744.htm
The moral doubts about 'peace'
Melbourne Age February 20 2003
If only the problem of dealing with Saddam were as simple as the street protesters seem to think. By Pamela Bone.
It was "the indignant pity of the civilised world" that would ultimately give states the right and the duty to intervene by force of arms against other states that oppressed and murdered their peoples, said Theodore Roosevelt in his 1904 State of the Union address.
Tragically, that "indignant pity" has too often not been roused, or been roused too late to prevent the slaughter of millions. And most shamefully, that pity has often only been roused when the actions of the offending state threaten the "civilised" world, as in the case of Nazi Germany, as in the case of the Taliban rule of Afghanistan, as in the case of Iraq today. In 1994, the genocide of the Rwandan Tutsis threatened no one outside Rwanda, and the civilised world looked away and let it happen.
Saddam Hussein has not perpetrated a genocide as swift and terrible as the Rwandan genocide, in which close to a million people were killed in the space of 100 days. It has taken him 30 years to murder a million Iraqis. Nevertheless, the systematic extermination of the "Marsh" Arabs and the chemical weapons used against the Kurds meet the definition of genocide, and the beheadings, torture and rapes perpetrated against countless other Iraqis meet the definition of crimes against humanity.
Yet genocide and crimes against humanity are not the reasons for the willingness of the United States, Britain and Australia to go to war against Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted this in a speech to a Labour conference in Scotland last week. To those opposed to war on moral grounds there is a moral answer, he said: "It is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the United Nations mandate on weapons of mass destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience."
Ever since 1859, when Henry Dunant walked out on the body-strewn battlefield of Solferino and helped to found the Red Cross, a will for international justice, universal human rights and collective security has been growing. It has been expressed in the establishment of the United Nations, in the Nuremberg trials, the tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, in hundreds of treaties and human rights laws, and, most recently, in the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The world decided that no longer would national sovereignty be a protector of dictators and mass murderers. No longer would there be impunity for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Because crimes against humanity are, by definition, crimes against all of us.
Why, therefore, is the indignant pity the peace marchers feel for the people of Iraq expressed not at their long-term oppressor, Saddam Hussein, but at George Bush?
Bush has also argued the humanitarian case for removing Saddam. The trouble is that he is widely distrusted and disliked. When it calls for international unity, the Bush Administration would have more credibility if it were not so jealous of America's own national sovereignty; if it had not refused to ratify the International Criminal Court without an iron-clad guarantee US soldiers would never be prosecuted; if it had not refused to support the Kyoto Protocol, because "the American way of life is sacred"; and if it were not dead last among developed countries in the percentage of its GDP it gives in aid to poor countries. When it talks about human rights, it would have more credibility if the US did not impose the death penalty.
And yet, a truth does not cease to be true just because it is stated by somebody one dislikes. Saddam is a cruel tyrant who should face international justice. Saddam with weapons of mass destruction does pose an intolerable danger to the rest of the world. And if we simply scoff at the idea that Saddam's weapons could ever fall into the hands of international terrorists, are we not gambling on the lives of millions of people in London, New York or Melbourne, who might become their targets if we are wrong?
It is tragic at this stage of history to see the UN, NATO, the European Union so divided (and the Commonwealth divided over Zimbabwe). In this sense, the dictators have already won. The best hope of avoiding war, still, is to get a strong and unambiguous second resolution from the UN Security Council ordering Iraq to disarm. Dictators should know the world is united against them. Unfortunately, though this was not the intention of the peace marchers, Saddam has taken courage from the massive public opposition to war.
Yes, allow more time to get a unanimous Security Council resolution. Yes, try containment, as long as that does not give courage to other genocidally inclined dictators around the world (and remember, Iraq has already said it will not tolerate a large UN presence). Yes, if there is war, there will be terrible suffering and many people will die. But if Saddam does not unequivocally submit to disarmament, if he continues to obstruct and deceive and oppress, sooner or later the world will have to make a decision.
I envy the moral certainty of the peace protesters.
Pamela Bone is an associate editor of The Age. pbone at theage.com.au