Letter to Jacques Chirac regarding France's policy on Iraq
Mr. President, while I too unreservedly oppose US military attack on Iraq for regime change, I cannot ignore the fact that there are at least two sides to every story, and the wise ones cannot sacrifice one side for the sake of supporting the other...
Mar 4, 2003
His Excellency President Jacques Chirac
Dear Mr. President
In analyzing your government's policies vis-à-vis the Iraqi Crisis in an address to a meeting of French Iranian academics and intellectuals at Paris University on Saturday 1st March 2003, I admired that part of these policies which rejects US strategy of pre-emptive attack on Iraq for regime change. This admiration was of course based on the face value of the opposition to any notion of a unilateral and pre-emptive attack by one country against another for the purpose of regime-change there, without necessarily questioning the sincerity of motives or the lack of it for such an opposition. Alternatively, the admiration was but an acknowledgement of the value and importance of such an opposition for the safeguarding of global stability even if it is for selfish reasons. The fact, however, is that, apart from all else, the said US strategy would set a new and dangerous precedence in international relations that can be used by other powers in future and such a development would put an end to security in the world.
Having said that, I respectfully questioned lack of clarity in French policy concerning the need for simultaneously addressing the issue of Saddam Hussein and his Baath party's serious threat against peace and stability of the region. As the set up of the meeting was not convincing enough that it could convey this crucial question to Your Excellency's office, I decided to put the question to you directly by writing this letter with my humble apologies for it may take a few minutes of your precious time.
Mr. President, few may doubt that with the idea of a pre-emptive attack on Iraq for regime-change the United States is embarking upon a new geopolitical design that could turn into reality Washington's old dream of a New World Order of a unipolar system under the US dictates. A new world of dictatorial geopolitics in which the United States of America with all its prejudices against various nations will be able to act as the judge, jury, and the executioner in world affairs. This is a dangerous proposition that the Bush administration has put to the human community and by doing so, not only has it failed to achieve the ambition but also has put the United States on the spot as "a problem" for the future prospect of global peace and stability. This is why, in my assessment of geopolitical developments in the post-modern era that your government's serious opposition and that of most others to this proposition are admirable. But unfortunately it appears that the enthusiasm for such an opposition has caused some to lose sight of prudence and allow themselves to be carried away so far as effectively defending Iraqi regime, in spite of its horrific anti-human records, comparable only with those of Nazi Germany. Those who have gone to Baghdad to create a human shield against US military attack are certainly motivated by the best of intentions, but little do they realize that in practice with their lives they are guaranteeing the survival of the evil of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime.
Similarly, in order to secure a prestigious musical award, a British signer recently sang songs opposing the war as it kills women and children. But those who granted her the award did so perhaps because it is fashionable to do so. Otherwise, they would have prudently decided while giving the award, ask appropriately where was she when Iraqi, Iranian, and Kuwaiti women and children were being massacred by the Baath Party for over 40 years, using weapons of mass destruction received from Russia, France, Germany, Britain and the United States. The fact also should be put to her that if this regime were to survive as a result of her opposition to war, what song could she sing to convince the world that massacre of women and children in the region will not continue for another 40 years.
Mr. President, while I too unreservedly oppose US military attack on Iraq for regime change, I cannot ignore the fact that there are at least two sides to every story, and the wise ones cannot sacrifice one side for the sake of supporting the other. It is on the merit of the same assessment of the situation that I would like to ask your government; while opposing Washington's new proposition for US global dictatorship, what have you done, or going to do, to solve the problem of Baath and Saddam Hussein?
Based on an incomprehensible analysis some governments in the region appear to have concluded that maintenance of status quo would be a preferable policy, because a weak Saddam Hussein is not a threat. Little do the authors of this shortsighted policy know that a 'weak Saddam Hussein' is but a temporary situation that only delays the institutionalized Iraqi Baathist threats to regional peace and security? Saddam Hussein will remain weak for as long as the United States continues putting pressure on him. But what guarantees are there that US pressure will not be lifted in a few months time or so and the two would not conspire once again to impose wars on other nations as they did before. Faced with such a serious issue, how could a wise mind afford not to criticize the policy that plans a neighbouring country's future security on the basis of an untenable and temporary situation? Saddam Hussein and his Baath party have been and will continue to be serious threats to the security and stability of the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf and West Asia with undeniable consequences for the world at large.
The crisis in hand, on the other hand, has put the world on a sensitive spot where frankly less politicking is expected from world leaders and more moral conviction to the maintenance of stability for global geopolitical order that is in the process of being reshaped. Perhaps a less politically charged and more humanely motivated approach from France and other countries involved in serious opposition to the new US geo-strategic drive would consider opposing both parties at the same time. In such an approach an international coalition could be called for, in order to provide Iraqi opposition parties, who collectively represent the overwhelming majority of Iraqi people, with necessary guidance and support to work out a national solution to their national problem. By doing so both evils can be defeated at the same time not only an end can be put to the evil of Baathist regime, but also excuses Washington seeks to use to facilitate implementation of its evil propositions will be! removed once and for all.
Finally Mr. President, I would like to repeat that a simple and one-sided opposition to the new US geopolitics, even with the best of intention, would amount to no less than a working support for Saddam Hussein and his regime. Such an approach will have far reaching consequences, which can pose greater instability and chaos to the world than either the United States or Iraq can pose separately in the present circumstances.
Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh Ph.D.
Professor of Political Geography and geopolitics
Chairman of Urosevic Research Foundation - London
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article