portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

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
Elise Palace
Paris
France

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.

Yours sincerely



Pirouz Mojtahed-Zadeh Ph.D.
Professor of Political Geography and geopolitics
Chairman of Urosevic Research Foundation - London

homepage: homepage: http://www.payvand.com/news/03/mar/1027.html

Making the World Safe for Sharon’s Israel 05.Mar.2003 20:09

abovethesmoke

Making the World Safe for Sharon's Israel

Saturday, March 01 2003 @ 01:24 AM GMT


"Thanks to Perle's persuasion, along with that of other members of what the Washington Post (02/09/03) labeled the 'Likudnik cabal,' the American president is preparing to export 'democracy' to Iraq .."

By William Hughes

(PalestineChronicle.com) - Who invented democracy? Here in the Christian West, we have always given credit to the Greeks. This was long before one of democracy's most fraudulent adherents, the odious Richard Perle, appeared on the world stage. He wants to use what HE calls, "democracy," to make the Middle East safe for Israel. And he cleverly pretends his scheme is in our national interest. As a Missouri farmer might say of him, "That guy is full of it!"

Now, thanks to Perle's persuasion, along with that of other members of what the Washington Post (02/09/03) labeled the "Likudnik cabal," the American president, George W. Bush Jr., is preparing to export "democracy" to Iraq. It will be delivered via a massive military invasion. No vote by the Iraqi people will be permitted on this question. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia, too, may be next on our "democracy" hit list.

Since there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the U.S. or that he had any connections whatsoever to the terrorist al-Qaeda outfit and 9/11, another "causa belli" had to be found: It's democracy! This will be the U.S. battle cry for the conflict with Iraq.

This is reminiscent of President Woodrow Wilson's sloganeering the U.S. into WWI. He wanted to "make the world safe for democracy." It's too bad that campaign ended up so miserably. It helped to create conditions that gave rise to Adolph Hitler, the notorious Balfour Declaration, the fall of Mother Russia, and the partitioning of Ireland, among other dubious achievements. We can only wait to see where this latest "democracy crusade" will plunge mankind.

The shadowy Perle is a former defense department official in the Reagan administration. He is presently the chief honcho of the powerful Pentagon Defense Policy Board. Back in 1996, he, along with other Likudnik brainstormers, helped to publish a policy paper, "A Clean Break," for the Israelis. It advocated the U.S. taking out Iraq (see, Bill and Kathleen Christison's "Too Many Smoking Guns" expose', 01/25/03, and "Is War Inevitable?" by Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, 02/26/03, for more particulars).

In Bush's remarks, 02/26/03, before the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank, he said, "A free Iraq" could become "a beacon of democracy across the Middle East." This could only happen, the president added, "After the growing threat from Saddam is gone." This speech was Perle's "Get Iraq Doctrine" being transformed into holy dogma. What a proud moment it must have been for a man, like Perle, who is so intimate with Israeli insiders, such as its ex-premier, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Paul Craig Roberts, an intrepid pundit, predicted all of this for LewRockwell.com, on 12/31/02. He wrote, "In 2003, the story will be confirmed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a 'secret Israeli plan' designed to involve the U.S. long-term in the Arab-Israeli conflict, cynically sold to the Bush White House by 'neo-conservatives' as a reflective strategy." Well, this is 2003. Perle is "Mr. Neo-conservative" and the "secret Israeli plan," is out in the open. (See also, William Rivers Pitt's excellent "Blood Money" article, in Truthout, 02/27/03, for more background on this subject matter.)

Meanwhile, Perle's favorite "democracy," Israel, has just elected a new regime that is slightly to the right of Genghis Kahn. It will be led by the 75-year-old crackpot, Ariel Sharon. One of the parties, the National Union, that makes up his extremely hawkish Likud coalition, openly advocates the "ethnic cleansing" of the Palestinians. Lt. General Shaul Mofaz, a prime architect of the IDF's rampage at Jenin, will return as the defense minister.

For untold reasons, Israel's barbarous treatment of the Palestinians is a mostly taboo subject. Its death squads, and collective punishment and torture of the Palestinians, are hardly ever mentioned in the media. It has also been stealing hundreds of thousands of acres of land from the Palestinians, since 1948. Unlike Iraq, Israel stands in violation of 68 Resolutions of the UN. The hypocrisy of the U.S. supposedly fighting to establish "democracy" in Iraq, while aligning itself with the undemocratic Sharonists, staggers the imagination.

Finally, any U.S. led war with Iraq will not really be about bringing democracy to that country, or about removing Saddam from power. It will mostly be about making the world safe for Sharon's Israel. For that foul deed, the repulsive Richard Perle, who has been pulling wires for decades, will take a bow.

William Hughes is the author of "Andrew Jackson vs. New World Order" (Authors Choice Press), which is available online. He can be reached at  liamhughes@mindspring.com.
Making the World Safe for Sharon’s Israel
Making the World Safe for Sharon’s Israel