Politics and Society

A political inquiry

We don't need any more inquiries around the war in Iraq, but there are a few political issues into which we might inquire. How did the plucky Brits, who survived the Blitz and were nonchalant about the IRA, end up fearing a clapped out regime that was once an ally, and which we had spent over a decade bombing? Why do we end up exporting our domestic political crises to obscure regions of the world? And how is it that the most profound explanation for our governments' aggression is that it was a war for oil -- a resource that is notably absent from Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and most other nations in which they have meddled in the last decade.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

Saddam was 'one of ours'

In the coverage of the invasion of Iraq, and since the detention of Saddam Hussein, I have come across almost no discussion in the British media of the West's ambiguous relationship with Saddam. It is well known but is rarely mentioned that Saddam was supported by the West from his seizure of power through the first Gulf War, up to the tacit endorsement of the invasion of Kuwait by then US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie.

Saddam was 'one of ours' and when he attacked Kurds at Halabja he used chemical weapons supplied by the West and, as John Pilger recently uncovered, with US military advisors in the field. For reasons apparently unrelated to his regime's abuse of its citizens, or its militarism, Saddam became a political tool for our leaders, and they turned against him. But we should acknowledge their complicity in his worst crimes.

To his credit BBC correspondent John Simpson highlighted some of these issues in his reports on Sunday evening, though by Monday evening had abandonned this theme.

Our leaders' machinations in the rest of the world are rarely motivated by the desire for the freedom of its peoples. While Iraq is likely to be a more tolerable place to live post-invasion, this is in part because it brings to an end ten years of Western sanctions. The quality of improvement deserved by peoples elsewhere will only be achieved when they (and we) tell Western leaders to stop meddling in their internal affairs – including the propping up and knocking down unaccountable leaders.

Developed from feedback sent to the BBC Radio 4 Today programme

Administrative incompetence

The inability of the US and British occupiers to administer Iraq should come as no surprise. In the UK New Labour can't even identify the right problems to address, let alone deal with them. Instead it resorts to high-profile stunts and PR, not even using the extensive powers it grants itself. In the US the Republican's most imaginative solution to economic problems is tax cutting. Perhaps their lack of effectiveness 'over here' can explain why our leaders are so keen to display 'over there' the one ability they can still master -- military domination.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

Democratic deficit

Basra city council disbanded by the British Army, Palestinians told by the US to appoint a prime minister, American-selected councillors in Kirkuk, Stormont elections postponed until further notice... for all our leaders' talk of democracy they clearly have no idea what it means. Paine, Jefferson and the other intellectual pioneers of democracy would be horrified at the perversions currently being perpetrated. Democracy, like power, can only be taken. If it is given the giver can retract it at will, as these recent examples demonstrate. Over the centuries Britain and America have inspired the world with democracy, but latterly they have conspired to sully its reputation, and undermine other forms of popular opposition in the Arab world and beyond. Only when popular forms of political activity have been destroyed could the apolitical nihilism of al-Quaida seem even remotely appealing.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

Iraqi uprising

Is there an uprising in Basra or not? The military says Yes, al-Jazeera television can find no evidence. People tend to rise up for something positive, rather than against something negative. However all positive models for political change, from socialism to national self-determination, have been discredited over the last fifty years. Moreover people who have been demoralised by over a decade of Western sanctions are not best disposed for rebellion.

Were they better disposed how might the liberating forces best inspire them? They could drop more leaflets over Iraqi cities telling them to overthrow the current regime so they could have a just legal system (perhaps without a right to silence), the rule of law (possibly suspended at will), and executive accountability to parliament (regularly circumvented). An offer of counselling for those traumatised by the experience of any uprising would probably also be appropriate.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

Liberating Iraq

Having watched the soldiers and their associated arsenal ranged against the pitifully inadequate Iraqi defences it is hard to imagine them as forces of liberation, acting in solidarity with their oppressed brothers and sisters. People's and countries that lead their own liberation become beacons of inspiration around the world, often drawing sympathetic people into their fold. I have yet to come across such a scenario in a country American or British troops have liberated, or come across anyone who looks enviously at these newly freed societies. Considering the lack of intellectual and political consideration that preceded this current action I am not optimistic that it will have a more uplifting outcome.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

Unworthy leaders

Where is the insight, wisdom and vision that informs Blair's no doubt sincere desire to invade Iraq? Can anyone imagine a truly modern, progressive and inspiring government focusing its entire foreign policy on something as short-sighted, ill-justified and uncivilised as a pre-emptive war with an already destroyed Middle Eastern state? These people are not worthy to lead us, and incapable of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

US may go it alone

If the US were prepared to go it alone (US may go it alone as Blair is caught in diplomatic deadlock, March 12) why didn't it escalate the war and invade Iraq weeks ago? Clearly Bush believes Hussein's regime is a threat to the world and that the US has a mission to liberate Iraq. For weeks there has been sufficient firepower to overwhelm the country's already shattered defences. And the US is quite prepared to initiate military action without UN approval, as demonstrated by its establishment of no fly zones a decade ago.

The main reason the US hasn't 'gone it alone' is that this phoney war is in an assertion of US (and to a lesser extent British) power against their Western rivals, where the stakes will be raised as far as possible before the trump card of war is played. Iraq is quite incidental to this exercise, and the lives and freedoms of its people will just be the latest collateral damage in an apparently endless global game.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)

The illusion of not being there

I agree with Nick Cohen's comment that old guides are useless when considering opposition to war with Iraq (Comment 'The only way to peace', March 2, 2003). Many of his criticisms of liberal positions are right on the mark. These positions are weak because they accept some of the premises of the protagonists for war, or reflect their fear and hesitancy about engaging in battle. However Cohen omitted a more principled point of opposition: that the people of the Middle East should be free from Western interference, and that they have a right to self-determination.

Interference doesn't just refer to outright invasion, but to the less overt meddling and politicking in which our governments have frequently engaged over the last century. Their insidious influence has largely shaped a region that is now known for despotism and backward regimes. The call today for our governments and armies to intervene around the world to secure freedom reflects a naive belief that they weren't 'there' already. It also forces those in favour of freedom to wait until Western governments elevate our particular bete noirs to Axis of Evil status. (And even then they may be too cowardly to take action.)

As Cohen observes "most who have experienced state terror... have learned that you must first rid yourself of tyrants" (my emphasis). Concerted opposition to the malign influence of our governments around the world would give the oppressed the chance they need to rid themselves of tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and other former Western stooges, and to experience real freedom.

Letter sent to the Observer newspaper (UK) for publication

Anti-war tactics

As ever, Naomi Klein is lucid in her mission to shift the terms of the debate on opposition to war with Iraq (Comment Put away the cuddly toys. Now it's time to get tough, March 3). However her observation on the lack of effectiveness of the anti-war movements is better explained by their lack of common purpose and their fearful disposition than by their 'soft' tactics. Were they united in opposition to any kind of Western meddling in the Middle East our leaders might find it less easy to dismiss, or accommodate, them.

Klein's approach is akin to that of many high-profile anti-war campaigners, who take it for granted that anyone who is anti-war agrees with them, and then, with an enlightened zeal, proceed to tell us how to act. In this respect Klein is treading the path followed by New Labour, which assumes we share its vision and sees no need to engage in real political debate. Looking down this path we can just make out the figure of a charismatic Saudi, who looks only ahead, never questioning his belief that he acts on behalf of the oppressed masses of the Arab world.

Sent for publication to the Guardian newspaper (UK)