FW: Bloody Crusaders Call the Shots in Iraq/09-03-96
clerk.kant at dial.pipex.com
Thu Sep 5 12:07:20 MDT 1996
Attached commentary regarding US bombing of Iraq for further discussion.
From: Living Marxism[SMTP:lm at junius.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 1996 6:36 PM
To: Multiple recipients of
Subject: Bloody Crusaders Call the Shots in Iraq/09-03-96
We encourage debate and discussion on these commentaries. If you would like
to discuss further the ideas in this commentary, go to:
LIVING MARXISM COMMENTARY
Bloody Crusaders Call the Shots in Iraq
The five year human rights crusade by liberals and charities paved the way
for the air strikes against Iraq, writes Jennie Bristow.
It is obvious that the US decision to fire cruise missiles into Iraq again
had nothing to do with the complex geopolitical situation in the region.
Washington has been quite content to see Saddam Hussein's Iraq act as a
regional counterweight to Iran, and to watch persistent attacks on the
Kurds by NATO ally Turkey. The latest strikes had nothing to do with the
situation in Iraq and everything to do with the situation in America. The
Cruise missiles were launched as a cynical election stunt, designed to show
that Clinton can boss the world around.
The question is, how could the US authorities get away with such an obvious
cheap tactic without attracting any serious criticism in the West? Why does
nobody bat an eyelid anymore when Clinton bombs Iraqis for the crime of
'invading' part of their own country? The answer is that this is the
pay-off of the human rights crusade which liberal journalists, aid
organisations and radical charities have been running over the past five
As the September issue of Living Marxism explains, the campaign to
highlight human rights abuses in Third World societies such as Iraq, and to
demand that the West takes action against them, has succeeded only in
demonising the Third World as immoral and depicting the West as a higher
authority. The consequence of that consensus is that Clinton, Major and
other 'civilised' Western leaders have a free hand to teach the
'barbarians' a lesson with Cruise missiles and other moral instruments.
The issue of Iraq and the Kurds has been to the fore throughout the human
rights crusade. The Gulf War of 1990-91 marked a turning point in world
politics. The US-led coalition devastated Iraq, leaving an estimated 120
000 Iraqis dead. Yet many anti-war campaigners refused to oppose the war
outright, arguing only for the West to beat the Iraqis with sanctions
instead of bombs. At the end of the war, the convergence of the Western
liberals and NGOs with the rulers of Western imperialism was complete, when
the former called for the latter to intervene further in Iraq to protect
the Kurds from the Iraqi regime.
The consequences of this apparently liberal concern with the Kurds only
served to legitimise the role of imperialism. In the name of protecting
these vulnerable people against the human rights abuses they suffered under
the Iraqi regime, Western powers were able to carve up Iraq, creating
so-called 'safe havens' and no-fly zones and placing a political and
economic stranglehold on the country.
Who has gained from the human rights campaign against Saddam? Ghettoising
the Kurds in safe havens has made them easy prey for NATO ally Turkey to
attack at will. The UN sanctions on Iraq have punished those too young even
to remember the Gulf war. In February last year, Living Marxism reported
>from Iraq on the effect of five years of 'peaceful' sanctions - including a
sevenfold rise in infant mortality rates, and the treatment of one hundred
and fifty thousand under-fives for basic nutritional diseases every month
('The UN: new dictators of Iraq').
Yet the plight of Iraqi civilians as a result of the UN sanctions has
largely been ignored, while the plight of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs at
the hands of Saddam Hussein's decrepit regime has been shamelessly
exploited to legitimise Western intervention. The conclusion is always
similar to that reached by Martin Woollacott in the Guardian: that 'the
Middle East is a region that needs constant management, care and
attention'. In other words, Iraq is a place that needs to be constantly
policed by Clinton and the West, in the name of defending human rights.
The Cruise attacks are only the latest pay-off for the liberals' crusade
around human rights in the Third World. Over the past five years, America
has shown itself capable of bombing parts of Iraq on the most spurious
grounds, without attracting any serious criticism.
It should be clear that the task facing anti-imperialists today goes much
deeper than simply reacting to cynical air-strike stunts. We need to
challenge the political basis on which such attacks are accepted as
legitimate. That means we need to take up the notion that Western powers
have the moral authority to dictate to the Third World, whether it is
through high-tech weaponry or the more insidious humanitarian campaigns of
liberals and NGOs in this country. As Helen Searls writes in this month's
'Nowadays, the political reputations of Western leaders are built
not through gunboat diplomacy like Margaret Thatcher's Falklands
War, but by supporting humanitarian causes like human rights or the
rainforest...We need a new kind of politics to meet the challenge
of a world where the rules of the game have been turned upside down'
('Saving the Third World from Itself', Helen Searls, September 1996).
If you are not on this mailing list and would like to join, create a mail
>from the address you would like to receive the commentaries:
To: macjordomo at www.junius.co.uk
Body: Subscribe LM-commentary Yourfirstname Yourlastname
You should receive a confirmation explaining the commands understood by the
To unsubscribe, create a mail from the address at which you are subscribed:
To: macjordomo at www.junius.co.uk
Body: Unsubscribe LM-commentary
Back issues of LM-Commentary can be accessed at:
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism