SCIENZIATI INGLESI
Una lettera contro la guerra
Cinquecento studiosi della London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
hanno firmato una lettera aperta indirizzata al Primo Ministro inglese Tony
Blair affinch� si opponga alla guerra in Iraq. La lettera, pubblicata sul
British Medical Journal e su Lancet, prende spunto da tre ricerche condotte
da Medact (un'organizzazione internazionale di medici che si oppone all'uso
della violenza), dalle Nazioni Unite e dalla World Health Organization. La
ricerca di Medact si concentra sulle conseguenze dirette dell'intervento
militare, stimando che, durante il conflitto e nei tre mesi seguenti,
potrebbero morire tra le 48 mila e le 260 mila persone; le ricerche
condotte dalle Nazioni Unite e dalla World Health Organization, invece,
pongono l'accento su un problema pi� generale: la guerra in Iraq potrebbe
causare una crescita esponenziale dell'uso della violenza per raggiungere
obiettivi politici, economici e sociali in tutto il mondo con conseguenze
negative per la stabilit� e il benessere sociale. "Questa lettera",
sostengono i firmatari, "ha l'obiettivo di appoggiare tutti coloro che si
oppongono alla guerra per motivi etici e non per scelta politica o
religiosa". (ma.c.)
da Galileonet.it
simone, ci puoi dare qualche approfondimento?
qui il testo completo della lettera:
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7382/220
Letters
Open letter to Tony Blair: Call to prevent escalating violence
Three important reports have been published in the past month on the
humanitarian impacts of international violence and conflict.1-3 All provide
evidence of the short and long term adverse health impacts of the use of
force internationally. The World Health Organization's World Report on
Violence and Health is a detailed assessment compiled over three years by
international health scientists.1 Collateral Damage: The Health and
Environmental Costs of War on Iraq is a report of a study by Medact, a UK
charity of nurses, doctors, and other health professionals.2 The latest
report released by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq (CASI) based at
Cambridge University, is a UN report on likely humanitarian scenarios of
war on Iraq.3
Medact estimates that if the threatened war on Iraq ensues, "total possible
deaths on all sides during conflict and in the following three months will
range from 48 000 to over 260 000. Civil war within Iraq could add another
20 000 deaths. Additional later deaths from postwar adverse health effects
could reach 200 000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be
civilians." The report calculates that "the aftermath of a `conventional'
war could include civil war, famine and epidemics, refugees and displaced
people, and catastrophic effects on children's health and development."
Knock-on effects could include exacerbation of international conflicts,
inequalities, and divisions.
The most recent UN report also estimates substantial and wide-reaching
humanitarian impacts: "As many as 500 000 people could require treatment to
a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries," on
the basis of the WHO's estimates of 100 000 direct and 400 000 indirect
casualties. It indicates existing shortages of some medical items,
"rendering the existing stocks inadequate" for war increased demand, and
exacerbated by the "likely absence of a functioning primary health care
system in a post-conflict situation."
The report also "estimated that the nutritional status of some 3.03 million
people countrywide will be dire and that they will require therapeutic
feeding [according to Unicef's estimates]." Finally, "it is estimated that
there will eventually be some 900 000 Iraqi refugees requiring assistance,
of whom 100 000 will be in need of immediate assistance [according to the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)] . . . An estimated 2
million people will require some assistance with shelter." For 130 000
existing refugees in Iraq "it is probable that UNHCR will initially be
unable to provide the support required."
But the most worrying impact of the use of force in Iraq and
internationally is in its role as an escalator of collective violence. The
WHO defines "collective violence"by states or non governmental groupsas:
"The instrumental use of violence by people who identify themselves as
members of a groupwhether this group is transitory or has a more permanent
identityagainst another group or set of individuals, in order to achieve
political, economic or social objectives." The WHO reports that such
collective use of force has long term negative impacts on stability and
social wellbeing. International violence has been steadily increasing and
"overall a total of 72 million people are believed to have lost their lives
during the 20th century due to conflict, with an additional 52 million
lives lost through genocides." Conflict escalates after use of collective
force, as violence becomes a more common and legitimated form of political
or social action.
Health professionals worldwide care for the casualties of war. We accept
this responsibility. However, it is also our responsibility to argue for
prevention of violence and peaceful resolution of conflict. Staff and
students of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine come from
and work in over 120 countries, many in conflict. Our experience and
evidence corroborate the views of the WHO, United Nations, and Medact.
We believe that a war would have disastrous short, medium, and long term
social and public health consequencesnot just for Iraq, but
internationally. Conflict is rooted in inequality and unjust governance.
Military intervention in Iraq, when there remain so many peaceful routes to
disarmament, risks escalating collective violence. The WHO argues that
conflict can be averted only by more equitable forms of development and by
accountable, ethical governance internationally. We strongly support this
perspective and believe that further acts of violence can be prevented by
international and local governance that shows itself to be peaceful and
ethical.
For the reasons above, we oppose the use of military intervention in Iraq.
We hope this letter contributes to informed discussion among members of the
government and the public. We also intend this statement to support all
those who are opposed to military action on ethical and humanitarian
grounds, not originating from any political or religious view point.
Carolyn Stephens, senior lecturer in environment and health policy,
department of public health and policy.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acknowledgments
On behalf of the staff, students, and alumni of the London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and in collaboration with Medact.
The names of the 500 signatories to this letter are published on bmj.com.
1.
World Health Organization. World report on violence and health. Available
at www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/main.cfm?p=0000000682 (accessed
20 Jan 2003).
2.
Medact. Collateral damage: the health and environmental costs of war on
Iraq. Available at: www.medact.org/tbx/pages/sub.cfm?id=556 (accessed 20
Jan 2003).
3.
Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq (CASI). Internal UN report. Likely
humanitarian scenarios. Available at:
www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.pdf (accessed 20 Jan 2003).
---
[Quipo ISP - Questa E-mail e' stata controllata dal programma Declude Virus]
[Quipo ISP - This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
_______________________________________________
www.e-laser.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
