Enforcing Globalization as justification for war in Iraq
Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perle, Khashoggi, Homeland Security
"Michael L. Century" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
US-american coalition of war
Philipp Budka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lettre au Pr=?ISO-8859-1?B?6XNpZGVudCBkZXMgZnJhbudhaXOL?= une
Louise Desrenards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
helen caldicott: the pope as a human shield in iraq
"carolyn f. Strauss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
helen caldicott v.2
"carolyn f. Strauss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:57:54 -0600
From: Jonathan Rochkind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Enforcing Globalization as justification for war in Iraq
If we understand 'globalization' as a New World Order that is changing the
nature of geopolitics in fundamental ways rather too complex for me to go
into here, then I can say I have been thinking lately that the Bush
administration _approach_ to war in Iraq reflects a _resistance_ to (some
aspects of) globalization. Here is a quite interesting essay by a pro-war
military academic that suggests the _goals_ of a war in Iraq is in fact to
enforce a globalized New World Order, and to secure the US's place in
it. Apparently the answer is war on the same parts of the post-colonized
world we've always warred upon, hmm, that doesn't seem like that big a change.
Then again, he may not mean the same thing by 'globalization' as I do. The
problem is none of us are clear on the nature of this 'globalization'
thing---and if it takes the language of Hardt and Negri to describe it,
then I suppose we can just give up on clarity.
********
http//www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm
THE PENTAGON�S
NEW MAP
IT EXPLAINS WHY WE�RE GOING TO WAR,
AND WHY WE�LL KEEP GOING TO WAR.
BY
THOMAS P.M. BARNETT, U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
[MAPS BY WILLIAM MCNULTY]
Esquire, March 2003 issue
Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up
with an operating theory of the worldand a military strategy to accompany
it. Now there�s a leading contender. It involves identifying the problem
parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them. Since September 11,
2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the
Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at
the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now he gives it to you.
LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein�s regime in
Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.
When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it
will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced
disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our
next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping pointthe moment when
Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of
globalization.
That is why the public debate about this war has been so important It
forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security
paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger.
Saddam Hussein�s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the
globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that
bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.
The problem with most discussion of globalization is that too many experts
treat it as a binary outcome Either it is great and sweeping the planet, or
it is horrid and failing humanity everywhere. Neither view really works,
because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too
complex for such summary judgments. Instead, this new world must be defined
by where globalization has truly taken root and where it has not.
Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial
transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show
you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and
more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the
Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or
just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically
repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder,
andmost importantthe chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of
global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap,
or Gap.
Globalization�s �ozone hole� may have been out of sight and out of mind
prior to September 11, 2001, but it has been hard to miss ever since. And
measuring the reach of globalization is not an academic exercise to an
eighteen-year-old marine sinking tent poles on its far side. So where do we
schedule the U.S. military�s next round of away games? The pattern that has
emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer in the Gap.
The reason I support going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a
cutthroat Stalinist willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because
that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks over the years. The
real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term
military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap
as a strategic threat environment.
FOR MOST COUNTRIES, accommodating the emerging global rule set of
democracy, transparency, and free trade is no mean feat, which is something
most Americans find hard to understand. We tend to forget just how hard it
has been to keep the United States together all these years, harmonizing
our own, competing internal rule sets along the waythrough a Civil War, a
Great Depression, and the long struggles for racial and sexual equality
that continue to this day. As far as most states are concerned, we are
quite unrealistic in our expectation that they should adapt themselves
quickly to globalization�s very American-looking rule set.
But you have to be careful with that Darwinian pessimism, because it is a
short jump from apologizing for globalization-as-forced-Americanization to
insinuatingalong racial or civilization linesthat �those people will simply
never be like us.� Just ten years ago, most experts were willing to write
off poor Russia, declaring Slavs, in effect, genetically unfit for
democracy and capitalism. Similar arguments resonated in most China-bashing
during the 1990�s, and you hear them today in the debates about the
feasibility of imposing democracy on a post-Saddam Iraqa sort of
Muslims-are-from-Mars argument.
So how do we distinguish between who is really making it in globalization�s
Core and who remains trapped in the Gap? And how permanent is this dividing
line?
Understanding that the line between the Core and Gap is constantly
shifting, let me suggest that the direction of change is more critical than
the degree. So, yes, Beijing is still ruled by a �Communist party� whose
ideological formula is 30 percent Marxist-Leninist and 70 percent Sopranos,
but China just signed on to the World Trade Organization, and over the long
run, that is far more important in securing the country�s permanent Core
status. Why? Because it forces China to harmonize its internal rule set
with that of globalizationbanking, tariffs, copyright protection,
environmental standards. Of course, working to adjust your internal rule
sets to globalization�s evolving rule set offers no guarantee of success.
As Argentina and Brazil have recently found out, following the rules (in
Argentina�s case, sort of following) does not mean you are panicproof, or
bubbleproof, or even recessionproof. Trying to adapt to globalization does
not mean bad things will never happen to you. Nor does it mean all your
poor will immediately morph into stable middle class. It just means your
standard of living gets better over time.
In sum, it is always possible to fall off this bandwagon called
globalization. And when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, so
will American troops.
SO WHAT PARTS OF THE WORLD can be considered functioning right now? North
America, much of South America, the European Union, Putin�s Russia, Japan
and Asia�s emerging economies (most notably China and India), Australia and
New Zealand, and South Africa, which accounts for roughly four billion out
of a global population of six billion.
Whom does that leave in the Gap? It would be easy to say �everyone else,�
but I want to offer you more proof than that and, by doing so, argue why I
think the Gap is a long-term threat to more than just your pocketbook or
conscience.
If we map out U.S. military responses since the end of the cold war, (see
below), we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of
the world that are excluded from globalization�s growing Core�namely the
Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central
Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia. That
is roughly the remaining two billion of the world�s population. Most have
demographics skewed very young, and most are labeled, �low income� or �low
middle income� by the World Bank (i.e., less than $3,000 annual per capita).
If we draw a line around the majority of those military interventions, we
have basically mapped the Non-Integrating Gap. Obviously, there are
outliers excluded geographically by this simple approach, such as an Israel
isolated in the Gap, a North Korea adrift within the Core, or a Philippines
straddling the line. But looking at the data, it is hard to deny the
essential logic of the picture: If a country is either losing out to
globalization or rejecting much of the content flows associated with its
advance, there is a far greater chance that the U.S. will end up sending
forces at some point. Conversely, if a country is largely functioning
within globalization, we tend not to have to send our forces there to
restore order to eradicate threats.
Now, that may seem like a tautology�in effect defining any place that has
not attracted U.S. military intervention in the last decade or so as
�functioning within globalization� (and vice versa). But think about this
larger point: Ever since the end of World War II, this country has assumed
that the real threats to its security resided in countries of roughly
similar size, development, and wealth�in other words, other great powers
like ourselves. During the cold war, that other great power was the Soviet
Union. When the big Red machine evaporated in the early 1990�s, we flirted
with concerns about a united Europe, a powerhouse Japan, and�most
recently�a rising China.
What was interesting about all those scenarios is the assumption that only
an advanced state can truly threaten us. The rest of the world? Those
less-developed parts of the world have long been referred to in military
plans as the �Lesser Includeds,� meaning that if we built a military
capable of handling a great power�s military threat, it would always be
sufficient for any minor scenarios we might have to engage in the less
advanced world.
That assumption was shattered by September 11. After all, we were not
attacked by a nation or even an army but by a group of�in Thomas Friedman�s
vernacular�Super Empowered Individuals willing to die for their cause.
September 11 triggered a system perturbation that continues to reshape our
government (the new Department of Homeland Security), our economy (the de
facto security tax we all pay), and even our society (Wave to the camera!).
Moreover, it launched the global war on terrorism, the prism through which
our government now views every bilateral security relationship we have
across the world.
In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the U.S. national-security
establishment a huge favor by pulling us back from the abstract planning of
future high-tech wars against �near peers� into the here-and-now threats to
global order. By doing so, the dividing lines between Core and Gap were
highlighted, and more important, the nature of the threat environment was
thrown into stark relief.
Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure products of the Gap�in
effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are
doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and
which states they would like to take �off line� from globalization and
return to some seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state
with a sizable Muslim population, especially Saudi Arabia).
If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our
military-intervention record of the last decade, a simple security rule set
emerges: A country�s potential to warrant a U.S. military response is
inversely related to its globalization connectivity. There is a good reason
why Al Qaeda was based first in Sudan and then later in Afghanistan: These
are two of the most disconnected countries in the world. Look at the other
places U.S. Special Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on:
northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking about the ends of the
earth as far as globalization is concerned.
But just as important as �getting them where they live� is stopping the
ability of these terrorist networks to access the Core via the �seam
states� that lie along the Gap�s bloody boundaries. It is along this seam
that the Core will seek to suppress bad things coming out of the Gap. Which
are some of these classic seam states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa,
Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the
Philippines, and Indonesia come readily to mind. But the U.S. will not be
the only Core state working this issue. For example, Russia has its own war
on terrorism in the Caucasus, China is working its western border with more
vigor, and Australia was recently energized (or was it cowed?) by the Bali
bombing.
IF WE STEP BACK for a minute and consider the broader implications of this
new global map, then U.S. national-security strategy would seem to be: 1)
Increase the Core�s immune system capabilities for responding to September
11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core
from the Gap�s worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and,
most important, 3) Shrink the Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap.
The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, �Let�s
get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won�t have to deal with
those people.� The most na�ve assumption underlying that dream is that
reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it
less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into
Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply
will those people away.
The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a
region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but
within them. What is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of
personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of
the population�especially for the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan
are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better political futures, thanks
to younger leaders who see the inevitability of such change. Iran is
likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to come along�if he has not already.
What stands in the path of this change? Fear. Fear of tradition unraveling.
Fear of the mullah�s disapproval. Fear of being labeled a �bad� or
�traitorous� Muslim state. Fear of becoming a target of radical groups and
terrorist networks. But most of all, fear of being attacked from all sides
for being different�the fear of becoming Israel.
The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on
the weak. Israel is still around because it has become�sadly�one of the
toughest bullies on the block. The only thing that will change that nasty
environment and open the floodgates for change is if some external power
steps in and plays Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam, the region�s
bully-in-chief, will force the U.S. into playing that role far more fully
than it has over the past several decades, primarily because Iraq is the
Yugoslavia of the Middle East�a crossroads of civilizations that has
historically required a dictatorship to keep the peace. As baby-sitting
jobs go, this one will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in postwar
Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect.
But it is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it, and we
are the only country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the Middle East
without security, and security is this country�s most influential
public-sector export. By that I do not mean arms exports, but basically the
attention paid by our military forces to any region�s potential for mass
violence. We are the only nation on earth capable of exporting security in
a sustained fashion, and we have a very good track record of doing it.
Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you
a strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military.
Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you
permanent U.S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the
strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show
you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following
World War II.
This country has successfully exported security to globalization�s Old Core
(Western Europe, Northeast Asia) for half a century and to its emerging New
Core (Developing Asia) for a solid quarter century following our
mishandling of Vietnam. But our efforts in the Middle Ease have been
inconsistent�in Africa, almost nonexistent. Until we begin the systematic,
long-term export of security to the Gap, it will increasingly export its
pain to the Core in the form of terrorism and other instabilities.
Naturally, it will take a whole lot more than the U.S. exporting security
to shrink the Gap. Africa, for example, will need far more aid than the
Core has offered in the past, and the integration of the Gap will
ultimately depend more on private investment than anything the Core�s
public sector can offer. But it all has to begin with security, because
free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict.
Making this effort means reshaping our military establishment to
mirror-image the challenge that we face. Think about it. Global war is not
in the offing, primarily because our huge nuclear stockpile renders such
war unthinkable�for anyone. Meanwhile, classic state-on-state wars are
becoming fairly rare. So if the United States is in the process of
�transforming� its military to meet the threats of tomorrow, what should it
end up looking like? In my mind, we fight fire with fire. If we live in a
world increasingly populated by Super-Empowered Individuals, we field a
military of Super-Empowered-Individuals.
This may sound like additional responsibility for an already overburdened
military, but that is the wrong way of looking at it, for what we are
dealing with here are problems of success�not failure. It is America�s
continued success in deterring global war and obsolescing state-on-state
war that allows us to stick our noses into the far more difficult
subnational conflicts and the dangerous transnational actors they spawn. I
know most Americans do not want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds in
the global war on terrorism are still over there. If gated communities and
rent-a-cops were enough, September 11 never would have happened.
History is full of turning points like that terrible day, but no
turning-back-points. We ignore the Gap�s existence at our own peril,
because it will not go away until we as a nation respond to the challenge
of making globalization truly global.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael L. Century" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Perle, Khashoggi, Homeland Security
New Yorker March 17, 2003
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030317fa_fact
Perle is present chair of the U.S. Defense Policy Board,
pro-war hawk, and investor in 'homeland security industires.
Khashoggi is the Saudi arms dealer, who supplied Iran during
Reagon Administration.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:52:23 +0100 (MET)
From: Philipp Budka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: US-american coalition of war
so called coalition under pressure of the US:
http://www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm
--
Philipp Budka
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte l�cheln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:00:28 +0100
Subject: Lettre au Pr=?ISO-8859-1?B?6XNpZGVudCBkZXMgZnJhbudhaXOL?= une
citoyenne contre la guerre en Irak
From: Louise Desrenards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Monsieur le Pr�sident,
Tout d�abord nous savons que cela d�truirait-il autant et plus vite qu�une
guerre et pour plus longtemps encore, n�est pas une guerre au sens moderne
et dialectique de Klausewitz. N�anmoins nous l�appelons guerre. Nous ne
connaissons pas encore d�autre mot... Pour partie indirecte et pour partie
directe toute fra�che, voici une exp�rience que je voudrais transmettre en
essayant de la comprendre concernant la situation � propos de l'Irak.
A avoir travaill� une bonne partie de la nuit derni�re, apr�s avoir vu et
�cout� le pr�sident Chirac dans son allocution t�l�vis�e sur la question du
veto, j�ai entendu des avions passer au-dessus de ma t�te dans le ciel de
Paris : on peut dire que le passage des avions en quelque sorte s�est
succ�d� toute la nuit. Ce n��tait peut-�tre qu�une hallucination sonore,
malheureusement une information vient de m��tre donn�e de source de Presse
selon laquelle la guerre en Irak ne commencerait pas officiellement apr�s le
vote du 17 � l�ONU, mais d�s le 13 mars... (on sait que des troupes
am�ricaines dont nombre d�Isra�liens sous uniforme am�ricain se trouveraient
d�j� en Irak du nord depuis plusieurs semaines).
Derni�rement, on restait perplexe devant Bernard Kouchner pr�sent lors d�un
d�bat, l� encore, t�l�vis�, aux fins de dire qu�il �tait pour la paix mais
contre Saddam (on se demande bien qui pourrait �tre �pour� Saddam), tel le
baron gouverneur provisoire de l�Irak future, apr�s le d�sastre humain et
�cologique.
Presque en m�me temps, on apprenait que les am�ricains eux-m�mes le
sugg�raient comme favori pour tenir ce poste volant (toujours les sources de
la Presse) et l�on put se demander alors, n�ayant pas encore entendu le
pr�sident fran�ais dans sa derni�re prestation, en quoi ceci n�eut pas �t�
contradictoire avec cela en perspective d�une coh�rence ci-nationale quoique
d�sunie � la Chambre ;-)... S�agissait-il d�un �jaune� dans le giron attach�
� l�ancien groupe pr�sidentiel, jouant contre les int�r�ts du gouvernement
actuel dans sa propre r�gion? A moins qu�il n�eut p�t� les plombs a force de
jouer dans la cour du monde? Tout de m�me on ne pouvait le croire.
Bernard Kouchner, gouverneur volant devant l�Eternel depuis la Yougoslavie,
lui � l�instigation de Dani�le Mitterand qui avec elle fut � l�origine du
droit d�ing�rence, droit pervers ouvrant maladroitement la porte d�entr�e au
plus fort non au plus juste, sur les malentendus bafouant tous les droits
chez soi et hors soi, comme on le voit aujourd�hui possible : qui �tait-il
devenu? O� en �tait l�Europe � et le monde? La cour p�nale internationale
enfin institu�e ces jours-ci sera peut-�tre un meilleur pas :
http://www.un.org/french/news/iccfact.htm
A moins que navigant pas mal � l�ONU l�ex ONG (ne pas confondre avec les
OGM) ne se fut sugg�r� lui-m�me, ce qui semblait tout de m�me peu probable
quoique bienvenu apr�s la d�claration de La ligue des Etats arabes : notre
gouverneur volant serait donc, d�s � pr�sent et sans doute pour un pire mais
pas pour le pire, le candidat favori de la ligne d�arriv�e avant m�me le
grand d�part m�diatique de la guerre elle-m�me (bien s�r d�j� commenc�e, on
peut en pr�sumer pr�cis�ment � ces �symt�mes�).
On en revient � l�analyse du non �v�nement meurtrier programmatique
substitu� � la guerre symbolique des adversaires dialectiques telle que
Baudrillard tentait de l�expliquer d�s la premi�re guerre du Golfe... Mais
passons pour revenir au d�sastre humanitaire et ��cologique� annonc�, que
certes l�on n�aurait plus � redouter du fait de l�arm�e Irakienne elle-m�me,
maintenant fort d�pourvue aux dires du Pr�sident Chirac en personne, hier,
mais de l�arm�e am�ricaine en tout son potentiel mat�riel et virtuel visible
ou invisible et dont on sait bien que les GI ne seront pas les derniers �
p�tir, compris les soldats anglais.
Un autre point est que Chirac hier rassura ses deux journalistes, leur
affirmant qu�il �tait en contact t�l�phonique direct avec les intervenants
de l�ONU et �galement avec le pr�sident Bush lui-m�me... Pas de probl�me :
pass�e l��preuve et le ciel restant ouvert, Kouchner en proue,
rassurons-nous: tout ira bien et cela en d�pit du veto, ou disons inclus le
veto, tout �tait donc pr�vu.
A ce terme, je voudrais alors faire remarquer un point d�licat de la morale
de la guerre quant au r�tablissement bienveillant du pr�sident fran�ais, roi
du surf par grande lame � propos de son contradicteur am�ricain et lequel,
puisque d�cid�ment tout cela ne serait qu�une affaire de nuance, certes loin
de Gaulle qui nous sortit de l�OTAN, ici nous y ram�ne derechef et s�en
tenant � la singularit� alternative (donc non dialectique) � savoir (on a lu
�a �galement dans certains journaux ainsi la rumeur circule bien, mais on
ignorait la source jusqu�� hier soir, � moins que la presse n�inspir�t le
pr�sident):
� pourquoi les Etats-Unis feraient-ils la guerre puisqu�ils ont d�j�
gagn� aujourd�hui !? C�est gr�ce � la pression de la menace de guerre
assortie de la pr�sence de leur arm�e pour partie d�elle-m�me, mais d�j� en
nombre sur place, si les inspecteurs de l�ONU ont pu travailler aussi
efficacement !
C�est sous la pression des armes mena�ant aux fronti�res si les dossiers et
les portes se sont ouverts, si nous avons pu d�truire la quasi totalit� des
armes de destruction massive de l�Irak qui ne repr�sente absolument plus une
menace aujourd�hui ni pour la r�gion ni pour le monde.
Ici, o� Derrida �voquait le Pakistan, Etat dangereux n�1, Chirac �voque
plut�t la Cor�e du Nord.
Oui tout cela infiniment plus dangereux pour le monde que le bouleversement
tectonique qui se pr�pare de l�Europe au Pacifique, caus� entre autres par
l�ensemble de la strat�gie et de ses cons�quences en masse critique
d�velopp�s par la politique am�ricaine au Moyen Orient, notamment d�s la
premi�re guerre du Golfe (invasion du Koweit manipul�e, on le sait
maintenant) comme apr�s la mort de Rabbin (arriv�e de Netanheyou), mais
avant puis ensuite, � l�autre bout du monde (le commencement de l�Europe
serait-il l�Asie du Sud-Est et l�Asie Pacifique pour l�Am�rique?) sur le
plan �conomique, pour pr�venir puis accompagner la r�trocession de Hong-Kong
� la Chine par les Anglais, en deux d�valuations successives du dollar qui
entra�n�rent, via la monnaie japonaise et la sauvegarde cor�enne de la
monnaie flottante, l�effondrement de tous les pays �mergents environnants
(aujourd�hui fiefs du fondamentalisme islamique), o� les int�r�ts am�ricains
prennent n�anmoins place territoriale notamment au Sud : on ne le r�p�tera
jamais assez.
Alors surgit un point d��thique dirons-nous, toujours la question symbolique
relative aux droits de l�homme, une question pos�e � Chirac: si r�ellement
les pressions militaires am�ricaines localement jou�rent leur r�le au point
que le d�sarmement de l�Irak fut possible, ce point radical o� l�arm�e de
Saddam ne puisse plus menacer la r�gion (ni le monde) tel qu�enfin on nous
l�annonce maintenant : alors, monsieur le pr�sident, pourquoi laisseriez
vous la guerre totale, celle d�un seul peuple contre le droit des autres,
passer n�anmoins par votre ciel?
Car enfin, sauf � �tre complice secr�tement dans une partie d��chec o� vous
seriez sinon le roi du moins la reine, au jug� des suites pr�alablement
annonc�es pour l�issue de la catastrophe d�j� ouvrable et conclue (normal,
puisqu�il n�y aura pas d�armes adverses pour r�pondre): de qui vous
moquez-vous? Ou alors, toute morale vous aurait-elle � ce point abandonn�e
dans la course au march�, voulant sauver les meubles du moins quand la
maison aurait br�l� (pourquoi voudrions-nous, nous citoyens du peuple non du
pays, qu�un territoire p�trolif�re demeure �cologiquement vivable pour les
hommes puisque le p�trole on n�en mange pas et il faut peu d�hommes pour
l�exploiter) ?
D�un autre point de vue, en double voir en triple jeu � seriez-vous d�accord
avec des lobbies alternatifs � l�int�rieur de l�Irak elle-m�me � on voit mal
comment votre contradicteur ne pourrait en �tre inform� ni avoir n�goci�
avec vous l�-dessus: que lui avez-vous laiss� faire en �change? Que
prendra-il pour vous laisser administrer � coup de �nos� int�r�ts
loco-�conomiques et de nos savoirs administrativo-h�ro�ques ?
Pensez-vous vraiment que les Kurdes y regagneront la libert�, eux autrefois
abandonn�s quand ils n��taient pas encore la proie d�un fondamentalisme
religieux, bien au contraire une vitalit� pluraliste potentielle, si peu
�mergeante aujourd�hui dans toutes les r�gions de l�Islam, de m�me qu�en
Palestine o� le Hamas fait ses propres ravages croissant avec le nombre des
colons et la folie de la r�pression.
Mais pourquoi auriez-vous d�sarm� le tyran sinon pour assurer loin de la
paix au contraire la r�alisation de la guerre totale contre le peuple
irakien? �Rendez-vos armes non pour obtenir la paix, m�me pas pour vous
soumettre, mais pour vous laisser tuer�: et de cela � de votre aveu, � vous
seriez donc complice, mieux, vous auriez �t� le premier administrateur
machiav�lique en pr�tendant d�fendre le droit des peuples ?
Expliquez-nous, monsieur le pr�sident, en cette fin d�apr�s-midi � Paris,
tant j�entends encore les avions passer en nombre, au vrombissement
incessant de leurs moteurs. J�ai honte. J�ai peur.
A Paris, le 11 mars, 18 heures heure locale.
Louise Desrenards
Citoyenne fran�aise.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:13:40 -0500
Subject: helen caldicott: the pope as a human shield in iraq
From: "carolyn f. Strauss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for any nettimers haven't heard about the following yet...
dr. helen caldicott is a nobel prize nominee and a consistently=20
dedicated advocate for peace and justice.
carolyn
-----------------------------
An Appeal from Dr. Helen Caldicott to the Pope
Dear Friends,
I write this appeal for your help as a pediatrician, a mother, and a
grandmother =A0-- and I am writing about the lives of tens of thousands
of children.
Although the current administration has demonstrated it has no
reservations about slaughtering up to 500,000 innocents in Iraq, there
is one person whose life they absolutely will not risk. That person is
Pope John Paul II.
The Pope has already formally denounced the proposed war, calling it
a defeat for humanity, and also has sent his top =A0spokesperson.
However, to stop the war, he now must take a historically
unprecedented action of his own and travel to Baghdad. The Pope's
physical presence in Iraq will act as the ultimate human shield,
during whi! ch time leaders of the world's nations can commit
themselves to identifying and implementing a peaceful solution to a
war that the world's majority clearly does not support.
To persuade the Holy Father to take this unusual but potent action,
he must hear from you and millions of others around the world who
have already been inspired to stand up and speak out for peace.
A mountain of surface mail, email, faxes, and phone calls are our
devices to inspire him.
Please understand that your taking just a few minutes right now to
communicate with him =A0may ultimately spare the lives of =A0thousands
of innocent people who at this moment live in complete terror from
the threat of an imminent U.S.-lead military strike on their
homeland.
So here is what you can do to be a part of this powerful final action to
stop the march to war in Iraq.
1. Do not simply "forward" the letter below. Its power depends upon your
sending it directly, as a personal communication to the Pope.
2. Simply cut and paste the letter below into a new email. Also cut
and paste the Vatican email address we have provided.
3. At the close of the letter, type in your name, city and state--no
need
to include your address.
4. Either email, =A0<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, FAX ([from USA] 011-
39-06698-85378--from other countries drop the 011 prefix -- =A0or send a
hard copy of this letter to the addresses in the letter below. DO NOT
put "Italy" anywhere on the envelope, as this will send your mail
into the Italian mail system which is separate and independent of the
Vatican system. Should you wish to phone the Vatican directly, (from
USA) dial 011-39-06-69-82--all other countries must use their
appropriate international prefix.
5. Pass this original email on to as many people you can so as to
assure a critical mass! is reached in this action.
6. Note that as you and others begin sending your letters, faxes and
emails, there will be a simultaneous effort to alert the media of this
action, so as to be sure it is publicly known throughout the world.
Thank you for participating in this formal request of the Pope. We
just may stop this war in Iraq -- and save these children's' lives.
Dr. Helen Caldicott
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:18:15 -0500
Subject: helen caldicott v.2
From: "carolyn f. Strauss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
sample letter from helen caldicott:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Sample letter:
His Holiness John Paul II
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City State
Europe
Your Holiness:
I write to you today out of a sense of =A0great urgency. As you know the
United States of America is on the verge of launching what may be
one of the most cataclysmic wars in history using weapons of mass
destruction upon the Iraqi people, fifty percent of whom are less than
15 years of age.
Conservative estimates are that such a war will result in the death
of 500,000 Iraqis. It seems clear that, at this time, you are the only
person on Earth who can stop this war. Indeed, your physical
presence in Baghdad, will prevent the impending slaughter
of hundreds of thousands of human beings, and force the
international community of nations to identify and implement
a truly peaceful resolution to this unprecedented, preemptive
aggression.
I implore you to travel to Baghdad and to remain there until a
peaceful solution to this crisis has been implemented. The lives of
the people of Iraq rest in your hands - as does the fate of the world.
With hope and holding a vision of Peace,
Your name,
Your City,
State, Country
-------
Be sure to sign the UN petition:
http://www.moveon.org/emergency/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
