|
Reasons
to Oppose War by NOWAR member Colin Mitchell
An attack on Iraq:
There are effective, viable alternatives
to war !
Opposition
to an attack on Iraq should not be reversed by
a resolution from the UN Security Council because
the Security Council is dominated by the US,
the very nation which wants to launch the attack.
The US has the means to coerce and intimidate
support for a Security Council resolution. It
does this by using its superior economic power
to bribe and bully the other members of the
Security Council.
So
a UN Security Council Resolution would not indicate
the support of the world's nations or people
for an attack on Iraq.
The Security Council is not a body which is
representative of the will of the world's people.
The General Assembly of the UN would be more
representative of world opinion, but the General
Assembly will not be consulted.
By
refusing to yield to a decision of the US-manipulated
Security Council we will strengthen the United
Nations as an independent body able to truly
represent the world's nations and people and
add impetus to a process of reform of the structure
of the Security Council to make it more representative.
We want a strong, independent UN which is not
manipulated by any one power.
The
UN itself violates its fundamental principles
if it authorises an armed attack on a sovereign
state in any circumstances except those of a
grave and immediate threat of aggression against
one of its members - circumstances which do not
exist.
The
bottom line is that a UN Security Council resolution
in favour of an attack on Iraq will not change
the terrible world consequences that will flow
from such an attack (see below) - nor will it
save the lives of the many thousands of Iraqis
that will die in the attack.
If an attack on Iraq is wrong it remains
wrong regardless of the decisions of the UN Security
Council. We cannot tie our decision about war
to such a resolution!
An
attack on Iraq:
- Will
not help to prevent terrorist attacks like the
bali bombings, but in fact is likely to increase
terrorism worldwide
Iraq is not a significant exporter of terrorism
and according to the CIA is not a supporter
of Al Qaeda. There is no connection between
the Bali bombings and the regime of Saddam
Hussein.
According to General Peter Gration, chief
of the Australian Defence Force during the
1991 Gulf War: "Iraq has no history of supporting
global terrorism, and a more likely outcome
(of a US invasion) would be to spawn a whole
new generation of suicidal terrorists, targeting
the US and its allies - including Australia."
- Will
not help to stop weapons of mass destruction from
falling into the hands of terrorists
The Iraq regime wants to keep weapons for
itself to provide a deterrence against attack
- it is a most unlikely source for WMDs for
terrorists.
The government's own think-tank, the Australian
Strategic Policy Institute, states in a recent
report "Iraq's WMD are more likely to find
their way into al-Qaeda's hands in the chaos
that might follow a US invasion, than under
Saddam Hussein's closely-controlled regime."
- Will
probably destabilise the middle east leading to
more wars and the collapse of diplomacy and
peace efforts
General Peter Gration: "This unnecessary
war could produce some disastrous outcomes
that may worsen, rather than improve, global
security. Once war starts, the outcomes may
be quite unpredictable and not what is planned……..
The conflict may well spread beyond Iraq.
The gravest concern could be if Israel stepped
in, perhaps in response to provocation by Iraq.
Any involvement in the war by Israel would
lead to the prospect of the conflict spreading
across the whole region….."
- Will
result in extensive civilian and military casualties
An
attack on Iraq will likely result in extensive civilian as well as military
casualties. The casualties will result not only from combat but also
as an indirect result of the devastation including famine and disease arising
from disruption to water, electricity and food supplies.
-
The policy of the labor party on iraq
is fundamentally flawed
We regard the policy of Simon Crean's Labor
party on Iraq as fundamentally flawed because
they would support a war authorised by the
US-dominated Security Council. A truly principled
and courageous stand would be based on the
real issues of an attack on Iraq: the human
lives that will be lost and the dangerous world-wide
consequences.Some courageous members of the
Labor Party have spoken out for a stronger
policy. We oppose an attack on Iraq regardless
of resolutions from the UN Security Council, and
we call on the Labor Party to take a meaningful
stand by adopting a similar policy.
- A
pre-emptive strike on iraq would encourage other
nations to engage in pre-emptive strikes
Since the second world war a guiding principle
in international relations has been that war
should only be permitted in circumstances of
clear and present danger from an aggressor.
The US is planning to engage now in a pre-emptive
strike which it claims is to prevent the development
of future danger from Iraq. Iraq at present
presents no danger to the other nations of
the region or to the US, Britain or Australia,
and the claimed development of future danger
is highly debatable.
If the US attacks Iraq now then this may
set a precedent which other nations may follow,
leading to stronger nations attacking weaker
to prevent the development of future military
capability by the weaker nation eg India may
attack Pakistan. We should oppose a 'law of
the jungle' in international relations, where
stronger nations attack weaker because they
can - to obtain strategic advantage. We should uphold
the principle of "no first-strike" which
is enshrined as a fundamental principle of the Security
Council of the UN.
back to top
There are effective, viable
alternatives to war
Although
Iraq presents no immediate danger to any country
in the region or to the world, if the world community
decides that Iraq should be prevented from acquiring
a significant weapons of mass destruction capability
in the future, there are effective alternatives
to military action.
These alternatives should be applied as part
of a general world policy of WMD disarmament
and prevention of the spread of WMDs to all nations
of the world, not just Iraq.
A
policy of 'vigilant containment' and 'robust
monitoring' would, according to international
relations experts, be perfectly adequate to deal
with the development of any future threat from
Iraq. "Robust monitoring" is promoted by former
US President Jimmy Carter and described by the
Global Security Institute as "a gradual transition
from original short-term inspections at selected
facilities to long term on-site monitoring by
a substantial number of UN inspectors."
Jimmy
Carter said in a January 31st statement that
the solution to the development of a threat from
Iraq is "a sustained and enlarged inspection
team, deployed as a permanent entity until the
United States and other members of the UN Security
Council determine that its presence is no longer
needed………….Even if Iraq should come into full
compliance now, such follow-up monitoring will
be necessary. The cost of an on-site inspection
team would be minuscule compared to war, Saddam
would have no choice except to comply, the results
would be certain, military and civilian casualties
would be avoided, there would be almost unanimous
worldwide support, and the United States could
regain its leadership in combating the real threat
of international terrorism."
"Robust
monitoring" by the UN should be applied to all
nations of the world that possess or could acquire
WMDs, and should be concurrent with a program
of world-wide WMD disarmament conducted through
the UN.
Two
American international relations experts, Professor
John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) and
Professor Stephen Walt (Harvard) writing in the
respected US journal 'Foreign Policy', argue
that logic and the evidence of Iraq's past suggest
that 'vigilant containment' would work both now
and even if Iraq obtained nuclear weapons in
the future. They argue that since the US and
its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq
any leader of Iraq, including Saddam Hussein, would
never use weapons of mass destruction to blackmail
neighbours, expand its territory or attack another
state, because overwhelming force would then destroy
Iraq. They point out that Saddam Hussein is
not suicidal and his history has shown that his
paramount goals are to stay alive and stay in
power.
A
realistic assessment indicates that even if Iraq
did possess weapons of mass destruction, any
'threat' the country posed would be eminently
containable.
Nations aquire WMDs for deterrence against
attack, and since Iraq is surrounded by overwhelming
force they could not be used by Iraq for aggression.
INSTEAD OF MAKING THE WORLD A SAFER PLACE THIS
WAR IS LIKELY TO MAKE THE WORLD A MUCH MORE DANGEROUS
PLACE AND BREED WORLDWIDE TERRORISM.
THIS WAR MAKES NO SENSE. AUSTRALIA
SHOULD NOT SUPPORT IT - WITH OR WITHOUT A UN
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION!
back to top
|