Whose interests at heart? Article from the Guardian

Transfered from old site <!--break--> Whose interests at heart? &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot give my people their freedom. &nbsp;<BR>That's why MPs should vote against war &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Sami Ramadani &nbsp;<BR>Tuesday March 18, 2003 &nbsp;<BR>The Guardian &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>A couple of weeks ago I went with my partner and our little boy to see our &nbsp;<BR>Labour MP, Bridget Prentice, in the House of Commons. We waited for &nbsp;<BR>two-and-a-half hours but she neither showed up nor sent a note. I wrote her &nbsp;<BR>a brief letter but she hasn't acknowledged it yet. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>We are British citizens of Iraqi origin. My wife, who is Kurdish from &nbsp;<BR>Sulaimaniyah, fled Iraqi Kurdistan in the mid-1980s, risking her life in the &nbsp;<BR>process. I am also an exile and cannot go back to Iraq because of my &nbsp;<BR>resistance to Saddam's tyranny. Our son is four, and was born here. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>As a family, we wanted to tell our MP how we feel now, with war against Iraq &nbsp;<BR>imminent. So far, she has supported the government; we went to see her in &nbsp;<BR>the hope that, even at this late hour, she will change her mind and vote &nbsp;<BR>against war. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>My wife sees Iraqi victims of torture every day where she works, at the &nbsp;<BR>Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; we wanted to tell &nbsp;<BR>Bridget Prentice that Iraq is in desperate need of regime change and the &nbsp;<BR>establishment of a democratic order. The Iraqi people need it much more than &nbsp;<BR>Bush and Blair could ever understand. But democracy for Iraq will not be &nbsp;<BR>achieved by bombing and invading the country. It cannot be trusted to George &nbsp;<BR>Bush. The US will not accept a democratic verdict which is not to its liking &nbsp;<BR>in a strategically important country, possessing the world's second largest &nbsp;<BR>oil reserves. They strangled just such a verdict in Congo in the 1960s and &nbsp;<BR>in Chile in the 1970s, and they are working hard to reverse it in Venezuela &nbsp;<BR>today. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>In Iraq, the US record speaks for itself: it backed Saddam's party, the &nbsp;<BR>Ba'ath, to capture power in 1963, murdering thousands of socialists, &nbsp;<BR>communists and democrats of all shades; it backed the Ba'ath party in 1968 &nbsp;<BR>when Saddam was installed as vice-president; it helped him and the Shah of &nbsp;<BR>Iran in 1975 to crush the Kurdish nationalist movement; it increased its &nbsp;<BR>support for Saddam in 1979, the year he elevated himself to president, &nbsp;<BR>helping him launch his war of aggression against Iran in 1980; it backed him &nbsp;<BR>throughout the horrific eight years of war (1980 to 1988), in which a &nbsp;<BR>million Iranians and Iraqis were slaughtered, in the full knowledge that he &nbsp;<BR>was using chemical weapons and gassing Kurds and Marsh Arabs; it encouraged &nbsp;<BR>him in 1990 to invade Kuwait when the Arabic-speaking US ambassador in &nbsp;<BR>Baghdad, April Glaspie, told him on July 25 1990 that the US had "no opinion &nbsp;<BR>on Arab-Arab conflicts" when she knew that Saddam's forces were only one &nbsp;<BR>week away from invading; it backed him in 1991 when Bush suddenly stopped &nbsp;<BR>the war, exactly 24 hours after the start of the great March uprising that &nbsp;<BR>engulfed the south and Iraqi Kurdistan (US aircraft were flying over the &nbsp;<BR>scenes of mass killing as Iraqi helicopter gunships were aiding Saddam's &nbsp;<BR>forces crush the uprising); and it backed him as the "lesser evil" from &nbsp;<BR>March 1991 to September 11 2001 under the umbrella of murderous sanctions &nbsp;<BR>and the policy of "containment". &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Then, having caused the death of about half a million Iraqis, mostly &nbsp;<BR>children, through sanctions, Bush and Blair declare that containment and &nbsp;<BR>sanctions are not working after all. Blair must reconcile his strongly and &nbsp;<BR>suddenly found conviction that war is better than containment with the fact &nbsp;<BR>that the US hawks, now prominent in the Bush administration, have been &nbsp;<BR>advocating a war on Iraq for the past 12 years - not to liberate the Iraqi &nbsp;<BR>people, or to protect the world from weapons of mass destruction, but to &nbsp;<BR>impose US hegemony on a strategically important country. September 11 gave &nbsp;<BR>them their opportunity. Blair's "sincerity", and his sympathy for the Iraqi &nbsp;<BR>people are, alas, nothing but grist to Rumsfeld's mills of war. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against war, that should prompt all &nbsp;<BR>its supporters to re-examine their consciences, is the fact that if Saddam &nbsp;<BR>does still possess weapons of mass destruction then it is probable that this &nbsp;<BR>amoral tyrant will use them if his removal from power becomes imminent. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Our MPs must raise these questions in the Commons and oppose the US war &nbsp;<BR>plans, even at this late hour. The US desperately needs Britain as a &nbsp;<BR>political and moral prop, a fig leaf for claiming the existence of an &nbsp;<BR>international alliance for war. It is our MPs' duty to expose this and side &nbsp;<BR>with the Iraqi people's own struggle to remove Saddam's regime and establish &nbsp;<BR>democracy in Iraq. In this, they will also be acting in the British people's &nbsp;<BR>best interests. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>If allowed to run its course, the Blix programme of inspections would have &nbsp;<BR>emboldened the Iraqi people to challenge Saddam's regime in the knowledge &nbsp;<BR>that Saddam would not be using chemical weapons to crush future uprisings. &nbsp;<BR>This would have been particularly likely if the inspections and monitoring &nbsp;<BR>regime had been combined with strict military and diplomatic sanctions, &nbsp;<BR>while lifting the economic sanctions, which have not only caused so much &nbsp;<BR>death and pain for the people but also strengthened Saddam's hand against &nbsp;<BR>them. If all this had been coupled with an international campaign to aid the &nbsp;<BR>Iraqi people to remove Saddam and establish democracy, we are confident that &nbsp;<BR>they would have succeeded; their past heroic struggles were always hampered &nbsp;<BR>by US, wider western and Soviet backing for Saddam's regime. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The acceleration of war plans coincided with Blix's announcement of active &nbsp;<BR>Iraqi cooperation and his demands for a few months to complete his work. The &nbsp;<BR>US administration was clearly panicked by the prospect of a peaceful &nbsp;<BR>disarmament of Saddam. They are fearful of the prospect of seeing the Iraqi &nbsp;<BR>people taking on the tyrant and his dictatorial state. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Much is made of Tony Blair's courage. We are told that he is being brave in &nbsp;<BR>his deafness to majority opinion in Britain and the world. The truth is that &nbsp;<BR>he is mesmerised by US power, convinced he will be on the side of the &nbsp;<BR>victors and bask in the glory of their might once they raise the US flag in &nbsp;<BR>Baghdad, that beloved city of my childhood. But Blair's glory, even if it &nbsp;<BR>comes to pass, will be short-lived. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>· Sami Ramadani is an Iraqi political exile and a senior lecturer in &nbsp;<BR>sociology at London Metropolitan University. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>

<p>Transfered from old site</p> <!--break--><p>Whose interests at heart?<br />  <br /><br />  <br />The invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot give my people their freedom.<br />  <br />That's why MPs should vote against war<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Sami Ramadani<br />  <br />Tuesday March 18, 2003<br />  <br />The Guardian<br />  <br /><br />  <br />A couple of weeks ago I went with my partner and our little boy to see our<br />  <br />Labour MP, Bridget Prentice, in the House of Commons. We waited for<br />  <br />two-and-a-half hours but she neither showed up nor sent a note. I wrote her<br />  <br />a brief letter but she hasn't acknowledged it yet.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />We are British citizens of Iraqi origin. My wife, who is Kurdish from<br />  <br />Sulaimaniyah, fled Iraqi Kurdistan in the mid-1980s, risking her life in the<br />  <br />process. I am also an exile and cannot go back to Iraq because of my<br />  <br />resistance to Saddam's tyranny. Our son is four, and was born here.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />As a family, we wanted to tell our MP how we feel now, with war against Iraq<br />  <br />imminent. So far, she has supported the government; we went to see her in<br />  <br />the hope that, even at this late hour, she will change her mind and vote<br />  <br />against war.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />My wife sees Iraqi victims of torture every day where she works, at the<br />  <br />Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture; we wanted to tell<br />  <br />Bridget Prentice that Iraq is in desperate need of regime change and the<br />  <br />establishment of a democratic order. The Iraqi people need it much more than<br />  <br />Bush and Blair could ever understand. But democracy for Iraq will not be<br />  <br />achieved by bombing and invading the country. It cannot be trusted to George<br />  <br />Bush. The US will not accept a democratic verdict which is not to its liking<br />  <br />in a strategically important country, possessing the world's second largest<br />  <br />oil reserves. They strangled just such a verdict in Congo in the 1960s and<br />  <br />in Chile in the 1970s, and they are working hard to reverse it in Venezuela<br />  <br />today.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />In Iraq, the US record speaks for itself: it backed Saddam's party, the<br />  <br />Ba'ath, to capture power in 1963, murdering thousands of socialists,<br />  <br />communists and democrats of all shades; it backed the Ba'ath party in 1968<br />  <br />when Saddam was installed as vice-president; it helped him and the Shah of<br />  <br />Iran in 1975 to crush the Kurdish nationalist movement; it increased its<br />  <br />support for Saddam in 1979, the year he elevated himself to president,<br />  <br />helping him launch his war of aggression against Iran in 1980; it backed him<br />  <br />throughout the horrific eight years of war (1980 to 1988), in which a<br />  <br />million Iranians and Iraqis were slaughtered, in the full knowledge that he<br />  <br />was using chemical weapons and gassing Kurds and Marsh Arabs; it encouraged<br />  <br />him in 1990 to invade Kuwait when the Arabic-speaking US ambassador in<br />  <br />Baghdad, April Glaspie, told him on July 25 1990 that the US had "no opinion<br />  <br />on Arab-Arab conflicts" when she knew that Saddam's forces were only one<br />  <br />week away from invading; it backed him in 1991 when Bush suddenly stopped<br />  <br />the war, exactly 24 hours after the start of the great March uprising that<br />  <br />engulfed the south and Iraqi Kurdistan (US aircraft were flying over the<br />  <br />scenes of mass killing as Iraqi helicopter gunships were aiding Saddam's<br />  <br />forces crush the uprising); and it backed him as the "lesser evil" from<br />  <br />March 1991 to September 11 2001 under the umbrella of murderous sanctions<br />  <br />and the policy of "containment".<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Then, having caused the death of about half a million Iraqis, mostly<br />  <br />children, through sanctions, Bush and Blair declare that containment and<br />  <br />sanctions are not working after all. Blair must reconcile his strongly and<br />  <br />suddenly found conviction that war is better than containment with the fact<br />  <br />that the US hawks, now prominent in the Bush administration, have been<br />  <br />advocating a war on Iraq for the past 12 years - not to liberate the Iraqi<br />  <br />people, or to protect the world from weapons of mass destruction, but to<br />  <br />impose US hegemony on a strategically important country. September 11 gave<br />  <br />them their opportunity. Blair's "sincerity", and his sympathy for the Iraqi<br />  <br />people are, alas, nothing but grist to Rumsfeld's mills of war.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Indeed, one of the strongest arguments against war, that should prompt all<br />  <br />its supporters to re-examine their consciences, is the fact that if Saddam<br />  <br />does still possess weapons of mass destruction then it is probable that this<br />  <br />amoral tyrant will use them if his removal from power becomes imminent.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Our MPs must raise these questions in the Commons and oppose the US war<br />  <br />plans, even at this late hour. The US desperately needs Britain as a<br />  <br />political and moral prop, a fig leaf for claiming the existence of an<br />  <br />international alliance for war. It is our MPs' duty to expose this and side<br />  <br />with the Iraqi people's own struggle to remove Saddam's regime and establish<br />  <br />democracy in Iraq. In this, they will also be acting in the British people's<br />  <br />best interests.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />If allowed to run its course, the Blix programme of inspections would have<br />  <br />emboldened the Iraqi people to challenge Saddam's regime in the knowledge<br />  <br />that Saddam would not be using chemical weapons to crush future uprisings.<br />  <br />This would have been particularly likely if the inspections and monitoring<br />  <br />regime had been combined with strict military and diplomatic sanctions,<br />  <br />while lifting the economic sanctions, which have not only caused so much<br />  <br />death and pain for the people but also strengthened Saddam's hand against<br />  <br />them. If all this had been coupled with an international campaign to aid the<br />  <br />Iraqi people to remove Saddam and establish democracy, we are confident that<br />  <br />they would have succeeded; their past heroic struggles were always hampered<br />  <br />by US, wider western and Soviet backing for Saddam's regime.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />The acceleration of war plans coincided with Blix's announcement of active<br />  <br />Iraqi cooperation and his demands for a few months to complete his work. The<br />  <br />US administration was clearly panicked by the prospect of a peaceful<br />  <br />disarmament of Saddam. They are fearful of the prospect of seeing the Iraqi<br />  <br />people taking on the tyrant and his dictatorial state.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Much is made of Tony Blair's courage. We are told that he is being brave in<br />  <br />his deafness to majority opinion in Britain and the world. The truth is that<br />  <br />he is mesmerised by US power, convinced he will be on the side of the<br />  <br />victors and bask in the glory of their might once they raise the US flag in<br />  <br />Baghdad, that beloved city of my childhood. But Blair's glory, even if it<br />  <br />comes to pass, will be short-lived.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />· Sami Ramadani is an Iraqi political exile and a senior lecturer in<br />  <br />sociology at London Metropolitan University.<br />  <br /><br />  <br /></p>