The dark dangers of this war
The only people to benefit from a war on Iraq will be xenophobes, extremists and facists, argues Anas Altikriti
Wednesday March 12, 2003
We are told that the moral case for attacking Iraq is there for all to see. Tony Blair has been carrying around a copy of an e-mail sent by an Iraqi student who expresses her total support for a war on Iraq, which would result in the removal of Saddam Hussein. The prime minister goes on to elaborate that this actually reflects the sentiments and stand of the 350,000 Iraqi exiles in Britain and the 4 million Iraqis scattered around the world.
How he came to reach such a conclusion from this e-mail is beyond most people. But then, much about Mr. Blair has been beyond most people recently, so it shouldn't come as a total surprise.
As an Iraqi, who is no doubt as to the evil and tyranny that Saddam and his regime brought to Iraq over the past 35 years, and someone who joins the 25 million Iraqis around the world in wishing that Saddam never was, never is and never will be part of Iraq. I am also in no doubt regarding the evil of this campaign for war on Iraq.
Amidst the political squabbles, what seems to have gone amiss is the humanitarian cost of waging an attack on Iraq. Charity organisations such as Oxfam and Children In Need have spoken of possibly 50,000 killed and hundreds of thousands with crippling injuries, most of whom would be women and children under the age of 12, within the first few days of a blitz on Baghdad. Notably, the US administration has put the figure closer to 15,000. Whatever the final toll, and however highly or otherwise an Iraqi life is regarded, the truth is that a war would kill thousands of innocent civilians who have for decades wished for the day when the west would let go of them and set them free to dispose of the corrupt and brutal regime of the Ba'this.
People are also unconvinced because the post-Saddam era is yet to be defined, and the manner in which a future Iraq will be reshaped, re-formatted and governed remains undisclosed. However, what is most likely to happen is that a war resulting in the toppling of Saddam Hussein will replace him with a puppet government which will feel indebted to the United States and the "liberators" forever and a day, rather than accountable to the people of Iraq, and one which may turn out to be as detrimental to the Iraqi people as the current one, if not worse.
Another problematic issue for people in Britain as well as around the world concerns the true aims and objectives of this campaign. At first, it was Iraq's links with terrorism and particularly with Osama bin Laden. When those fell flat and were ridiculed by virtue of bin Laden's audio-taped call for the Iraqi people to topple Saddam because he was an "infidel" and an "enemy of Islam", another pretext had to be established. So we were told of Saddam's human rights abuses and his oppressive policies, as though these were well-hidden and had just been uncovered by the canny people at the FBI. But when US and British support for the Iraqi regime for more than two decades - as well as questions regarding healthy political and economic relations with other equally evil dictators around the world - couldn't be justified, that line of argument was all but deserted. This effectively deemed the issue of weapons of mass destruction as the last possible resort and the best of the remaining broken arrows.
While this also remains unproven and people remain unconvinced, and while Hans Blix's team continues to be bruised and battered by the interrogative and unsatisfied Americans, military build-up continues on a massive and unprecedented scale, forcing the question of whether the US and Britain really do care whether such weapons are actually found or not. Remember the smoking gun that the inspectors were initially going to find? When was the last time we heard that expression being flaunted about?
The Muslim Association of Britain was one of the organisers of the historical demonstration on February 15 and is a main element within the current British peace movement. It remains solid in its demand that our government implements a truly ethical foreign policy, where the issue of Palestine is properly addressed and where foreign political relations are established with the best interests of people at the fore of our attention rather than selfish economic, financial and political interests.
I count myself fortunate enough and undeservedly privileged to have chaired the rally in Hyde Park on the February 15, and witnessed the scene of wave after wave of people who spoke in one voice against the prime minister's stand. The fact that people from across social borders, age groups, religious tendencies and faiths, ideological and dogmatic trends, cultural backgrounds and ethnic lines, marched for peace is something which ought to have a resounding impact on the shape, format and function of British society. After all, hasn't it always been the claim of politicians and community leaders that our aims of social cohesion, eradication of divisive factors and tolerance and acceptance of the other, remain solid? Many would argue that the London, Glasgow and Belfast demonstrations provide a precious and valuable opportunity, which we must be careful not to miss.
The reality is that if an attack was waged against Iraq, the real beneficiaries would be the xenophobes, extremists and facists on all sides of the fence. The US would have initiated a new and horrifically dangerous era where the powerful and wealthy dictate events, and Britain would have contributed towards bringing about a world far more dangerous and divided than the one we currently live in.
The claim that the people of Iraq would be better off is the least likely of all the potential scenarios.
· Anas Altikriti is head of media and public relations at the Muslim Association of Great Britain
guardian.co.uk |
